[{"content":"","date":"24 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/articles/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Articles","type":"articles"},{"content":"","date":"24 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ashley-roberts/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ashley Roberts","type":"authors"},{"content":"","date":"24 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/authors/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Authors","type":"authors"},{"content":"","date":"24 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/","section":"Catholica","summary":"","title":"Catholica","type":"page"},{"content":"Chris is a Catholic convert from England. After studying 2 years in California at Bible college, he worked in full-time ministry with Gerald Coates, the founder of a Christian network called Pioneer. In 2017 he converted to Catholicism and in 2019 married his French Catholic wife, Bérénice.\n","date":"24 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/chris-newton/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Chris Newton","type":"authors"},{"content":"Who is the Virgin Mary?\nAt the most basic level, the answer is familiar to almost every Christian: Mary is the mother of Jesus, the virgin visited by the angel Gabriel, and the woman who said yes to God\u0026rsquo;s plan at the Annunciation.\nYet Christians often disagree sharply about what follows from those facts.\nSome see Mary mainly as the woman chosen to give birth to Christ and worry that giving her any further attention risks distracting from Jesus. Catholics, by contrast, speak of Mary as the Mother of God, the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, the ever-virgin mother of Christ and the foremost example of a life transformed by grace.\nThat difference raises an important question: are Catholic beliefs about Mary additions to biblical Christianity, or do they grow naturally from Scripture and the faith of the early Church?\nThis article brings together two approaches to that question: a biblical case for the significance of Mary and direct answers to several objections commonly raised by Protestants. The goal is not to make Mary a rival to Christ. Catholic teaching begins from the opposite principle: what the Church believes about Mary depends entirely on what it believes about Jesus Christ. As the Catechism puts it, \u0026ldquo;What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ.\u0026rdquo;\nMary herself points in the same direction. Her great song of praise begins, \u0026ldquo;My soul magnifies the Lord\u0026rdquo; (Luke 1:46), and she says that \u0026ldquo;all generations will call me blessed\u0026rdquo; (Luke 1:48). Catholic devotion seeks to hold those two truths together: Mary is blessed precisely because of what God has done in and through her.\n1. If Mary was sinless, why did she need a Savior? # A common objection to the Immaculate Conception is straightforward:\nMary calls God her Savior in Luke 1:47. If she needed a Savior, does that not prove that she was a sinner like everyone else?\nCatholics agree completely with the first premise: Mary needed Jesus Christ as her Savior.\nThe Immaculate Conception does not teach that Mary saved herself or stood outside Christ\u0026rsquo;s redemption. It teaches that God applied the merits of Christ to Mary in a unique way, preserving her from original sin from the first moment of her conception.\nThe distinction can be illustrated with a simple analogy. A doctor may save one patient by curing a disease after infection and another by preventing the disease from taking hold in the first place. Both are saved by the doctor, but in different ways.\nThat is the logic of Catholic teaching about Mary. The Catechism explains that Mary was preserved from original sin \u0026ldquo;by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race.\u0026rdquo; Her holiness is therefore not independent of Christ; it is entirely the fruit of his grace.\n\u0026ldquo;Full of grace\u0026rdquo; and the work of God # At the Annunciation, Gabriel greets Mary in Luke 1:28 with language commonly translated as \u0026ldquo;favored one\u0026rdquo; or, in the traditional Catholic rendering, \u0026ldquo;full of grace.\u0026rdquo; The point is not that a single English translation settles the doctrine by itself. Rather, the greeting forms part of a wider biblical picture in which Mary appears as a person uniquely graced for her vocation as the mother of the Messiah.\nHer response is equally important:\n\u0026ldquo;Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.\u0026rdquo; (Luke 1:38)\nThe contrast between Mary\u0026rsquo;s obedience and Eve\u0026rsquo;s disobedience became an important theme very early in Christianity. In the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons explicitly compared the virgin Eve, whose disobedience was bound up with humanity\u0026rsquo;s fall, with the Virgin Mary, whose obedience was bound up with the coming of Christ.\nThis does not make Mary another redeemer. Christ alone redeems. The New Eve typology instead presents Mary\u0026rsquo;s freely given obedience as subordinate to, and dependent upon, the saving work of her Son.\nThe New Eve parallel can be taken one step further. Genesis calls Eve \u0026ldquo;the mother of all living\u0026rdquo; (Genesis 3:20). Revelation 12 first presents the woman giving birth to the Messiah and then speaks of the rest of her offspring as \u0026ldquo;those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus\u0026rdquo; (Revelation 12:17).\nThe woman in Revelation has a broader corporate meaning — especially Israel and the Church — so this verse should not be treated as a stand-alone proof that Mary is literally the mother of every Christian. But within the Catholic reading of Revelation 12, its Marian dimension fits the ancient New Eve pattern: Eve\u0026rsquo;s motherhood belongs to the old creation, while Mary\u0026rsquo;s motherhood is bound up with Christ and the people who belong to him.\nMary as the Ark of the New Covenant # Another important biblical pattern is the parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant.\nThe Old Testament Ark was the sacred sign of God\u0026rsquo;s presence among Israel. It contained the tablets of the covenant, manna and Aaron\u0026rsquo;s priestly staff (Hebrews 9:4). In the New Testament, Mary carries in her womb Jesus Christ: the Word made flesh, the true bread from heaven and the eternal high priest.\nLuke\u0026rsquo;s infancy narrative also contains striking parallels with the Ark narratives:\nThe Ark in the Old Testament Mary in Luke God\u0026rsquo;s glory overshadows the tabernacle and Ark (Exodus 40:34-35) The power of the Most High \u0026ldquo;overshadows\u0026rdquo; Mary (Luke 1:35) David asks, \u0026ldquo;How can the ark of the Lord come to me?\u0026rdquo; (2 Samuel 6:9) Elizabeth asks, \u0026ldquo;Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?\u0026rdquo; (Luke 1:43) David leaps before the Ark (2 Samuel 6:14-16) John the Baptist leaps in Elizabeth\u0026rsquo;s womb at Mary\u0026rsquo;s greeting (Luke 1:41, 44) The Ark remains in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Samuel 6:11) Mary remains with Elizabeth for about three months (Luke 1:56) Catholic readers have therefore long seen Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant: not divine herself, but uniquely set apart because she bears the incarnate Son of God.\nScripture also strongly marks the old Ark as set apart for God. It was overlaid with pure gold (Exodus 25:11), and the account of Uzzah — who died after taking hold of the Ark in 2 Samuel 6:6-7 — underlines the seriousness with which its holiness was treated.\nThat typology does not mean that marriage or marital intimacy is impure. The point is narrower: if the old Ark was specially consecrated because it bore the signs of God\u0026rsquo;s covenantal presence, Catholics see a fitting parallel in Mary being wholly set apart for the unique vocation of bearing God the Son. This also helps explain why the Church connects the Ark imagery with Gabriel\u0026rsquo;s extraordinary greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28.\nThe imagery appears again in Revelation. Revelation 11:19 describes the Ark of the Covenant in God\u0026rsquo;s heavenly temple; immediately afterward, Revelation 12 presents \u0026ldquo;a woman clothed with the sun\u0026rdquo; who gives birth to the messianic child. The woman in Revelation has several layers of meaning, including Israel and the Church, but Catholic interpretation also sees a Marian dimension because she is the mother of the Messiah.\nTaken together, these themes help explain why Catholics see the Immaculate Conception not as an attempt to diminish Christ\u0026rsquo;s saving work, but as an especially radical example of it.\nA related objection sometimes comes from Romans 3:23: \u0026ldquo;all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.\u0026rdquo; Catholic theology does not deny Paul\u0026rsquo;s universal point that the human race needs redemption. The claim is that Mary is not outside Christ\u0026rsquo;s saving work but is saved by him preventively — preserved from original sin by grace rather than rescued from it after contracting it. The doctrine therefore depends on Christ\u0026rsquo;s redemption rather than creating an exception to humanity\u0026rsquo;s need for a Savior.\n2. Doesn\u0026rsquo;t the Bible say Mary had other children? # The Catholic Church teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary: that Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.\nIt is worth noting that this belief is older than the modern Catholic-Protestant divide. Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli continued to affirm Mary\u0026rsquo;s perpetual virginity after the Reformation, and John Wesley explicitly affirmed it in the eighteenth century. John Calvin was more cautious about the doctrine itself, but he rejected the claim that Matthew 1:25 proves Mary and Joseph later had marital relations. In his commentary on the verse, Calvin says that no well-grounded conclusion about what happened after Christ\u0026rsquo;s birth can be drawn from Matthew\u0026rsquo;s use of \u0026ldquo;until.\u0026rdquo;\nThat history does not prove the doctrine by itself, but it does show that the common modern objections from \u0026ldquo;until\u0026rdquo; and the \u0026ldquo;brothers\u0026rdquo; of Jesus were not regarded as decisive even by major Protestant Reformers.\nTwo biblical objections are especially common:\nMatthew 1:25 says Joseph did not have marital relations with Mary \u0026ldquo;until\u0026rdquo; she gave birth to Jesus. The Gospels refer to the \u0026ldquo;brothers\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;sisters\u0026rdquo; of Jesus. Neither passage, however, requires the conclusion that Mary later had other biological children.\nWhat does \u0026ldquo;until\u0026rdquo; mean in Matthew 1:25? # Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph \u0026ldquo;knew her not until she had given birth to a son.\u0026rdquo;\nIn modern English, \u0026ldquo;until\u0026rdquo; can sometimes imply that a situation changed afterward. But biblical usage does not require that implication.\nConsider 2 Samuel 6:23:\n\u0026ldquo;And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.\u0026rdquo;\nThe verse obviously does not imply that Michal had children after her death. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 15:25 says Christ \u0026ldquo;must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet,\u0026rdquo; without suggesting that Christ stops reigning afterward.\nThe Old Testament gives another useful example. Deuteronomy 34:6 says that no one knew the location of Moses\u0026rsquo; grave \u0026ldquo;to this day.\u0026rdquo; The phrase marks what was true up to the writer\u0026rsquo;s present; it does not imply that the location became known immediately afterward. Biblical expressions such as \u0026ldquo;until\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;to this day\u0026rdquo; therefore cannot automatically be read as announcing a later change of state.\nThe purpose of Matthew 1:25 is to affirm the virginal conception of Jesus. The verse tells us what did not happen before Christ\u0026rsquo;s birth; it does not, by itself, tell us what happened afterward.\nWhat about the \u0026ldquo;brothers\u0026rdquo; of Jesus? # Mark 6:3 names James, Joses or Joseph, Judas and Simon as Jesus\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;brothers,\u0026rdquo; and also mentions his \u0026ldquo;sisters.\u0026rdquo;\nThe Greek word adelphos can certainly mean a biological brother. But biblical usage can also extend family language more broadly. The Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, can use brother-language for relatives who are not siblings; Abraham and Lot are a familiar example, even though Lot is Abraham\u0026rsquo;s nephew.\nMore importantly, the Gospels give evidence that at least some of the men called Jesus\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;brothers\u0026rdquo; were children of another Mary. Matthew 27:56 refers to \u0026ldquo;Mary the mother of James and Joseph,\u0026rdquo; and Matthew 28:1 distinguishes her as \u0026ldquo;the other Mary.\u0026rdquo;\nThe Catechism summarizes the traditional Catholic interpretation by noting that the \u0026ldquo;brothers and sisters\u0026rdquo; passages were not understood by the Church as referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.\nThere is also a simple but useful observation: the men called Jesus\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;brothers\u0026rdquo; are never identified in the Gospels as children of Mary the mother of Jesus. That fact does not settle the linguistic question on its own, but it fits the Gospel evidence above, where James and Joseph are explicitly associated with another Mary.\nMary as wholly set apart for God # The Ark typology also helps explain why Christians so early came to speak of Mary as ever-virgin.\nIf Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, then her body is understood as having been set apart in a singular way for the Incarnation. This is not a claim that marital intimacy is impure; Christianity teaches that marriage is good. Rather, the argument is about a unique vocation. Mary\u0026rsquo;s motherhood of Jesus is unlike any other motherhood because the child she bears is the eternal Son of God made flesh.\nLifelong celibacy was also not an unthinkable category in the world around early Christianity. Jewish groups such as the Essenes practiced celibacy, and the New Testament itself recognizes celibacy \u0026ldquo;for the sake of the kingdom of heaven\u0026rdquo; (Matthew 19:12). That does not prove that Mary made a formal vow, but it removes the assumption that a lifelong virginal vocation would have been culturally impossible.\nThe Church\u0026rsquo;s confession of Mary\u0026rsquo;s perpetual virginity is ancient. The Catechism calls her Aeiparthenos, \u0026ldquo;Ever-virgin,\u0026rdquo; and explains that Christian reflection on the virginal motherhood of Christ led to an explicit confession of her lifelong virginity.\nThe historical trail reaches back well before the medieval period. A second-century Christian text, the Protoevangelium of James, already presents Mary as remaining a virgin. The text is not Scripture, and Catholics do not treat all of its details as historical fact, but it is evidence that the idea of Mary\u0026rsquo;s lifelong virginity was circulating very early. By the fourth century, the question was being argued explicitly: St. Jerome\u0026rsquo;s Against Helvidius defended Mary\u0026rsquo;s perpetual virginity against the same basic appeal to the \u0026ldquo;brothers\u0026rdquo; of Jesus and Matthew 1:25 that still appears in modern debates.\nFor Catholics, then, Matthew 1:25 and the references to Jesus\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;brothers\u0026rdquo; are real biblical texts that must be taken seriously. But neither text overturns the historic Christian belief that Mary remained a virgin.\n3. Was Marian devotion invented centuries after the apostles? # Another objection is historical rather than strictly biblical:\nDidn\u0026rsquo;t devotion to Mary appear only centuries after the New Testament, especially around the Council of Ephesus in AD 431?\nIt is true that Christian doctrine is often stated more precisely over time. But a later formal definition does not necessarily mean a late invention.\nThe doctrine of the Trinity is the obvious comparison. The New Testament is Trinitarian, but the Church developed increasingly precise language in response to later controversies. The Council of Nicaea in AD 325 did not invent Christ\u0026rsquo;s divinity; it defined the Church\u0026rsquo;s confession more carefully.\nThe same distinction between development and invention matters in Mariology.\nThe New Eve appears very early # By the second century, St. Irenaeus was already contrasting Eve\u0026rsquo;s disobedience with Mary\u0026rsquo;s obedience. He writes that \u0026ldquo;the knot of Eve\u0026rsquo;s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary.\u0026rdquo;\nThat is important because it shows that Marian reflection did not suddenly begin in the fifth century. The New Eve theme is present within the early patristic period and grows directly out of the relationship between Adam and Christ in the New Testament.\nWhy \u0026ldquo;Mother of God\u0026rdquo; is really a claim about Jesus # The title Mother of God can sound excessive until its Christological meaning is understood.\nCatholics do not mean that Mary existed before God or generated Christ\u0026rsquo;s divine nature. They mean that the person Mary gave birth to is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is truly God.\nElizabeth already calls Mary \u0026ldquo;the mother of my Lord\u0026rdquo; in Luke 1:43. The later title Theotokos — \u0026ldquo;God-bearer\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Mother of God\u0026rdquo; — protects the unity of Christ\u0026rsquo;s person. The child born of Mary is not a merely human person later joined to the divine Son; he is the eternal Son himself, truly God and truly man.\nFor that reason, Catholic teaching about Mary is inseparable from Catholic teaching about Christ.\nMary as Queen Mother # Another biblical pattern comes from the Davidic kingdom.\nIn the kingdom of Judah, the king\u0026rsquo;s mother held a recognized place as queen mother. The most famous example is Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, who is given a seat at the king\u0026rsquo;s right hand in 1 Kings 2:19.\nIf Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and king, Catholics see a fitting biblical pattern in honoring his mother as queen mother. Revelation 12\u0026rsquo;s crowned woman — \u0026ldquo;a crown of twelve stars\u0026rdquo; — has therefore also played an important role in Catholic reflection on Mary.\nAgain, typology is not the same as a stand-alone proof text. Its force comes from the cumulative biblical pattern: New Eve, New Ark, Mother of the Lord and mother of the Davidic king.\nMarian doctrine did develop in clarity over time. But the underlying biblical and early Christian themes are much older than the fifth century.\n4. Does asking Mary to pray for us deny that Jesus is the one mediator? # This final objection concerns Marian devotion rather than one of the four formally defined Marian dogmas:\n1 Timothy 2:5 says there is \u0026ldquo;one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.\u0026rdquo; If Christ is the one mediator, why ask Mary or the saints to intercede?\nThe Catholic answer begins by affirming the verse. Jesus Christ is the unique mediator of salvation. No saint competes with him, adds to his sacrifice or provides another way to the Father.\nBut the New Testament also repeatedly tells Christians to pray for one another. In fact, just a few verses before 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul urges \u0026ldquo;supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings\u0026rdquo; for others (1 Timothy 2:1).\nIf asking another Christian on earth to pray for us does not compete with Christ\u0026rsquo;s mediation, Catholics argue that asking a Christian in heaven to pray for us does not compete with it either. Every Christian prayer reaches the Father through Christ.\nThe same answer applies to John 14:6: \u0026ldquo;No one comes to the Father except through me.\u0026rdquo; Asking another member of Christ\u0026rsquo;s body to pray does not create a second route to the Father. Whether the person praying with us is on earth or in heaven, Christian intercession is still dependent upon Christ and reaches the Father through him.\nAre the saints in heaven aware of our prayers? # Catholic teaching points to several biblical passages showing the heavenly Church involved in prayer.\nHebrews 12:1 speaks of believers being surrounded by \u0026ldquo;so great a cloud of witnesses\u0026rdquo; immediately after recounting the faithful who have gone before in Hebrews 11.\nRevelation presents heavenly figures offering prayers before God. In Revelation 5:8, the twenty-four elders hold golden bowls of incense \u0026ldquo;which are the prayers of the saints.\u0026rdquo; Revelation 8:3-4 similarly depicts an angel offering incense with the prayers of the saints before God\u0026rsquo;s throne.\nCatholic Bibles also contain another example in 2 Maccabees 15:12-16, where the deceased high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah are portrayed as praying for God\u0026rsquo;s people. Because many Protestants do not accept 2 Maccabees as canonical Scripture, the Catholic case for heavenly intercession does not need to rest on this passage; nevertheless, it is part of the biblical evidence Catholics themselves receive.\nThese passages do not provide a complete description of how heavenly intercession works. But they do make the Catholic practice intelligible within a biblical vision of the Church as one body in Christ, united across death.\nWhy ask Mary in particular? # James 5:16 says that \u0026ldquo;the prayer of a righteous person has great power.\u0026rdquo;\nCatholics therefore ask the saints to pray with them for the same basic reason Christians ask friends, pastors and family members to pray for them: the Church is a communion, and intercession is part of Christian love.\nMary has a unique place within that communion because of her relationship to Christ. She is the mother of Jesus, the woman Elizabeth calls \u0026ldquo;blessed among women\u0026rdquo; (Luke 1:42), and the one who herself foretells that all generations will call her blessed (Luke 1:48).\nCatholic prayer to Mary should therefore be understood as requesting her intercession, not worshipping her as a goddess and not treating her as an alternative to Jesus. Christian worship belongs to God alone.\nSo, who is Mary? # The disagreements surrounding Mary are not really peripheral. They touch some of Christianity\u0026rsquo;s deepest themes: the Incarnation, grace, discipleship, the unity of Scripture and the communion of saints.\nA careful reading of the Bible shows why Christians across many centuries have seen more in Mary than a background figure in the Christmas story.\nShe is:\nthe mother of Jesus Christ, true God and true man; the woman greeted as uniquely favored by God; the obedient Virgin contrasted with Eve; the Ark who bears the Word made flesh; the mother of the Davidic king; and the disciple who directs attention toward the Lord she magnifies. None of these beliefs requires Christians to choose between honoring Mary and worshipping Jesus. Catholic Mariology makes sense only when Mary is understood in relation to Christ.\nThat is why the Church can call her blessed without making her divine, ask for her prayers without denying Christ\u0026rsquo;s unique mediation, and confess that every grace in her life — including her preservation from sin — comes from God through Jesus Christ.\nFor further reading, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Mary and Christ, St. Irenaeus on Mary as the New Eve, Calvin\u0026rsquo;s commentary on Matthew 1:25, and John Wesley\u0026rsquo;s Letter to a Roman Catholic.\n","date":"24 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/mary/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Do Catholics Worship Mary?","type":"articles"},{"content":" Question: # Who\u0026rsquo;s the current Pope?\nAnswer: # Pope Leo XIV is the current Pope of the Catholic Church. Born Robert Francis Prevost, he was elected on 8th May 2025 and is the 267th Pope, or Successor of Saint Peter, in the history of the Catholic Church.1\nHis election marked several firsts:\nThe first Pope from the United States of America The first Augustinian Pope in the history of the Church The first Pope named Leo since Pope Leo XIII, who died in 1903 Pope Leo XIV was born in Chicago but spent a large part of his priestly and episcopal ministry in Peru. He became a naturalized Peruvian citizen in 2015, making his life and ministry closely connected with both North and South America.1\nPope Leo XIV\u0026rsquo;s Short Bio # Pope Leo XIV\u0026rsquo;s real name is Robert Francis Prevost. He was born on 14th September 1955 in Chicago, Illinois, to Louis Marius Prevost and Mildred Agnes Martínez. He is the youngest of three children and has two older brothers, Louis Martín and John Joseph.1\nAfter finishing school, he studied at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, graduating with a degree in Mathematics in 1977 while also studying Philosophy. That same year, on 1st September, he entered the novitiate of the Order of Saint Augustine (O.S.A.). He made his first profession in 1978 and his solemn profession in 1981.1\nHe then studied theology at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, receiving a licentiate in theology in 1981. After being ordained a deacon, he was sent to Rome to study Canon Law at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, commonly known as the Angelicum.1\nRobert Prevost was ordained to the priesthood on 19th June 1982 in the Chapel of Saint Monica in Rome. He received a licentiate in Canon Law in 1984 and later defended a doctoral dissertation on the role of the local prior in the Order of Saint Augustine.1\nMissionary Work in Peru # Much of Pope Leo XIV\u0026rsquo;s priestly life was spent in Peru.\nIn 1985, Father Prevost was assigned to the Augustinian mission in Chulucanas, in the Piura region of northern Peru. After a short period back in the United States, he returned to Peru in 1988 and served in the Augustinian mission in Trujillo.1\nOver the following years he served in a remarkable number of roles, including:\nPrior of his Augustinian community Director of formation Master of professed brothers Director of studies and acting rector of the Major Seminary of San Carlos and San Marcelo Professor of Canon Law, Moral Theology, and Patristics Judicial Vicar Parish priest This long period in Peru became one of the defining parts of his ministry. He later acquired Peruvian citizenship on 24th August 2015.1\nLeading the Augustinians # In 1998, Father Prevost was elected Provincial Prior of the Augustinian Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel and returned to the United States.\nThree years later, in 2001, the General Chapter of the Order of Saint Augustine elected him Prior General of the Augustinians, placing him at the head of the worldwide religious order. In 2007 he was elected to a second six-year term and served as Prior General until 2013.1\nThis meant that, before becoming a bishop or cardinal, the future Pope already had years of experience governing an international Catholic religious order.\nFrom Bishop of Chiclayo to the Vatican # On 3rd November 2014, Pope Francis appointed Robert Prevost Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Chiclayo, Peru, and Titular Bishop of Sufar. He was consecrated a bishop on 12th December 2014, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.1\nHis episcopal motto is In Illo Uno Unum. It comes from Saint Augustine\u0026rsquo;s exposition of Psalm 127 and expresses the idea that, although Christians are many, they are one in the one Christ.1\nPope Francis formally appointed him Bishop of Chiclayo on 26th September 2015. He later served as Second Vice-President of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference and, for a time, as Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Callao.1\nHis responsibilities became global in January 2023, when Pope Francis called him to Rome and appointed him Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops and President of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, also granting him the dignity of Archbishop.1\nThe Dicastery for Bishops has an important role in the process by which many new Catholic bishops are selected, so the appointment placed Archbishop Prevost at the heart of the governance of the universal Church.\nPope Francis created him a Cardinal on 30th September 2023, assigning him the Diaconate of Saint Monica. On 6th February 2025, Francis elevated him to the Order of Cardinal Bishops and assigned him the Suburbicarian See of Albano.1\nHow Did Robert Prevost Become Pope? # The conclave to elect Pope Francis\u0026rsquo;s successor began on 7th May 2025. The following day, 8th May 2025, the College of Cardinals elected Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost as Pope.1\nHe chose the name Leo XIV.\nThe next day, 9th May, he celebrated his first Mass with the College of Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel. His Petrine ministry was formally inaugurated with Mass in Saint Peter\u0026rsquo;s Square on 18th May 2025.1\nWhy Did He Choose the Name Leo XIV? # Pope Leo XIV explained his choice of name just two days after his election.\nHe said there were different reasons, but the principal one was Pope Leo XIII, whose 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the new social problems created by the Industrial Revolution.2\nLeo XIV drew a parallel between that period and our own. Today, he said, another industrial revolution is unfolding through developments such as artificial intelligence, creating new challenges involving human dignity, justice, and labour.2\nThe name therefore gives an early clue to an important concern of his pontificate: how Catholic social teaching can respond to rapid technological change while keeping the human person at the centre.\nPope Leo XIV\u0026rsquo;s Pontificate So Far # Although Pope Leo XIV\u0026rsquo;s pontificate is still young, several themes are already visible in his major teaching documents.\nLove for the Poor — Dilexi Te # On 4th October 2025, Pope Leo XIV issued the apostolic exhortation Dilexi Te (\u0026ldquo;I Have Loved You\u0026rdquo;), on love for the poor.3\nPope Francis had begun preparing the document during the final months of his life. Leo XIV made the text his own, added reflections, and issued it at the beginning of his pontificate. The exhortation emphasizes the close connection between love of Christ and care for people who are poor, weak, rejected, or suffering.3\nHuman Dignity in the Age of AI — Magnifica Humanitas # On 15th May 2026, Pope Leo XIV issued the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, on safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence.4\nThe encyclical addresses the rapid development of digital technology, AI, and robotics. It recognizes the benefits technology can bring while warning that technological progress must remain ordered toward the good, the dignity of the human person, and the common good.4\nThis develops the connection Leo XIV made immediately after his election between Pope Leo XIII\u0026rsquo;s response to the first Industrial Revolution and the Church\u0026rsquo;s responsibility to respond to the technological revolution of the present age.\nQuick Facts About Pope Leo XIV # Papal name: Leo XIV Birth name: Robert Francis Prevost Born: 14th September 1955 Birthplace: Chicago, Illinois, United States Religious order: Order of Saint Augustine (O.S.A.) Ordained a priest: 19th June 1982 Consecrated a bishop: 12th December 2014 Created a cardinal: 30th September 2023 Elected Pope: 8th May 2025 Petrine ministry inaugurated: 18th May 2025 Papal number: 267th Pope / Successor of Saint Peter Citizenship: United States and Peru Languages: English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian Episcopal motto: In Illo Uno Unum Historic firsts: First Pope from the United States and first Augustinian Pope1 So, the answer to the question \u0026ldquo;Who\u0026rsquo;s the current Pope?\u0026rdquo; is Pope Leo XIV, formerly Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost.\nHis background is unusually international: born in the United States, formed as an Augustinian, shaped by decades of ministry in Peru, experienced in the worldwide government of his religious order, and later entrusted with helping oversee the appointment of bishops throughout the Catholic Church.\nHis pontificate has so far placed particular emphasis on unity in Christ, care for the poor, peace, human dignity, and the challenges that artificial intelligence and technological change pose to society.\n","date":"23 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/whos-the-current-pope/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Who's The Current Pope?","type":"articles"},{"content":"The cosmological argument is an old and respected argument in favour of God’s existence.\nIt’s been employed countless times throughout the ages and, despite its many forms, is actually pretty easy to understand.\nIt says that everything in nature depends on something else for its existence and so the sum of nature as a whole must also ultimately rely on something independent of nature to explain its existence.\nFailure to provide this explanation, proponents argue, would result in an infinite regress where natural things cause natural things in a never-ending series of ultimately unexplainable causes and effects.\nIn this case, nothing is actually explained. Failure to provide an explanation just infinitely delays the question and infinitely exacerbates the problem. (But I’ll go more into how atheists try to solve this issue below in the section “If You Reject The Cosmological Argument, What Next?”)\nBut this “something” that is independent of nature must exist “necessarily”. In other words, this something cannot not exist. It must be existence itself, and so therefore does not need an explanation for its own existence. It is the “first cause” of the series that explains why the series exists in the first place.\nProponents of the cosmological argument say this difficult job description of “something that cannot not exist” and “something that is the first cause of everything” can only be fulfilled by an infinite intelligence outside of nature and time.\nThis concept only finds a parallel in the notion of “God”. A notion that has existed pretty much as long as humanity has existed and transcends cultures and time. And this notion of God, regardless of time or culture, and the logic behind the cosmological argument have always co-existed together.\nOf course, not much else is known about this conceptual “God” (hence why there are thousands of different religions), but this argument nonetheless removes the possibility of naturalism or atheism being a valid explanation for existence.\nTHE Cosmological Argument For God # The term “The” Cosmological Argument is a bit misleading since, in fact, there are many types of cosmological arguments that have existed throughout history and in a variety of different cultures.\nHowever, all cosmological arguments for God are similar in nature, and the description you just read above fairly sums up all cosmological arguments.\nThe main differences lie simply in how they are expressed or worded. But they all deal with concepts such as causation, change, contingency, motion, or the sense that the universe is limited and cannot fully explain itself.\nAristotle Cosmological Argument # Aristotle is considered by many as the first philosopher to articulate the cosmological argument. Writing in 4th century B.C. Greece, he grew up and lived in a largely polytheistic culture, which makes his conclusion that there is one ‘Prime Mover’, all the more intriguing.\nAristotle’s argument begins with his observance that everything in motion is moved by something; there is nothing in nature that can be the cause of its own motion. For example, a ball does not simply move through the air by itself; rather there must be an agent who moves the ball. This agent itself will also depend on something for its own movement, and so on. This creates a chain, or a series of motions. With this observation and reasoning, two conclusions are possible. One option is that there exists an infinite chain of movements, which stretches infinitely into the past. This idea is known as infinite regression. However, Aristotle rejects this idea with his assertion that time itself is finite. It would be incompatible that there could be an infinite chain of movers within the finite capacity of time. The second option concludes that there must be an ‘un-moved mover’ who sets the movement and motion into the universe itself. This un-moved mover must be separate from this chain of motion, meaning the mover itself is not bound by the natural laws of motion, which are prevalent in our universe. Thus, it is not necessary that the un-moved mover should receive its motion from something else.\nA popular analogy given to illustrate this idea is as follows. Suppose a chain of dominoes were set up, standing upright, in close proximity to one another. The dominoes cannot come into motion unless an external party pushes over the first domino, thus setting off a chain of motion. If the game of dominoes represents the universe, with its chain of motion, then the party which causes the first domino to fall is the un-moved mover. For the idea of infinite regression to be true, the dominoes would have to infinitely be falling upon each other without a beginning. According to Aristotle, this would be impossible.\nHaving briefly discussed Aristotle’s cosmological argument, it must be noted that Aristotle himself did not equate this un-moved mover with any particular god or goddess. It is reasonable to assume that this is because monotheism was not particularly common in the 4th century B.C., especially not in Greece. It wasn’t until first the Macedonian Empire, and second the Roman Empire that monotheistic Jewish communities made their way into Europe. Other major monotheistic influences such as Christianity and Islam were not formed until later centuries. Thus, it is highly unlikely that Aristotle sought to ‘match up’ his un-moved mover with any particular god or goddess. However, Aristotle’s argument is clearly one in favour of monotheism. It wasn’t until later centuries when philosophers who had strong associations with monotheistic religion began to employ this argument themselves. As we shall see, they would go on to argue that this un-moved mover or ‘prime mover’ is the same deity they call God.\nAquinas Cosmological Argument # The highly influential medieval Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas was one (of many) thinkers who used Aristotle’s argument as proof for the existence of a Prime Mover. However, rather than referring to a Prime Mover, Aquinas referred to God.\nIn his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas put forward five arguments for God’s existence, commonly referred to as ‘The Five Ways.’ The first three of these arguments constitute his cosmological argument. The fourth is more Platonic than Aristotelian, whilst the fifth is a teleological argument. For the purposes of this article, we will be focussing on the cosmological argument alone. All three of these arguments are very similar in their chain of reasoning.\nThe first argument is known as The Argument from Metaphysical Motion. This argument is significantly based on Aristotle’s un-moved mover argument. Interestingly, this was Aquinas’ favourite argument, and it can be summarised as follows:\nSome things in the world are in the process of change. Aquinas defines change as something which moves from its potential to its actuality. For example, wood has the potential to become hot. Anything that is in the process of change is being changed by something else. This is because things that are in the process of change do not currently possess the attribute or characteristic into which they are changing. However, they do possess the potential to possess these characteristics. For example, wood has the potential to become hot. The agent which changes something else already possesses the characteristic which the changing object will acquire. For example, the fire which burns the wood already possesses heat. This will cause the wood to acquire the characteristic of heat. Therefore, anything in the process of change is being changed by something else. If this ‘something else’ is in the process of change, then it itself will need another agent to cause the change, and so on. There must be a first cause of change. Otherwise there could be no subsequent changes. This first cause of change must be itself unchanging, otherwise it would demand another explanation for its change. Thus it would not be the first cause. This first cause of change is what we call ‘God.’ Aquinas’ second argument is known as The Argument from Efficient Causation. This argument is concerned with cause and effect:\nIn nature, we notice that nothing is the efficient cause of itself. In other words, everything we see in nature depends on something else. For example, the ball cannot move without something else moving it. Therefore, everything we see in this world is the effect of some other cause. This chain of cause and effect cannot go on forever. There must be a first causer. If there were no first causer, there would be no effects, which is plainly false. Therefore, there must be a first causer who itself is uncaused. We call this uncaused causer ‘God.’ The third and final of the cosmological arguments put forward by Aquinas is The Argument from Contingency. This argument is focussed on what must exist (necessary) and what does not have to exist (contingent). For example, I do not have to exist – the universe would have existed without me – it does not depend on me for its existence. Rather, I depend on my parents for my existence. Therefore, I am a contingent being.\nSome of the things we encounter can exist, but they do not have to. We know this because we see them springing up then dying away. They are contingent. Not everything can be contingent. If something is contingent, it means it does not have to exist. Therefore, it means at some point, it did not exist. Rather, it was pulled into existence by something that already existed. If everything were contingent, there would have to have been a time when there was nothing. But if there was nothing then, there would have to be nothing now, yet this is obviously not true. Therefore there has to exist something that must exist. In other words, there has to exist a necessary being on which the cosmos itself depends for its existence. This necessary being we call ‘God.’ Aquinas’ cosmological argument can be concluded with the statement that there exists one necessary being, who itself is an uncaused causer and an unchanging changer. Aquinas refers to this being as God.\nNotice that there is one clear yet subtle difference between the argument put forward by Aristotle and that of Aquinas. Beyond expanding Aristotle’s cosmological argument, Aquinas equates the Prime Mover with God – ‘And this being we call God.’ Critics throughout the centuries have consistently argued that this is an unreasonable jump to make. ‘Whilst I can accept the logical steps which conclude in the existence of a Prime Mover,’ one might argue, ‘I see no reason why I should accept that this is the same Being which different religious groups claim to worship.’ Whilst this objection may sound plausible, the critic who raises it is guilty of a jump of his own. In this one argument alone, Aquinas is not seeking to prove that his belief in the Triune God revealed in Christianity exists. Rather, he is seeking to prove that something exists rather than nothing. As mentioned above, he does of course give attributes to this being; necessary, uncaused and unchanging. Thus, it is an argument against atheistic naturalism. To assume that Aquinas is trying to fully justify his belief in the Christian God within this argument alone would be to misunderstand his intention. Aquinas simply says that ‘we call this being God’, not that ‘this Being therefore must be the Christian God.’\nIn order for one to progress from the understanding that there exists one uncaused causer, to the acceptance of Christian theology, Aquinas makes a separate argument that investigates the idea of ‘Divine Revelation.’ But that is another subject. Nonetheless, if the critic rejects the idea that this Being is what others call God, yet still adheres to the logical steps of the argument, the critic must reject atheistic naturalism.\nKalam Cosmological Argument # The Kalam Cosmological Argument is yet another development from Aristotle’s original argument, and also that of Thomas Aquinas. However, it also has roots in medieval Islamic philosophy. It was formulated and named by twentieth and twenty-first century philosopher Dr William Lane Craig. The term ‘Kalam’ is the Arabic word for ‘speech’ and it is used to imply that God spoke or willed the universe into existence. This idea, according to Craig, can be traced back to medieval Islamic philosophers such as Al-Ghazali. Craig, who was seeking to argue against the possibility of the existence of actual infinities, believes this is an important point. As we shall see, it marks a point of distinction between this version of the cosmological argument, and that of the others that have been briefly discussed in this article.\nSo what does the argument state?\nWell, its starting point is the same as Aristotle and Aquinas. Namely, whatever begins to exist must have a cause. As has been mentioned above, this is consistent with our experience and observations. The second point is that the universe began to exist. Not only is this philosophically the case (as we have seen), but also modern advances in science confirm this idea. Physicist Alexander Vilenkin stated that cosmologists ‘can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.’ If the universe had a beginning, then the universe itself must have a cause. What can we know about this cause? It must be uncaused, because there cannot be an infinite regress. It must be timeless (and therefore changeless) because it created time. It must be immaterial, because it created space and material.\nAt this stage in the argument, Craig has arrived at very similar conclusions to Aristotle and Aquinas. However, distinct from other cosmological arguments, Craig argues that through cosmology, we can conclude that this cause is also personal. This point is deduced from conclusions already made by this point in the argument. Firstly, this cause is timeless, and secondly that space and time are finite. ‘If this cause is not personal, [endowed with freedom of the will],’ asks Craig, ‘how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect with a beginning, such as the universe?’ He goes on to argue that a cause which is impersonal yet still meets all the necessary conditions of a first cause (for example it must be timeless, changeless, uncaused etc) could not exist without its effect. He uses an example to explain this. ‘The cause of water’s freezing is that the temperature is below zero degrees centigrade. If the temperature were below zero from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. Therefore, if the cause is permanently present, its effect must be permanently present as well.’ However, as we have argued, the permanent cause (timeless causer) caused a temporal effect (the universe) which has a beginning. Thus, it is reasonable to argue that this causer is a personal agent, who has freedom of the will. In other words, it can spontaneously create a new effect without any exterior determining conditions or influences.\nSimply put, this argument can be arranged like this:\nWhat begins to exist must have a cause. The universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe must have a cause. This cause must be: Uncaused because there cannot be an infinite regress. Timeless and therefore changeless because it created time. Immaterial because it created material. Personal because: The Timeless Cause has caused a temporal effect. This is philosophically impossible unless this Timeless Cause has freedom to create a new effect without other determining influences or conditions. This cause we call God. This is the most complex of the cosmological arguments we have looked at. It includes the arguments of Aquinas and Aristotle yet develops them further, to add an additional attribute to this first cause: the attribute of freedom – meaning this is a personal being. It argues that it is the ‘Kalam’ of God, or the speech or will of God that created the universe. This addition is an important contribution, as it argues distinctly for monotheism, although admittedly a deist could still adhere to this argumentation.\nI would confidently state, however, that if the premises for these arguments are true, and the steps are philosophically coherent, there leaves no room for atheism or polytheism.\nTo discern between deism and monotheism, one must explore the concept of divine revelation, unless a further development in the cosmological argument emerges.\nWhat Does The Cosmological Argument Prove? # While no philosophical argument can “prove” God in the same way that science has proven that, for example, water boils at 100°C (212°F), nonetheless the underlying logic of these arguments can be convincing in a different way.\nBut as alluded to above, the cosmological argument does not “prove” any particular god’s existence. Once someone reaches the end of the cosmological argument and accepts its logic, they are still pretty unclear about the name, personality, or nature of this deity.\nThese descriptors such as “name”, “personality”, or “nature” can be deduced from further arguments or authorities such as the Moral Argument or through Divine Revelation (e.g. the Bible), to give just two examples.\nBertrand Russell And The Cosmological Argument # No account of the cosmological argument is complete without its most famous twentieth century critic. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher, mathematician and aristocrat, best known for co-authoring the Principia Mathematica and for receiving the 1950 Nobel Prize in Literature. He was also, for most of his long life, the English-speaking world’s most prominent unbeliever, and his objections to the cosmological argument have largely set the template for how sceptics have responded to it ever since.\nRussell’s fullest written treatment appears in his 1927 lecture Why I Am Not a Christian, delivered to the National Secular Society at Battersea Town Hall in London. There he admits that as a young man he had actually accepted the first cause argument, until, at the age of eighteen, he read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography and stumbled on a single sentence. Mill’s father had taught him that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question ‘Who made God?’ Russell concludes: ‘That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God.’\nHe then produced the image which has haunted first cause arguments ever since: ‘It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.” The argument is really no better than that.’ And he finished with the assertion that ‘there is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.’\nIn his popular History of Western Philosophy (1945), Russell attacked not only the argument but the arguer. Aquinas, he wrote, showed ‘little of the true philosophic spirit’, since ‘before he begins to philosophise, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith… The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.’ Even philosophers unsympathetic to Aquinas have found this verdict excessive; the philosopher Mark Nelson has called it ‘breathtakingly supercilious and unfair’, observing that arguing towards a conclusion you already hold is no crime in itself. Scientists routinely go looking for what they expect to find.\nRussell’s most memorable encounter with the argument, however, came in 1948, when he debated the Jesuit philosopher Father Frederick Copleston live on the BBC’s Third Programme. The exchange, later published as ‘A Debate on the Existence of God’, is still cited as the model of how civilised this sort of disagreement can be, and it ended, as we shall see, in an honest impasse rather than a knockout.\nCopleston presented not Aquinas’ version but the Leibnizian argument from contingency, a close relative of the Third Way: the world is simply the totality of contingent beings, none of which explains its own existence, so the totality must have a reason outside itself; and unless that reason is a being which ‘cannot not exist’, the explanation regresses forever. Russell’s replies are worth quoting, because they are essentially the three replies still in circulation today.\nFirst, he denied the meaning of the central terms: ‘I don’t admit the idea of a necessary being and I don’t admit that there is any particular meaning in calling other beings “contingent”… The word “necessary”, it seems to me, is a useless word, except as applied to analytic propositions, not to things.’ In other words, only statements can be necessary; things simply are.\nSecond, he denied that the causal question can even be asked of the whole: ‘The whole concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of particular things; I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever.’ To ask for a cause of everything, on his view, commits the same blunder as arguing that because every man has a mother, the human race itself must have one: ‘Obviously the human race hasn’t a mother; that’s a different logical sphere.’\nAnd third, when Copleston asked whether he agreed with Sartre that the universe is ‘gratuitous’, Russell gave the answer for which the debate is remembered: ‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.’\nWhat is often overlooked is that Russell did not claim victory. When Copleston asked at the outset whether he was an atheist or an agnostic, Russell replied at once: ‘My position is agnostic.’ Later he insisted, ‘I’m not contending in a dogmatic way that there is not a God. What I’m contending is that we don’t know that there is.’ His objection was never that the cosmological argument proves the opposite of what it claims, but that the demand for an ultimate explanation is a question without meaning rather than a question with a bad answer. A scientist hunting for causes, he suggested, is like ‘a man [who] may look for gold without assuming that there is gold everywhere; if he finds gold, well and good; if he doesn’t, he’s had bad luck.’\nCopleston’s rejoinder survives as the neatest summary of where the disagreement truly lies: ‘To say that there isn’t any cause is not the same thing as saying that we shouldn’t look for a cause. The statement that there isn’t any cause should come, if it comes at all, at the end of the inquiry, not the beginning.’ Russell had concluded the search was illegitimate before it started; Copleston simply refused to stop digging.\nThere is a fitting coda to Russell’s story. On his ninetieth birthday, so the story is told, a dinner companion asked him what he would say if it turned out he had been wrong and he found himself face to face with his Maker. The old philosopher, we are told, pointed a finger upward and cried, ‘God, you gave us insufficient evidence!’ It is a charming answer, but it sits awkwardly beside his own philosophy: you cannot complain of insufficient evidence for a question you have already ruled meaningless. The cosmological argument is exactly the kind of evidence he said did not exist.\nArguments Against The Cosmological Argument # Having spent time with its most famous critic, it is worth collecting the main objections to the cosmological argument together and giving each one its day in court. Most are Russell’s in embryo; all deserve an honest answer.\nThe ‘Who Made God?’ Objection\nFollowing Mill and Russell, Richard Dawkins revived this objection in The God Delusion (2006): if everything needs a cause, then God needs one too; and if God is allowed without a cause, why is the universe not allowed the same privilege? The trouble is that this objection only touches a version of the argument nobody actually holds. None of the arguments above begin with ‘everything has a cause’. They begin with ‘whatever begins to exist has a cause’ (the Kalam), ‘everything in motion is moved by another’ (Aristotle and Aquinas), or ‘every contingent thing requires an explanation’ (Leibniz and Copleston). The being these arguments conclude to is proposed precisely as the thing which cannot not exist, the uncaused causer that stops the regress. To ask what produced it is not a difficult question but a confused one; it is like asking which wife a bachelor is married to. The objection assumes from the start that nothing can exist necessarily, which is the very point under dispute.\nDavid Hume’s Objections\nThe deepest objections are still among the oldest. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), David Hume had his character Cleanthes raise three challenges that remain in heavy use. First, why can the material universe not be the necessarily existent being? ‘We dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter,’ Cleanthes says; for all we know, its non-existence may be as impossible as twice two being five. Second, conceivability: anything we can conceive as existing we can also conceive as not existing, God included, and so ‘necessary existence’ can never be more than a word. Third, the composition point later made famous by Russell: explain every part of a chain and you have explained the chain, since uniting parts into a whole is ‘performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind’; demanding a further cause of the whole is like being told the cause of each of twenty particles and then asking, unreasonably, for the cause of all twenty.\nEach deserves a serious reply. Matter’s arrangement is precisely what is contingent: every particle, force and law of our universe could apparently have been otherwise, which is exactly what necessary existence is not. Conceivability is a poor guide to possibility: we can conceive a Euclidean world with ease, yet ours is not one. And the composition objection misidentifies what is being claimed. The argument does not say that the universe needs a particular cause the way its members do; it says that a pile of unexplained things remains unexplained when you have counted the last one. Copleston put it with characteristic plainness: ‘If you add up chocolates you get chocolates after all, and not a sheep. If you add up chocolates to infinity, you presumably get an infinite number of chocolates. So if you add up contingent beings to infinity, you still get contingent beings, not a necessary being.’\nImmanuel Kant’s Objections\nKant offered a subtler criticism in his Critique of Pure Reason (1781). He argued that ‘the so-called cosmological proof really owes any cogency which it may have to the ontological proof from mere concepts’: having arrived at a necessary being, the argument must import a purely conceptual picture of God to say what that being is, and so it secretly relies on the very ontological argument it claims to bypass. He also held that the principle of causality is a rule our minds apply within experience, and cannot be extended beyond the world to whatever may lie behind it.\nBoth moves have force only if the argument pretends to define God by its conclusion, which it does not. The cosmological argument reaches a necessary being as a conclusion, not as a definition; what attributes that being possesses is left, as we have seen, to further arguments. And Kant’s famous split of reality into things as they appear to us and things as they are in themselves is itself a much heavier metaphysical commitment than anything Aquinas asks us to take on.\nQuantum Mechanics And Uncaused Events\nRussell anticipated this objection in 1948: ‘The physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause.’ If nature already contains genuinely uncaused events, the causal premise collapses. The reply distinguishes two ideas that are often confused. Quantum events are indeterministic, meaning their precise outcomes are not fixed in advance; but they are not uncaused, since they occur only within pre-existing fields, laws and probabilities which are emphatically something. An electron does not spring into being from sheer nothingness. The quantum vacuum, as the philosopher of physics David Albert pointed out in his demolition of Lawrence Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing, is ‘the particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world’, which is about as far from nothing as it is possible to be.\nAn Eternal Universe\nIf the universe never began, the second premise of the Kalam argument evaporates, and several models have tried to secure this: oscillating universes that expand and contract forever, Stephen Hawking’s ‘no-boundary’ proposal in which the universe ‘would not be created, not be destroyed; it would simply be’, prompting Hawking’s famous question ‘what place, then, for a creator?’, and Roger Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology of endless aeons. These are serious ideas, but several difficulties press back. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (2003) shows that any universe which has on average been expanding cannot be past-infinite, which catches most inflationary and bouncing models; cyclic universes must still explain why the cycle itself exists rather than nothing, since an eternal series of contingent things is still contingent; and a no-boundary universe, even if real, would be every bit as contingent as a bounded one. Something can be finite and edgeless, like the surface of a sphere, and still cry out for an explanation of why it is there at all.\nIt is also worth remembering that a cosmic beginning is only essential to the Kalam family of the argument. Aquinas himself held that an eternal universe was philosophically possible, since his series of causes is not a row of dominoes stretching backwards in time but a stack of dependencies pressing downward here and now. Leibniz’s contingency argument, likewise, would work perfectly well in a beginningless universe. Eternal models threaten one strand of the cosmological tradition, not the whole rope.\nThe Multiverse\nWhy not many universes? The suggestion relocates the question rather than answers it. An ensemble of contingent universes is still contingent; the machinery that generates it, whether eternal inflation or something else, still demands an explanation; and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin result applies to inflating spacetimes however many bubbles they produce. Vilenkin himself has noted that the multiverse cannot evade a cosmic beginning. Postulating an infinity of unexplained things to avoid explaining one is the largest possible way of multiplying the problem in the hope that it will look like a solution.\nA Universe From Nothing\nFinally there is the claim that physics has abolished the question altogether: Hawking’s declaration in The Grand Design (2010) that ‘the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ because of the law of gravity, and Krauss’ book of the same title (2012). The flaw in both is identical, and it is that their nothing is always a something. A quantum vacuum equipped with fields, laws and probabilities is a particular, highly ordered physical state, and gravity is a law, not a void. Nor can anything literally produce itself, since to cause yourself you would already have to exist before you existed. When the ‘nothing’ keeps arriving pregnant with laws of physics, the word has stopped meaning nothing.\nThe Gap Objection\nThe last objection grants the argument and then shrugs: even if there is a first cause or necessary being, why should it be God rather than the universe itself, or deism’s clockmaker, or Spinoza’s nature? This is a genuine limit, and the honest answer is that it is true but misdirected. The cosmological argument was never designed to prove the Incarnation, and it is unfair to mark it down for failing at a task it never attempted. What it leaves standing, if it succeeds, is not nothing: it is a necessary, uncaused, timeless, immaterial cause of everything contingent. Whether that cause has further revealed itself is, as Aquinas would say, another question requiring another investigation.\nIf You Reject The Cosmological Argument, What Next? # Rejecting an argument is easy; paying for the rejection is harder. If the cosmological argument fails, some alternative account of why anything exists has to take its place, and each of the exits usually tried carries a price tag.\nThe Universe Simply Exists, Unexplained. This is the brute fact option, Russell’s ‘the universe is just there, and that’s all’. It still has defenders today. The cost is that it applies the rules selectively: we demand explanations for every particle and event we meet, then exempt the whole show at the exact point where the answer would matter most. And it cannot allow itself what it denies the theist. If brute facts are permitted at the end of the story, then ‘God simply is’ is no worse a brute fact than ‘the universe simply is’; indeed it is arguably a better one, since a necessary being at least claims to contain the reason for its own existence, while contingent matter makes no such claim.\nThe Universe Is Necessary. Hume floated this option, and the philosopher Bede Rundle gave it book-length treatment in Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing (2004), concluding that some material reality must exist necessarily while declining to call it God. The difficulty is that everything about our particular universe looks contingent: its particles, forces, laws and arrangement could all apparently have been otherwise. A necessary universe must explain why this universe is the one which cannot not exist, and saying ‘it just is’ smuggles the brute fact back in wearing a smarter outfit.\nThe Universe Created Itself From Nothing. This we have already examined. Krauss’ nothing is a quantum vacuum, Hawking’s nothing contains the law of gravity, and self-causation is strictly absurd, since a thing would have to exist before it existed. The emperor’s new nothing is, on inspection, very well dressed indeed.\nGo Round In Circles. Oscillating universes, Penrose’s cyclic cosmology and the multiverse all postpone the problem rather than remove it: an endless succession of contingent aeons is no more self-explanatory than a single one. Copleston’s chocolates again; an infinite pile of them is still just chocolates.\nAdmit It Is A Mystery. The most honest exit is the one Russell himself took: agnosticism. The question is real, the argument inconclusive, the jury out. Nobody should pretend this position is comfortable, however. It is a verdict on the reach of our knowledge rather than on the question itself, and the question keeps sitting there all the same. As Wittgenstein wrote in the Tractatus, ‘it is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.’\nWhich brings us to the real choice. The cosmological argument does not offer a plain answer over against atheism’s no answer; it offers one mystery over against a rival set of mysteries, each with its own price. Its defenders simply point out that a necessary, uncaused, self-explaining being is the only candidate on the table that even claims to be the sort of thing that can stop the questions. Every other exit ends with ‘suppose we change the subject’.\nCosmological Argument’s Strengths And Weaknesses # So where does all of this leave the argument? It is worth ending with an honest audit, because the strongest case for the cosmological argument is also the least boastful one.\nIts Weaknesses\nThe argument does not prove the Christian God, and it never promised to. A Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu philosopher or a deist can accept every premise and arrive at the same necessary being, which is why versions of it appear in nearly every philosophical theology. What it produces is, in Pascal’s famous distinction, ‘the God of philosophers and scholars’, and not yet ‘the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob’. It also leans on machinery its opponents are free to decline: the principle of sufficient reason, the distinction between contingent and necessary things, the impossibility of certain infinities. A determined sceptic can always exit through one of those doors, which is why the great debates so often end, as Russell and Copleston’s did, in an impasse between rival starting points. And it is not, and cannot be, a laboratory proof. It will never weigh God on a scale.\nIts Strengths\nWhat is remarkable is how well the argument has worn. It was discovered independently by minds with almost nothing else in common: Plato’s self-moving soul in the Laws, Aristotle’s Prime Mover, Avicenna’s ‘proof of the truthful’ for a necessary existent, the kalam of medieval Islam, Aquinas’ Five Ways, Leibniz’s question ‘why is there something rather than nothing? For nothing is simpler and easier than something’, and Samuel Clarke’s demonstration before the Boyle lectures. Arguments that keep being rediscovered by cultures with no shared scripture are usually tracking something real.\nThe behaviour of its enemies is also revealing. Einstein found the idea of a cosmic beginning so distasteful that he confessed it ‘irritates’ him; Robert Jastrow, the NASA astronomer who recorded the remark, called it ‘curiously emotional language for a discussion of some mathematical formulas’, and suspected the irritation was theological rather than scientific. Fred Hoyle gave the game away entirely when he complained that ‘the passionate frenzy with which the Big Bang cosmology is clutched to the corporate scientific bosom evidently arises from a deep-rooted attachment to the first page of Genesis, religious fundamentalism at its strongest.’ He was right about which way the evidence was blowing, even if he was wrong about the evidence itself: his own steady-state universe was killed by observation, not by theologians. Nor should we forget that the Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, who nonetheless despised having it used as a sermon; when Pope Pius XII tried in 1951 to baptise his primeval atom as proof of creation, Lemaître was horrified, and quietly persuaded the Vatican to keep the science and the pulpit apart. The theist can afford that restraint. The argument never needed astronomy’s permission.\nThe argument also has the odd distinction of converting its most celebrated opponents. In 2004 the philosopher Antony Flew, for fifty years the world’s most quoted philosophical atheist, announced that he had become a deist, moved in large part by the very considerations raised in this article: why nature is intelligible, why it is governed by law, and why there is anything at all. ‘I had to go where the evidence leads’, he explained. Even Jastrow’s famous concession stands as a verdict on the whole twentieth century of physics: ‘For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.’\nNor is the argument a museum piece. The last decade has seen a genuine revival in the journals: Edward Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God (2017), Alexander Pruss and Joshua Rasmussen’s Necessary Existence (2018), Rasmussen’s How Reason Can Lead to God (2019), and sustained exchanges with Graham Oppy, the ablest living critic of these arguments, alongside fresh challenges from philosophers such as Joseph Schmid. Whatever one makes of the verdicts, the cosmological argument is doing something no dead argument does: it is still being fought over.\nThe honest conclusion is the one this article has been circling since the beginning. The cosmological argument is not a proof that compels consent, but it is a question that refuses to die. Why is there something rather than nothing? If the universe had a beginning, and the best cosmology of our century says it probably did, then the alternatives are no longer between explanation and no explanation. They are between a necessary being and a series of mysteries that each cost more than they admit. For an argument approaching two and a half thousand years of age, that is not a bad position to be in.\n","date":"23 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/cosmological-argument/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"The Cosmological Argument For God","type":"articles"},{"content":"Jack converted to Catholicism in 2019 after studying the early history of the papacy. He is a keen collector of ancient Christian writings and owns the world’s largest collection of Celtic Christian texts. He has a particular love for Scripture and the Church Fathers.\n","date":"22 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/jack-newton/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Jack Newton","type":"authors"},{"content":" Devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows and the Seven Sorrows of Mary # “I look around at everyone who is in the world to see if there happens to be some who might have compassion on me and be mindful of my sorrow, but I find very few who think about my sorrow and tribulation. This is why, my daughter, although I am forgotten and neglected by many people, you must not forget me! Look at my struggles and imitate them as far as you can! Contemplate my sorrow and tears and be sorry that the friends of God are so few. Stand firm! Look, my Son is coming.”\nOur Lady of Sorrows to St. Bridget of Sweden1\nOur Lady of Sorrows is a title that has been used for Mary since medieval times. She used the title herself during her Fatima apparitions!\nThis beautiful devotion focuses on Mary’s suffering, inviting us to put ourselves in her place and experience her pain, as she witnesses her beloved son, Jesus, be rejected, tortured, and killed.\nOur Lady of Sorrows never left her Son’s side; she was there during His childhood, His ministry, and His death. The Church encourages us to prayerfully meditate on this, highlighting seven moments from Her life, called the Seven Sorrows of Mary.\nWill you have compassion on her?\nWill you remember her pain?\nWill you stand with her, next to her Son, Jesus?\nThose who do are promised many blessings!\nThe Seven Sorrows of Our Lady # 1. The Prophecy of Simeon—Luke 2:34-35 # When Jesus was just 40 days old, Mary took Him to the temple, as was the Jewish custom. Whilst there, a \u0026ldquo;righteous and devout\u0026rdquo; man called Simeon, prophesied that her Son was destined to be “a sign that will be spoken against” and also that a “sword would pierce” Mary\u0026rsquo;s soul.\nOur Lady of Sorrows revealed to St. Mechthild of Hackeborn that from this moment, her joy turned to sorrow2 as she learnt how much her Son would suffer.\n2. The Flight to Egypt—Matthew 2:13-14 # King Herod, hearing about the birth of a coming Messiah, ordered the death of every child in Bethlehem under the age of 2. Joseph was warned in a dream, so they fled with Jesus to Egypt. Her Son had just been born, and, confirming Simeon’s prophecy, he was already condemned to death! 3\nThe route was difficult4 and they lived in Egypt, according to St. Basil of Seleucia (5th century), in complete poverty.5\n3. The Loss of the Child Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem—Luke 2:41-52 # Every year, Mary and Joseph took Jesus to Jerusalem for the Passover. When Jesus was 12, he stayed in Jerusalem without Mary realising—she thought He was travelling back with another family member.\nShe desperately searched for Him for 3 days, eventually finding Him in the temple. After revealing to Jesus how much pain this had caused her, He replied: “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”\n4. Mary meeting Jesus on the Via Dolorosa—Meditationes vitae Christi, early 14th century 6 # When Jesus was sentenced to death, he carried the cross along a road called Via Dolorosa. According to tradition, Mary met him along the way.\nImagine Our Lady of Sorrows, waiting on a street corner. She hears the mocking crowd, she sees the procession of soldiers carrying the nails, hammers, and cords. Suddenly, a man comes into view, covered in blood, a wreath of thorns on his head and two beams on his shoulders.3\nThrough the bruises and the blood, she eventually recognises her Son.\n5. The Crucifixion of Jesus on Mount Calvary—John 19:16-27 # “My dear Jesus was on the cross in grief and in agony; his eyes were sunken, half closed, and lifeless; the lips hanging, and the mouth open; the cheeks hollow, and attached to the teeth; the face lengthened, the nose sharp, the countenance sad; the head had fallen upon his breast, the hair black with blood, the stomach collapsed, the arms and legs stiff, and the whole body covered with wounds and blood.”\nOur Lady of Sorrows to St. Bridget of Sweden1\nImagine Mary’s sorrow as she stands at the foot of the cross, watching her precious child die! Amazingly, Jesus tries to comfort her by entrusting her to John’s care.\nSt. Cyril of Alexandria (5th century) believes, at this lowest moment, Mary suffered from doubt.7 Even though God kept her from sin, she was still human!\n6. Jesus\u0026rsquo; Descent from the Cross—Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 # Our Lady of Sorrows then witnesses Jesus’ side pierced with a spear, and blood and water pours out. Jesus now has no more blood left to give.3 Although not physically, the spear pierced Mary’s heart too. St. Bernard of Clairvaux said this was the fulfilment of Simeon’s prophesy.8\nThree ladders were then placed next to the cross, and His disciples took the nails from His hands and feet.1 His body was carefully carried down and the nails were given to Mary.9\nCradling her Son, she gently closes his eyes.1\n7. The Burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea—Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 # Some disciples gently take Jesus’ body from Mary’s arms and embalm him. With Mary following, they carry Him on their shoulders1 to a freshly cut tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea and lay him in there. Our Lady of Sorrows enters inside and looks longingly at her Son.3\nShe later tells St. Bridget that her own heart remained buried in that tomb with Jesus.1\nThe Seven Promises for Mary’s Seven Sorrows # Our Lady of Sorrows gave St. Bridget of Sweden seven promises10 for those who pray and meditate on her sorrows:\nI will grant peace to their families.\nThey will be enlightened about the divine mysteries.\nI will console them in their pains and I will accompany them in their work.\nI will give them as much as they ask for as long as it does not oppose the adorable will of my divine Son or the sanctification of their souls.\nI will defend them in their spiritual battles with the infernal enemy and I will protect them at every instant of their lives.\nI will visibly help them at the moment of their death, they will see the face of their Mother.\nI have obtained from my divine Son, that those who propagate this devotion to my tears and grief, will be taken directly from this earthly life to eternal happiness since all their sins will be forgiven and my Son and I will be their eternal consolation and joy.\nRosary of the Seven Sorrows of Mary # The Seven Sorrows Rosary (or Chaplet) is a traditional devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows created by the Order of the Servants of Mary.11 It has grown in popularity in recent decades due to the approved apparitions of Our Lady of Sorrows of Kibeho in the 1980s\u0026hellip;\nOne must meditate on the Passion of Jesus, and on the deep sorrows of His Mother. One must recite the Rosary every day, and also the Rosary of the Seven Sorrows of Mary, to obtain the favour of repentance.\nOur Lady of Sorrows of Kibeho to seer Marie-Claire Mukangango.\nHistory # Devotion to Our Lady of Sorrows finds its heritage in the Marian theology of the first 1000 years of Christianity. Already by the time of Roman emperor Septimius Severus (193-211AD), Mary was venerated in prayers as the Theotokos, or Mother of God.12 Devotion to her grew in the following centuries.\nParticularly in the West, theologians and religious artists became fascinated by Mary’s connection with her Son’s suffering.13 As we\u0026rsquo;ve seen, this is based on Scripture, where Simeon, just after prophesying that Jesus will face opposition, tells Mary:\n“Yes, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also.”\nLuke 2:35\nFrom this moment, her suffering was directly linked to Jesus’. Theologians also draw a link to John 19:25-27, where Mary is stood at the foot of the Cross:\n“When Jesus saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.\nJohn 19:25-27\nSt. Anselm of Canterbury, in the late 11th century, provides some of the earliest surviving literature focusing on Mary’s sufferings: 14\n“My most merciful Lady, what can I say about the fountains that flowed from your most pure eyes when you saw your only Son before you, bound, beaten, and hurt?”\nSt. Anselm of Cantebury15\nTraditionally, the modern devotion has been linked to the Order of the Servants of Mary. In 1239AD, the seven young founders began standing beneath the cross in imitation of Mary’s suffering as she looked upon her crucified Son.16\nIt is often claimed that the devotion was fully formed from this point. Instead, it appears to have developed more gradually, as the earliest churches linked to the Order are not named after Our Lady of Sorrows, which would have been expected.17\nEarly in the 15th century, there were local feasts focused on the devotion, under different names, such a “Transfixio” (meaning: \u0026ldquo;to be pierced\u0026rdquo;, a link to Luke 2:35), or “Compassio” (meaning: \u0026ldquo;fellow-suffering\u0026rdquo;). These earlier feasts focused exclusively on Mary’s pain when witnessing her Son’s suffering on the cross.17\nBy the end of that century, the devotion became focused on Seven Sorrows from Mary’s life. In 1482AD, Pope Sixtus IV promulgated the fest of the Seven Sorrows.13 It’s popularity grew, especially in central Europe.18\nBy the 16th century, under the Order of the Servants of Mary, it became widely established in Europe. Under Pope Clement IX, in 1668AD, the Servites were given another feast, called “The Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary”.\nThe first feasts, called “Tranfixio” or “Compassio”, were in 1727AD made into a feast for the whole Western Church by Pope Benedict XIII.16 Perhaps unhelpfully, it was also named “The Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary”!\nIn 1969AD, the two feasts, being essentially duplicates, were combined, and The Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows now falls on 15th September every year.\nDevotion to Our Lady of Sorrows never gained official status in the East. Although a popular icon called Softener of Evil Hearts, probably made in south-west Russia towards the end of the 19th century,19 depicts Mary with seven swords piercing her heart. This is based on Mary\u0026rsquo;s Seven Sorrows.20\nSources # 1 Wright, D., 2016. The Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.\n2 St. Mechthild of Hackeborn, 13th century. Liber Specialis Gratiae.\n3 St. Alphonsus Liguori, 18th century. The Glories of Mary.\n4 St. Bonaventure, 13th century. The Life of Christ.\n5 St. Basil of Seleucia, 5thcentury. Homily 37, De infantibus.\n6 Gray, I.K., 2017. The Search for Jesus\u0026rsquo; Final Steps: How Archaeological and Literary Evidence Reroutes the Via Dolorosa (Doctoral dissertation, Towson University).\n7 St. Cyril of Alexandria, 5th century. Commentary on John.\n8 St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 12^th^ century. His Mother stood by the Cross.\n9 St. Symeon Metaphrastes, 10^th^ century. Menologion.\n10 Cruz, J.D., 1989. Prayers and Heavenly Promises. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Francis B. Schulte.\n11 Ball, A., 2003. Encyclopedia of Catholic devotions and practices. Our Sunday Visitor.\n12 Shaker, C., 2017. Sub Tuum Praesidium: a Reflection on the Protection of Mary, the Blessed Virgin Mother of God. Magistra, 23(2), pp.3-25.\n13 Robles, S., 2005. Comme Femme Desconfortée: A Vision of Our Lady of Sorrows as a Disconsolate Woman. In International Congress on Medieval Studies.\n14 Arvay, S.M., 2008. Private passions: The contemplation of suffering in medieval affective devotions. Rutgers The State University of New Jersey-New Brunswick.\n15 St. Anselm of Canterbury, 11th century. “Prayer to Christ,” in The Prayers and Meditations of Saint Anselm with the Proslogion.\n16 Holweck, F., 1912. Feasts of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 14, pp.151-152.\n17 Corradi, G., 2020. The Historical Evolution of the Marian Ideal of the Order of the Servants of Mary, in Particular, Considering Devotion to the Sorrows and Compassion of the Mother of Christ from 1233–1987. University of Dayton.\n18 Schuler, C.M., 1992. The Seven Sorrows of the Virgin: popular culture and cultic imagery in pre-Reformation Europe. Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, 21(1/2), pp.5-28.\n19 Bondarets, Y., 2022. CULTURE AND ART.\n20 Bulgakov, S.N. and Bulgakov, S., 2008. Churchly joy: Orthodox devotions for the church year. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.\n","date":"22 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/our-lady-of-sorrows-seven-sorrows-of-mary/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Our Lady of Sorrows: Seven Sorrows of Mary","type":"articles"},{"content":" The Story of St Bernadette and our Lady of Lourdes # Yes, dear Mother, your heart is so full of love for us that you came down to earth to appear to a poor, weak child and convey certain things to her despite her great unworthiness. How humbled she is. You, the Queen of Heaven and Earth, chose to use what is weakest in the eyes of men.\nSt. Bernadette, 12th May 1866 1\nLike many great saints, Bernadette Soubirous shows us how God chooses the weak and humble. Born 7th January 1844 in Lourdes, a small rural town in south-west France, she was the eldest daughter of François and Louise Soubirous. She had 8 siblings, only 3 of which survived beyond the age of 10.\nHer family were very poor, all living in one room—an old police cell which Bernadette calls \u0026ldquo;le cachot\u0026rdquo;. They often went without food. As a result, she had poor health growing up and was illiterate.\nBernadette was not an impressive person. But at age 14, she experienced 18 apparitions from our Lady of Lourdes which would change her life forever.\n18 Apparitions to St Bernadette # Thursday 11th February 1858 # On a cold winter day, Bernadette went into the countryside to collect wood with her sister, Marie, and her friend, Jeanne. They walked along a canal and eventually came to what was locally called the Massabielle grotto. Marie and Jeanne crossed to the other side, but Bernadette hesitated because she didn’t want her shoes to get wet. So instead, she sat down to take off her stockings.\nScarcely had I removed my first stocking, when I heard a noise like a sudden gust of wind. When I turned my head toward the prairie, I saw that the trees were not swaying at all, so I began removing my stockings again. I heard the same noise again. When I raised my head and looked at the Grotto, I saw a Lady in white. She was wearing a white gown with a blue sash, a white veil and a golden rose on each foot, the same color as the chain of her Rosary, which had white beads. She was surrounded with white light, but it was not a blinding light. She had blue eyes.\nSt. Bernadette1\nThe Lady stood within a niche in the rock. On her right arm was a rosary with a gold chain and white beads. Bernadette tried to make the sign of the cross but was unable. The Lady made a beautiful sign of the cross, and then Bernadette recited the rosary, whilst the Lady passed the beads through her fingers.\nAfter praying, the Lady beamed at her and beckoned for her to come closer. In her heart, Bernadette felt she was like her mother, but she was too frightened to come. The Lady bowed, and then left. Bernadette reluctantly told Marie and Jeanne what happened, describing the Lady as “Aquero”, which means “the one”. They then told her parents.\nSunday 14th February 1858 # Her father, François, gave Bernadette permission to go back. She went with several other girls and took some holy water. When they got there, they all began to pray the rosary. During the 1st decade, Aquero appeared again.\nBernadette threw the holy water at her, saying: “If you come from God, stay. If you don\u0026rsquo;t, go away.\u0026quot; The more she sprinkled, the more she smiled. Bernadette knelt and went into a deep trance. Scared, some of her friends ran to get help. Bernadette was carried back whilst the apparition continued.\nThursday 18th February 1858 # Bernadette went again with some adults and took pen and ink to ask Aquero her name. During the rosary, she appeared again. Bernadette asked her name. She did not give it. Instead, she asked:\n“Boulet aoue era gracia de bié aci penden quinze dias?”\nOur Lady of Lourdes, speaking in Gascon, Bernadette’s local language.\nThis means: “would you be so gracious to come her for fifteen days?”. In 19th century France, provincial dialects like Gascon were considered ”patois”\u0026ndash;a negative word meaning ”rough speech”. Bernadette was astonished that Aquero spoke in her language and with such respect. A poor, illiterate, 14-year-old, Gascon girl would never have been spoken to like this before.\nBernadette replied that she would ask her parent’s permission and then she would come. Aquero said that she did not promise to make her happy in this world, but in the next, and asked her to tell the priests that a chapel should be built at the grotto.\nFriday 19th February 1858 # Bernadette and 11 others went to the grotto with candles. Aquero thanked her for coming. She then heard terrifying, evil voices coming from the back of the grotto, telling her to leave. Aquero raised her eyes, frowned towards the voices, and they became silent.\nShe told Bernadette that she had a secret to reveal to her and asked that they leave the candles at the grotto.\nSaturday 20th February 1858 # The news was beginning to travel fast. 30 people were at the grotto. In the apparition, Aquero taught Bernadette a prayer word-for-word. She prayed it every day for the rest of her life, never telling anyone. Around this time, many begin to believe that Aquero was Mary.\nSunday 21st February 1858 # Hundreds came and knelt by the grotto. Bernadette described Aquero as being brighter than the Sun and having roses brighter than gold on her bare feet. Aquero looked over the crowd with sadness and told Bernadette to “pray for sinners”.\nDuring the apparition, a doctor called Dozous took Bernadette’s pulse and finds that it is normal. After the apparition, they interrogate Bernadette and her father, François, promise them that she’ll never go back to the grotto.\nTuesday 23rd February 1858 # Despite this, she goes back. This time, over 150 people came. Aquero prayed with Bernadette for an hour and revealed three secrets to her. To this day, no one knows what they were.\nWednesday 24th February 1858 # About 200 people came. Aquero prayed with Bernadette for an hour. She spoke three words, slowly and sadly:\n”Repentance. Repentance. Repentance”.\nOur Lady of Lourdes.\nAs she spoke these words, Bernadette said them too, and many heard her. At Aquero’s request, she then ate some grass growing below the grotto and kissed the ground in humility for their pride.\nThursday 25th February 1858 # Despite cold winter weather, over 300 people came. Aquero told Bernadette to drink and wash from the spring.\n“I went to the place she showed me, but all I saw was a tiny bit of muddy water. There was so little of it that I was hardly able to get any of it in my hands.”\nSt. Bernadette1\nBernadette threw the water away three times, but then washed her face in it. She became covered in mud. The people who were stood watching jeered at her.\nShe came back that afternoon to find water bubbling from where she had scooped up the mud. Soon, there was a gushing stream of clear water. It remains to this day!\nSaturday 27th February 1858 # About 800 people came. Bernadette repeats her acts of penance by eating some of the grass and kissing the ground.\nSunday 28th February 1858 # Over 1500 people go with Bernadette. After the apparition, she is interrogated for a 3rd time, but vows to not give up.\nMonday 1st March 1858 # During the apparition, Aquero stood on top off a rosebush. Onlookers climbed over the grotto, disturbing the bush so that Bernadette feared she would fall; but Aquero just smiled at everyone. To Bernadette, she always seemed sorry to leave everyone.\nWhen Aquero had left, a heavily pregnant woman called Catherine Latapie washed two of her paralyzed fingers in the spring and was immediately healed. This became the first approved miracle of Lourdes. She then walked 9km home and gave birth the next day!\nTuesday 2nd March 1858 # Aquero pleas with Bernadette for the priests to come in procession and build a chapel at the grotto. She goes straight to Fr. Peyramale, but he accuses her of lying about the apparitions.\n“I needed tenacity. Father paced up and down saying, \u0026ldquo;A chapel, A chapel! Who will pay for it? And if your Lady wants processions, she should send you to the Bishop, not to me. You don\u0026rsquo;t even know her name. Ridiculous.\u0026quot;”\nSt. Bernadette.\nWednesday 3rd March 1858 # Aquero came in the evening, stood above the rosebush. She greeted Bernadette, bowed, and then made the sign of the Cross. Bernadette asked for her name. Aquero did not answer, only smiling.\nThursday 4th March 1858 # Over 8000 people gathered around the grotto. Bernadette prayed and spoke with Aquero under the roof of the grotto for an hour. She asked her name again. Aquero only smiled. Afterwards, Bernadette again went to Fr. Peyramale. In a tone so soft, he told her: “\u0026ldquo;If I knew it was the Blessed Virgin, I would do all she desires.\u0026quot;”\nThursday 25th March 1858 # Bernadette was woken in the middle of the night with an inner insistence to go to the grotto. Aquero was already there, waiting for her. Bernadette knelt down and they said the rosary together. She told Aquero she loved her and how happy she was to see her again.\nDesperate, Bernadette asked her name four times. Finally, she answered. Press play to hear Aquero\u0026rsquo;s exact reply:\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\nUntil that moment, her two arms had been extended, but now she folded her hands together at her breast, and, raising her eyes to heaven, she said: “Que soy era Immaculada Conceptiou\u0026rdquo;. These were the last words she said to me”.\nSt Bernadette1, in English, this translate to: “I am the Immaculate Conception”.\nJust four years earlier, Pope Pius IX had infallibly declared that Mary was immaculately conceived. Bernadette, a poor, illiterate girl, had never heard this before and did not know what it meant. The only way she could remember it, whilst immediately going to tell Fr. Peyramale, was by repeating it over and over again.\nFr. Peyramale looked deathly pale when Bernadette told her. A man of deep faith, that very night, he wrote to his bishop with many tears. This is how the Sanctuary of our Lady of Lourdes began.\nWednesday 7th April 1858 # The apparition began around 5am and included the miracle of the candle, witnessed by hundreds. Whilst in a deep trance, Bernadette joined her hands, so that they were positioned above the flame of her candle. She remained in this position for about 15 minutes, the flame leaving no marks and her showing no sign of pain.\nWhen Our Lady left, I noticed Doctor Dozous beside me. He took my lighted candle and placed it under my left hand. I snatched my hand away. \u0026ldquo;Sir, you are burning me,\u0026rdquo; I cried. Only later did I learn that during Mary\u0026rsquo;s visit, the flame of my candle had engulfed the fingers and palm of my left hand. To the doctor\u0026rsquo;s amazement, neither fingers nor palm had burned.\nSt Bernadette1\nFriday 16th July 1858 # From June, the police began fining visitors and guards blocked the entrance to the grotto. But Bernadette felt the familiar compulsion to go to the grotto. Entering by a road from the other side of the river, she saw Our Lady of Lourdes for the last time. She didn’t say anything, but to Bernadette, she looked more beautiful than she had ever seen.\nChurch Approval # As our Lady of Lourdes had promised. Bernadette did not have an easy life after the apparitions. She was questioned by the police, threatened with prison and shunned by the local people. Many thought she was making it up, including, at first, her own family!\nShortly after the apparitions, the local bishop opened an investigation. Due the amount of evidence, this took over 2 years, and included many interviews with Bernadette and those who claimed to have received miracles. Finally, in January 1862, the conclusion came:\nWe judge that the Immaculate Mary, Mother of God, did in actual fact appear to Bernadette Soubirous on the 11th February, 1858, and on the days following, to the number of 18 times.\nBertrand Severe Laurence, Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, 1862 2\nSince then, our Lady of Lourdes has become one of the most visited Marian shrines in the world, attracting millions of pilgrims every year.\nMiracles # From the time of Bernadette, thousands have claimed to receive miracles at Lourdes. The Catholic Church rigorously test these claims with the help of scientists.3 As of 2026, there have been 72 verified miracles. These include healing from paralysis, tuberculosis, spinal pain and blindness.\nModern scientists continue to study the miracles of Lourdes. If you think science is incompatible with faith, then their conclusions may surprise you:\n\u0026ldquo;Uncanny and weird, the cures are currently beyond our understanding but still impressive, incredibly effective, and awaiting a scientific explanation.\u0026rdquo;\nBernard François, emeritus professor of medicine, Université Claude Bernard, 2014 4\nOur Lady of Lourdes Sanctuary # The Message of Lourdes # As I wrote this article, I prayed to St Bernadette for help. I felt in my heart that to conclude, I should tell you the meaning of all this. Our Lady of Lourdes asked Bernadette, all those years ago, to graciously come to the grotto for 15 days. She asks us too, today, to set aside time to come to her.\nThe message of Lourdes is one of repentance. As we come to Mary, she will again teach us the way of prayer and holiness. She will lead us to her Son, Jesus.\nSources: # 1 McEachern, P.A., 2010. A Holy Life: The Writings of St. Bernadette. Ignatius Press.\n2 Fletcher, A.H.S., 1958. Lourdes, 1858 to 1957. Central African Journal of Medicine, 4(10), pp.446-450.\n3 Dowling, S.J., 1984. Lourdes cures and their medical assessment. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 77(8), pp.634-638.\n4 François, B., Sternberg, E.M. and Fee, E., 2014. The Lourdes medical cures revisited. Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences, 69(1), pp.135-162.\n","date":"21 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/our-lady-of-lourdes-apparitions-to-bernadette/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Our Lady of Lourdes: 18 Apparitions to St Bernadette","type":"articles"},{"content":" The Difference Between Catholic and ChristianEver since I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism I’ve had people ask, “What’s the difference between Roman Catholics and Christians?”\nOverlooking the question’s weird phrasing (after all, Catholics are Christians), I’ve always been happy to answer.\nIn short, there are many types of Christians:\nCatholics Orthodox (e.g. Russian, Coptic, etc.) Protestants (e.g. Baptists, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, etc.) When most people ask about the difference between Christians and Catholics, they’re really asking about the difference between Catholics and Protestants.\nAnd since Protestantism itself is so varied, I’ll be focusing on Evangelicals and Baptists, the largest Protestant tradition in the US and the ones most readers usually mean.[1]\nEvangelicals and Baptists share most of the core teachings of Christianity with Catholics (the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, His resurrection), but here are 12 key differences in beliefs…\nDifferences Between Catholics and Protestants # Scripture Tradition Sin Salvation and Justification The Cross The Afterlife Relationship with Jesus The Eucharist Priesthood Peter Mother Mary Saints 1. Scripture # Catholics and Protestants differ in their approach to the Word of God.\nCatholic Bibles have 73 books compared to Protestantism’s 66 books. Protestants view Scripture through the lens of “Sola Scriptura” (“by Scripture alone” in English), whereas Catholics don’t. These two differences largely trace back to the 16th-century Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, though doubts about the extra books were much older than him, since even St. Jerome had questioned them.[2]\nIn his 1534 Bible, Luther moved Tobit, Judith, 1 \u0026amp; 2 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah and additions to Esther and Daniel out of the Old Testament proper and into an appendix titled “Apocrypha: Books which are not held equal to Holy Scripture, but are useful and good to read”.[3]\nBut he didn’t remove them from the Bible entirely. Protestant Bibles kept printing the Apocrypha for nearly three more centuries, until the British and Foreign Bible Society stopped funding it in the 1820s.[4]\nHe also considered Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation “disputed books” and doubted their divine inspiration.[5]\nHe also popularized a new way of viewing the Bible: Luther saw the Bible alone as containing the totality of God’s revelation to mankind and as the sole authority to guide the Church and a Christian’s life.[6]\nLuther’s personal interpretations of the Bible led him to reject many Traditions of the Catholic Church that he felt were not supported by those books of the Bible he recognised.\nAfter his death, this view of Luther evolved to mean that all Christians can interpret and understand Scripture individually without the help of an authoritative Church.[7]\nMeanwhile, the Catholic Church retained its 73-book canon (formally defined at the Council of Trent in 1546, partly in response to the Reformation) and rejected the notion of Sola Scriptura.[8]\n2. Tradition # “Christ Giving the Keys to St. Peter” painted by Bernardo Castello in 1598AD.\nThe Catholic Church believes its origin can be found in the words of Jesus to Peter in Matthew 16:18, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”\nIt also believes that Jesus promised, through His Holy Spirit, to guide His Church into “all truth”[9] and make it the “pillar of truth”.[10]\nCatholics see this truth as having been communicated orally as well as written down.[11]\nHence, oral Traditions that have their source in Jesus and are definitively taught by this Holy Spirit-guided Church are held with the same reverence as the Bible.[12]\nThis same Sacred Tradition, protected by the Holy Spirit, is also believed to have helped codify the Bible and help know which books should be included in it.[13]\nMerely historical or cultural traditions that don’t have their source in Jesus are not considered as authoritative as the Bible. (This distinction is often shown through the capitalization “tradition” vs. “Tradition”.)[14]\nProtestants, while recognising the usefulness of some historical or cultural traditions (lowercase), do not believe in Sacred Tradition (uppercase) and so tend to see the Bible as a standalone authority that exists almost in a vacuum.\n3. Sin # Both Catholics and Protestants believe mankind is born into a fallen state, though they describe its effects differently.\nSome Protestants, especially those in the Reformed tradition, see original sin as the “total depravity” of man, whose fallen descendants are “dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body”.[15] Baptists put it more mildly: the Southern Baptist Convention’s statement of faith says Adam’s descendants “inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin”.[16] That’s actually closer to the Catholic description: human nature “has not been totally corrupted”, but is “wounded” and “inclined to evil”.[17]\nWhere the real difference lies is in how sin is categorised. Evangelicals and Baptists do not split sin into formal categories, whereas Catholics distinguish between sins that “lead to death” and sins that don’t: mortal and venial sins respectively.[18] Even some Protestants half-share that distinction, since the Westminster Larger Catechism admits some sins “are more heinous in the sight of God than others”.[19]\nThe practical difference is that Catholics believe mortal sins deprive the soul of grace and must ordinarily be confessed to a priest to be forgiven. Though not always: perfect contrition (sorrow for sin out of love for God) also obtains forgiveness, provided it includes the resolve to go to confession afterwards.[20] (More on that difference here.)\n4. Salvation and Justification # Protestants typically see salvation as a past, one-time event when they accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.\nBaptists and Evangelicals are also often taught that “all true believers endure to the end”, that a person saved by faith can never fall away from grace.[21]\nCatholics see salvation as a past, present and future event that they can potentially squander and must “work out” until death.[22]\nThey believe a person is “justified by works and not by faith alone”.[23] Not in the sense that they must do good works in order to be forgiven, but that they’re saved by an active faith that is formed by love and which is not an unconditional “golden ticket” to heaven.\nOther Protestants, Arminians such as Methodists, Wesleyans and most Pentecostals, agree salvation can be forfeited.\nStill, this old battle has cooled a lot on paper. In 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation jointly declared that “a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics”, and Methodist, Anglican and Reformed world bodies have since affirmed it.[24]\n5. The Cross # Protestants typically interpret the cross in terms of punishment and substitution: Christ bearing in man’s place the penalty his sin deserved: “upon him was the punishment that made us whole”.[25]\nThe Catholic Church has never dogmatically defined one theory of the Cross, but since St. Anselm’s writings in the 11th-century, Catholic theologians have usually described it similarly while preferring “satisfaction” and “obedience” to “punishment”.[26]\nIn this view, the cross was Jesus’ restitution or “satisfaction” for mankind’s sin by His perfect obedience to the Father’s will.[27]\nThis type of language is also expressed in Philippians 2:8: “He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.”\n6. The Afterlife # Catholics and Protestants believe in heaven and hell as two possible places people go after death.\nCatholics also believe in an intermediary state called Purgatory where righteous people go temporarily to be fully purified and to finish making reparation for the temporal punishment due to sins.[28]\nNote: when God forgives a sin, its eternal punishment is remitted, but temporal punishment remains, though these punishments aren’t thought of as “a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without”, but as following “from the very nature of sin” itself.[29] 7. Relationship with Jesus # Protestants such as Baptists and Evangelicals emphasise a personal relationship with Jesus that is communicated entirely heart-to-heart.\nThey also sometimes see the external rules and rituals of Catholicism as stifling that heart-to-heart relationship.\nCatholics also believe in a heart-to-heart, personal relationship with Jesus (“not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person”, as Pope Benedict XVI put it[30]), though one that blossoms and is kept safe by the help of Christ’s Church and sacraments.[31]\n8. The Eucharist # Catholics believe the bread and wine, under the action of the priest, substantially become Jesus’ body and blood.[32]\nFor this reason, Catholics consider the Eucharist the centre of the Christian life and offering it the highest form of worship to God.[33]\nMost Protestants such as Evangelicals and Baptists believe that the bread and wine in Holy Communion are only symbolic of Jesus’ body and blood.\nBecause of this symbolic view, their worship services usually centre on preaching the Bible and congregational praise, and they see the Eucharist (i.e. “the Lord’s Supper”) simply as a way to remember Jesus’ sacrifice.\nThis is usually what an Evangelical or Baptist will think of as a worship service, but worship is construed differently by Catholics.\n9. Priesthood # Baptists and Evangelicals don’t believe in a specific New Testament priesthood but think that all believers are priests in a general sense. And they have Scripture on their side: Christians are called “a royal priesthood” in 1 Peter 2:9.[34]\nCatholics wholeheartedly agree with this general sense,[35] but they also believe in a specific priesthood that started with the Twelve Apostles and was passed down through the centuries[36]: the doctrine of Apostolic succession, which Baptists and Evangelicals reject.\n10. Peter # Catholics believe Peter was the chief Apostle who was given special authority by Jesus.[37]\nEarly Christian writers record that, at the time of his death in Rome, Peter was succeeded by a man called Linus, and that each bishop of Rome has since passed that authority on to a successor.[38]\nAnd so for Catholics, the current Pope is a direct successor to Peter and shares his authority.\nWhile Protestants such as Baptists and Evangelicals more-or-less agree that Peter was the chief Apostle, they don’t typically believe in Apostolic succession.\nHence, they do not believe Peter has a living successor.\n11. Mother Mary # Most modern Protestants (especially Baptists and Evangelicals) see Mary simply as a devout woman chosen to be the mother of Jesus.\nBut it wasn’t always so among Protestants: Martin Luther affirmed her perpetual virginity all his life, and most of the early Reformers embraced the ancient Church’s teaching on her.[39] Catholics still hold that older view: they believe that Scripture and Tradition teach she was a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived, assumed into heaven, and coronated the Queen of Heaven too.[40]\nTwo of those beliefs were only formally defined in modern times (the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the Assumption in 1950), though the Church holds both were always part of the faith.[41]\n12. Saints # Some Protestants such as Evangelicals like to call all baptised Christians “saints”.\nCatholics recognise the validity and biblical-origin of this language though aren’t prone to use it since it has become a title in the Catholic Church.\n“Saint” (with the uppercase “S”), is a title normally only ascribed to canonized saints that the Church have investigated and found worthy of imitation.\nMoreover, Protestants don’t usually ask deceased saints to pray for them as Catholics do, with some even considering it idolatrous.\nBut Catholics see the Church on Earth and the Church in Heaven as one communion, “a great cloud of witnesses”, and so ask saints to pray for them in the same way they may ask a friend on Earth to pray for them.[42]\nPlease note that this was a basic introduction to these real (and sometimes contentious) differences between Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians.\nFootnotes: # 1. Pew Research Center’s 2015 demographic study, America’s Changing Religious Landscape: the Evangelical tradition (which includes Baptist denominations) is the largest Christian tradition in the US at 25.4% of adults, ahead of Catholics (20.8%) and Mainline Protestants (14.7%). ↑\n2. St. Jerome repeatedly expressed doubt that the “second canon” books belonged to Scripture, following the Jewish canon he learnt while translating the Hebrew Bible, though he still translated them into Latin for the Church’s use. See his “Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings” (the “helmed preface”), which relegates them to the apocrypha. ↑\n3. The 1534 Luther Bible’s Apocrypha title page reads: “Apocrypha. These books are not held to be equal to Holy Scripture, but they are useful and good to read.” — The Gruber Collection, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago. ↑\n4. Even the 1611 King James Bible contained the Apocrypha. The British and Foreign Bible Society, after funding Apocrypha-containing Bibles on the continent until 1822, resolved in 1826–27 never to fund editions containing it, and it largely vanished from Protestant Bibles afterwards. See the Society’s 1825 “Statement of the Bible Society concerning the Apocrypha” and William Canton’s “A History of the British and Foreign Bible Society”, chapter XXIX. ↑\n5. “Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow [i.e. Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation] have from ancient times had a different reputation.” — Martin Luther’s preface to Hebrews. ↑\n6. “A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it…neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture.” — Roland H. Bainton’s book “Here I Stand”, page 117. ↑\n7. “…most Protestants have adopted a subjective and individualistic version of sola scriptura that bears little resemblance to the doctrine of the Reformers.” — Keith A. Mathisons’s introduction to “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”, pages 13-14. ↑\n8. “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures” from the 4th session of the Council of Trent. ↑\n9. John 16:13 ↑\n10. 1 Timothy 3:15 ↑\n11. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and the “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures” from the 4th session of the Council of Trent: “…seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions.” ↑\n12. “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” — Dei verbum, chapter 2, point 9. ↑\n13. “It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.” — Dei verbum, chapter 2, point 10. ↑\n14. “The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit… This is different from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 83. ↑\n15. “By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.” — The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 6, section 2. ↑\n16. “…his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” — The Baptist Faith and Message, article 3 (“Man”), adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000. ↑\n17. “…human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin — an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence’.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 405. ↑\n18. 1 John 5:16 ↑\n19. “All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.” — Westminster Larger Catechism, question 150. ↑\n20. “Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1452. ↑\n21. “All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end.” — The Baptist Faith and Message, article 5 (“God’s Purpose of Grace”). ↑\n22. Philippians 2:12 ↑\n23. James 2:24 ↑\n24. “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” (1999), points 5 and 40-41. It was affirmed by the World Methodist Council in 2006 and later associated with by the Anglican Consultative Council and the World Communion of Reformed Churches. ↑\n25. Isaiah 53:5 ↑\n26. “Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 615. ↑\n27. “Anselm did not teach penal substitution. Yes, he brought to prominence the vocabulary of ‘satisfaction’, which became important in later formulations. But in Anselm’s feudal thought-world, it was God’s honour that needed to be satisfied by substitutionary obedience, not his justice by substitutionary penalty.” — Response to N.T. Wright’s criticism of “Pierced for Our Transgressions” from the authors. ↑\n28. 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, Matthew 5:25-26, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. ↑\n29. “The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains… These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1472-1473. ↑\n30. “Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.” — Pope Benedict XVI’s “Deus Caritas Est”, paragraph 1. ↑\n31. “The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian’s life of faith.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1210. ↑\n32. John 6:32–71, 1 Corinthians 10:16–17, 11:23–29, St. Ignatius of Antioch’s “Letter to the Romans” (7:3), “Letter to the Smyrnaeans” (chapter 7). ↑\n33. Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1324. ↑\n34. 1 Peter 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9 ↑\n35. “Christ the Lord, High Priest taken from among men, made the new people ‘a kingdom and priests to God the Father’.” — Lumen gentium, chapter 2, paragraph 10. ↑\n36. Lumen gentium (chapter 2). ↑\n37. Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17, and more found here. ↑\n38. Eusebius of Caesarea’s “Church History” (3:4:9–10, 5:28:3), St. Ireneaus of Lyon’s “Against Heresies” (3:3:3), St. Epiphanius of Salamis’s “Medicine Chest Against All Heresies” (Section II), etc. ↑\n39. For many of the Protestant reformers (e.g. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin), their theological commitments included Mary’s perpetual virginity and even the assumption of her sinlessness. — “Virginity in the Christian Tradition” (citing Beth Kreitzer, 2004), page 9. Luther repeatedly affirmed that Mary remained a virgin after Christ’s birth. ↑\n40. See here for biblical support. ↑\n41. Pope Pius IX’s “Ineffabilis Deus” (1854) defined the Immaculate Conception; Pope Pius XII’s “Munificentissimus Deus” (1950) defined the Assumption. ↑\n42. Revelation 5:8, Revelation 8:3-4, Hebrews 12:1, Matthew 17:3, Mark 12:27, and see here for more. ↑\n","date":"21 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/difference-between-catholic-and-christian/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"12 Differences Between Catholics and Christians","type":"articles"},{"content":"Have you ever seen Catholics make a cross gesture with one of their hands? Well, it’s called making the Sign of the Cross.\nHow to Make the Sign of the Cross # The goal is to make a shape of the Cross on your body. Using your right hand, touch your…\n1. Forehead.\n2. Chest.\n3. Left shoulder.\n4. Right shoulder.\nIf you want, you can also make this shape with your right hand…\nThis is called the hand of Benediction and is seen in ancient Christian art. The two upright fingers, pressed together, represent how Jesus is both fully God and fully man, united together in His one person. The bottom three fingers represent the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.1\nIt’s a traditional hand gesture for blessings. Although some scholars think it may originate from someone who had nerve damage in their hand! 2\nIf you don’t want to do that, you can just make this gesture instead.\nSigning the Cross throughout History # As you can probably tell, you can sign the Cross in different ways, and Christians have throughout history. The oldest surviving mention goes back to Tertullian in the early 3rd century.\n\u0026ldquo;At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign\u0026rdquo;. 3\nNote that the signing of the Cross was on the forehead. This goes back to Bible verses such as Ezekiel 9:7 and Revelation 7:3, 9:4, and 14:1, which describe God’s seal being on peoples’ forehead.\nBut Tertullian also tells us about a woman signing the Cross over her bed,4 and in 404AD, St. Jerome tells us that Christians were signing the Cross on their mouth and chest too5 —Catholics still do this for the Gospel reading at mass!\nRight to Left # By the 9th century in the East, the signing of the Cross was done over the body like this, with the hand of Benediction:\nForehead. Chest. Right shoulder. Left shoulder. This was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which taught that Jesus only had one nature. Catholics wanted to emphasise the two natures of Christ, and the hand of Benediction, signed over the body, clearly showed this.4\nBut notice that they signed the right shoulder first instead of the left. This seems to have been the original way of making the larger Cross sign that we’re used to today.\nLeft to Right # Western Christians began to copy the East, but some started signing left to right instead.4 There was diversity for a while. Pope Innocent III in the 12th century mentions the sign of the Cross over the body, but he doesn’t say which shoulder should come first.\nBy the end of the 14th century, Mirror of our Lady, written by the nuns of Syon Abbey in England, has an apparition of Mary teaching the sign of the Cross left to right.4 We can only guess that left to right became common in the West from around here on out.\nToday, left to right is how most Catholics sign the Cross, whereas Orthodox Christians sign right to left. Some more traditional Protestant denominations (such as Lutherans and Anglicans) also make the sign of the Cross.\nSigning of the Cross meaning # For Catholics, it signifies those who…\n\u0026quot;… belong to him and signifies the grace of the redemption Christ won for us by his cross.\u0026quot;\nCatechism of the Catholic Church 6\nIt’s a reminder that we belong to Jesus Christ and how His death on the Cross means we can be forgiven and set free.\nSigning the Cross is a sacramental, which is a sacred sign that helps us receive and cooperate with God’s grace.7\nAnother Way to Pray # Sometimes people treat the signing of the Cross like it’s a superstitious or strange thing, but really, it’s just another way to pray. The apostle Paul teaches Christians:\n\u0026ldquo;Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.\u0026rdquo;\nRomans 12:1.\nIn my opinion, we don’t just communicate with God through words, or our mind—we’re supposed to use our body too. Signing the Cross is one way to do this.\nIt’s a powerful prayer. St. Augustine, in City of God tells about a woman who was healed of breast cancer after someone signed the Cross over her.8\nSo, whichever way you do it, and whatever type of Christian you are, why not start making the sign of the Cross?\nSources: # 1 Tristan, F., Buculei, E. and Boroş, A., 2002. Primele imagini creştine: de la simbol la icoană, secolele II-VI. Meridiane.\n2 Futterman, B., 2015. Analysis of the papal benediction sign: the ulnar neuropathy of St. Peter. Clinical Anatomy, 28(6), pp.696-701.\n3 Tertullian, late 2nd or early 3rd century. De Corona, chapter 3.\n4 Ghezzi, B., 2004. The sign of the cross: Recovering the power of the ancient prayer. Loyola Press.\n5 St. Jerome, 404AD. Letter 108, paragraph 21.\n6 Catholic Church (1992). Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1235. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P58.HTM#$1WR. Accessed on: 06/04/24.\n7 Catholic Church (1992). Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1670. Available at: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P58.HTM#$1WR. Accessed on: 06/04/24.\n8 St. Augustine, early 5th century. City of God, Book 22, chapter 8.\n","date":"20 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/signing-of-the-cross-what-does-it-mean-how-do-you-do-it/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Signing of the Cross: What Does It Mean? How Do You Do It?","type":"articles"},{"content":"Click here for a complete list, courtesy of Tatian of Syria (see below).\nLike me, many have tried putting the miracles of Jesus in order. Despite what some claim, Jesus did not only perform 37 miracles1, and there’s no definitive order to them.\nThe truth is, the earliest sources, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, provide different accounts…\nJesus’ Miracles in Order # # Matthew Mark Luke John 1 Healing every disease and sickness - 4:23 Exorcises man in the synagogue - 1:25-26 Exorcises man in the synagogue - 4:33-35 Jesus saw Nathaniel under the fig tree – 1:48 2 Heals diseases, torments, possessed, epileptics and paralytics – 4:24 Heals Peter’s mother-in-law - 1:30-31 Heals Peter’s mother-in-law - 4:38-39 Water into wine - 2:7-9 3 Heals leper - 8:3 Cast out many demons – 1:34 Heals every one of them - 4:41 Predicts death and resurrection – 2:19 4 Heals centurion’s servant – 8:13 Heals many – 1:34 Cast out many demons – 4:41 Jesus knew all people – 2:24 5 Heals Peter’s mother-in-law - 8:14-15 Casts out devils - 1:39 Miraculous catch of fish - 5:4-6 Woman at the well - 4:17-18 6 Cast out many demons - 8:16 Heals leper – 1:41 Heals leper – 5:13 Heals an official’s son - 4:50-51 7 Healed all who were sick – 8:16 Heals paralysed man - 2:12 Heals paralysed man - 5:24-25 Heals lame man - 5:8 8 Calming of the storm – 8:26 Heals man’s withered hand - 3:5 Heals man’s withered hand - 6:10 Feeding of the 5000 - 6:11-12 9 Healing of Gadarene demoniac - 8:32 Healed many and casted out impure spirits – 3:10-11 Cured impure spirits and power went out from him and healed all - 6:18-19 Walking on water - 6:19 10 Heals paralysed man - 9:6-7 Calming of the storm - 4:39 Those troubled with evil spirits were cured – 6:18 Boat immediately arrives at destination – 6:21 11 Heals sick woman - 9:22 Healing of Gerasene demoniac - 5:13 Power came out from him and healed all – 6:19 Judas’ betrayal known beforehand - 6:70 12 Raises Jairus’ daughter – 9:25 Heals sick woman - 5:29 Heals centurion’s servant - 7:10 Jesus could see the past – 8:56 13 Heals two blind men - 9:29-30 Raises Jairus’ daughter – 5:41-42 Raising of widow’s son - 7:14-15 Heals man born blind – 9:6-7 14 Heals a mute man - 9:33 Feeding of the 5000 - 6:41-42 Women cured of evil spirits and diseases - 8:2 Predicts death and resurrection - 10:17 15 Healing every disease and sickness - 9:35 Walking on water - 6:48 Calming of the storm - 8:24 Raising of Lazarus - 11:43-44 16 Heals man’s withered hand – 12:13 Wind dies down immediately – 6:51 Healing of Gerasene demoniac - 8:32-33 Predicts death and resurrection - 12:32 17 Healed great multitudes - 12:15 All who touched Jesus’ cloak were healed - 6:56 Heals sick woman - 8:44 Predicts his betrayal – 13:18-26 18 Heals deaf and mute man – 12:22 Heals Syrophoenician woman’s daughter - 7:29-30 Raises Jairus’ daughter - 8:55 Predicts Pentecost - 14:16 19 Predicts death and resurrection - 12:40 Heals deaf and mute man – 7:34-35 Healed those who needed healing - 9:11 Predicts Pentecost - 14:26 20 Heals a few people – 13:58 Feeds the 4000 – 8:7-8 Feeding of the 5000 - 9:16-17 Predicts Pentecost - 15:26 21 Had compassion and healed their sick – 14:14 Heals blind man at Bethsaida – 8:23-25 Predicts death and resurrection – 9:22 Predicts Pentecost – 16:7 22 Feeding of the 5000 - 14:19-20 Predicts death and resurrection – 8:31 The transfiguration - 9:29 Predicts Pentecost – 16:13 23 Walking on water - 14:25 The transfiguration - 9:2-3 Heals demon-possessed boy - 9:42 Predicts death and resurrection - 16:16 24 Wind dies down immediately - 14:32 Predicts death and resurrection - 9:9 Predicts death and resurrection – 9:44 Predicts death – 16:28 25 All who touched Jesus’ cloak were healed - 14:36 Heals demon-possessed boy - 9:25-26 Heals mute man – 11:14 Predicts the disciples will abandon him – 16:32 26 Heals Canaanite woman’s daughter - 15:28 Predicts death and resurrection - 9:31 Predicts death and resurrection – 11:29 Predicts death – 17:11 27 Heals all: the mute, maimed, lame, and blind – 15:30-31 Predicts death and resurrection – 10:33-34 Straightens crippled woman - 13:13 Predicts death – 17:13 28 Feeds the 4000 - 15:36-37 Heals blind Bartimaeus - 10:52 Predicts the crowds response to the Triumphal Entry – 13:35 Display of power – 18:6 29 Predicts death and resurrection - 16:4 Foreknowledge about the donkey – 11:2-6 Heals man with abdominal swelling - 14:4 The resurrection – 20:14 30 Predicts death and resurrection - 16:21 Curses fig tree - 11:21 Heals 10 lepers - 17:14 Jesus inexplicably appears - 20:19 31 The transfiguration – 17:2 Predicts destruction of the temple - 13:2 Predicts death and resurrection – 18:31-33 Jesus inexplicably appears - 20:26 32 Predicts death and resurrection - 17:9 Predicts the siege of Jerusalem - 13:14 Heals blind Bartimaeus - 18:43 Miraculous catch of fish - 21:6 33 Heals demon-possessed boy - 17:18 Predicts the woman with the alabaster jar will be remembered – 14:9 Foreknowledge about the donkey - 19:30-34 Prophecies Peter’s death by crucifixion - 21:18 34 Predicts death and resurrection – 17:23 Foreknowledge about man carrying a jar – 14:13 Predicts the sack of Jerusalem - 19:43-44 35 Predicts coin in fish’s mouth - 17:27 Predicts his betrayal – 14:18-21 Predicts destruction of the temple - 21:6 36 Healed all in the great multitude - 19:2 Predicts death and resurrection - 14:28 Predicts the siege of Jerusalem – 21:20-21 37 Predicts death and resurrection – 20:18-19 Predicts Peter’s betrayal - 14:30 Foreknowledge about man carrying a jar – 22:10 38 Heals two blind men - 20:34 Predicts Judas’ betrayal - 14:42 Predicts his betrayal – 22:21 39 Foreknowledge about the donkey – 21:2-6 The Resurrection – 16:14 Predicts Peter’s betrayal - 22:34 40 Heals the blind and lame at the temple - 21:14 The Ascension – 16:19 Heals the servant’s ear - 22:51 41 Curses fig tree - 21:18 The Resurrection 24:15 42 Predicts destruction of the temple - 24:2 Jesus veiled his appearance - 24:16 43 Predicts the siege of Jerusalem – 24:15-16 Jesus inexplicably disappears - 24:31 44 Predicts his crucifixion – 26:2 Jesus inexplicably appears - 24:36 45 Predicts the woman with the alabaster jar will be remembered – 26:13 Predicts Pentecost – 24:49 46 Predicts his betrayal - 26:21-25 The Ascension - 24:51 47 Predicts death and resurrection - 26:32 48 Predicts Peter’s betrayal – 26:34 49 Predicts Judas’ betrayal - 26:46 50 The Resurrection 28:9 Click here to download this table.\nContradictions in the Gospels? # Whilst there are many similarities, there are differences too. Matthew records 50 miracles of Jesus. Mark give us 40 and Luke tells us about 46. John only records 33 of Jesus’ miracles! Some might say these are examples of Gospel contradictions. But here’s the interesting thing…\nThe apostles weren’t too concerned about the internal harmony of the Gospels. Papias, a 1st century Christian, tells us that St Peter:\n“\u0026hellip; had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings.”\nExposition of the Sayings of the Lord2\nI would argue this applies to his miracles too. But is it possible to know the chronological order of Jesus’ miracles?\nTatian’s diatessaron # The diatessaron of Tatian was the first known attempt to bring harmony to the Gospels. Tatian was a 2nd century Christian, and his work was very popular. It was used authoritatively in Syriac-Christian communities until the 9th century!3 But what is the diatessaron?\nDiatessaron means ‘through four’, referring to the four Gospels. Tatian attempted to combine Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and place them in chronological order into one book. Let’s see how Tatian’s diatessaron puts Jesus’ miracles in order…\nChronological order of Jesus’ miracles # # Matthew Mark Luke John 1 Jesus saw Nathaniel under the fig tree – 1:48 2 Water into wine - 2:7-9 3 Miraculous catch of fish - 5:4-6 4 Heals an official’s son - 4:50-51 5 Exorcises man in the synagogue - 1:25-26 Exorcises man in the synagogue - 4:33-35 6 Heals Peter’s mother-in-law - 8:14-15 Heals Peter’s mother-in-law - 1:30-31 Heals Peter’s mother-in-law - 4:38-39 7 Cast out many demons - 8:16 Cast out many demons – 1:34 Cast out many demons – 4:41 8 Heals many – 8:16 Heals many – 1:3 4 Heals many - 4:41 9 Healing every disease and sickness - 4:23 10 Casts out devils - 1:39 11 Heals diseases, torments, possessed, epileptics and paralytics – 4:24 12 Heals paralysed man - 9:6-7 Heals paralysed man - 2:12 Heals paralysed man - 5:24-25 13 Heals man’s withered hand – 12:13 Heals man’s withered hand - 3:5 Heals man’s withered hand - 6:10 14 Healed great multitudes - 12:15 15 Healed many and casted out impure spirits – 3:10-11 16 Cured impure spirits and power went out from him and healed all - 6:18-19 17 Heals centurion’s servant – 8:13 Heals centurion’s servant - 7:10 18 Raising of widow’s son - 7:14-15 19 Calming of the storm – 8:26 Calming of the storm - 4:39 Calming of the storm - 8:24 20 Healing of Gadarene demoniac - 8:32 Healing of Gerasene demoniac - 5:13 Healing of Gerasene demoniac - 8:32-33 21 Heals sick woman - 9:22 Heals sick woman - 5:29 Heals sick woman - 8:44 22 Raises Jairus’ daughter – 9:25 Raises Jairus’ daughter – 5:41-42 Raises Jairus’ daughter - 8:55 23 Heals two blind men - 9:29-30 24 Heals a mute man - 9:33 25 Healing every disease and sickness - 9:35 26 Heals mute man – 11:14 27 Heals deaf and mute man – 12:22 28 Jesus knew all people – 2:24 29 Predicts death and resurrection – 12:40 Predicts death and resurrection – 11:29 30 Heals mute man -11:14 31 Healed a few people – 13:58 Healed a few people - 6:5 32 Women cured of evil spirits and diseases - 8:2 33 Had compassion and healed their sick – 14:14 Healed those who needed healing - 9:11 34 Feeding of the 5000 - 14:19-20 Feeding of the 5000 - 6:41-42 Feeding of the 5000 - 9:16-17 Feeding of the 5000 - 6:11-12 35 Walking on water - 14:25 Walking on water - 6:48 Walking on water - 6:19 36 Wind dies down immediately - 14:32 Wind dies down immediately – 6:51 37 Boat immediately arrives at destination – 6:21 38 All who touched Jesus’ cloak were healed - 14:36 All who touched Jesus’ cloak were healed - 6:56 39 Judas’ betrayal known beforehand - 6:70 40 Heals Canaanite woman’s daughter - 15:28 Heals Syrophoenician woman’s daughter - 7:29-30 41 Heals deaf and mute man – 7:34-35 42 Woman at the well - 4:17-18 43 Heals leper - 8:3 Heals leper – 1:41 Heals leper – 5:13 44 Heals lame man - 5:8 45 Heals all: the mute, maimed, lame, and blind – 15:30-31 46 Feeds the 4000 - 15:36-37 Feeds the 4000 – 8:7-8 47 Heals blind man at Bethsaida – 8:23-25 48 Predicts death and resurrection - 16:21 Predicts death and resurrection – 8:31 49 The transfiguration – 17:2 The transfiguration - 9:2-3 The transfiguration - 9:29 50 Predicts death and resurrection - 17:9 Predicts death and resurrection - 9:9 51 Heals demon-possessed boy - 17:18 Heals demon-possessed boy - 9:25-26 Heals demon-possessed boy - 9:42 52 Predicts death and resurrection – 17:23 Predicts death and resurrection - 9:31 Predicts death and resurrection – 9:44 53 Predicts coin in fish’s mouth - 17:27 54 Straightens crippled woman - 13:13 55 Healed all in the great multitude - 19:2 56 Heals man with abdominal swelling - 14:4 57 Heals 10 lepers - 17:14 58 Predicts death and resurrection – 20:18-19 Predicts death and resurrection – 10:33-34 Predicts death and resurrection – 18:31-33 59 Heals blind Bartimaeus - 10:52 Heals blind Bartimaeus - 18:43 60 Predicts death and resurrection – 2:19 61 Healed those in need of healing – 9:11 62 Curses fig tree - 21:18 Curses fig tree - 11:21 63 Jesus could see the past – 8:56 64 Heals man born blind – 9:6-7 65 Predicts death and resurrection - 10:17 66 Raising of Lazarus - 11:43-44 67 Foreknowledge about the donkey – 21:2-6 Foreknowledge about the donkey – 11:2-6 Foreknowledge about the donkey - 19:30-34 68 Predicts the sack of Jerusalem - 19:43-44 69 Heals the blind and lame at the temple - 21:14 70 Predicts death and resurrection - 12:32 71 Predicts destruction of the temple - 24:2 Predicts destruction of the temple - 13:2 Predicts destruction of the temple - 21:6 72 Predicts the siege of Jerusalem – 24:15-16 Predicts the siege of Jerusalem - 13:14 Predicts the siege of Jerusalem – 21:20-21 73 Predicts his crucifixion – 26:2 74 Predicts his betrayal - 26:21-25 Predicts his betrayal – 14:18-21 Predicts his betrayal – 22:21 Predicts his betrayal – 13:18-26 75 Predicts death and resurrection - 26:32 Predicts death and resurrection - 14:28 76 Predicts Peter’s betrayal – 26:34 Predicts Peter’s betrayal - 14:30 Predicts Peter’s betrayal - 22:34 77 Predicts Pentecost - 14:16 78 Predicts Pentecost - 14:26 79 Predicts Pentecost - 15:26 80 Predicts Pentecost – 16:7 81 Predicts Pentecost – 16:13 82 Predicts death and resurrection - 16:16 83 Predicts death – 16:28 84 Predicts the disciples will abandon him – 16:32 85 Predicts death – 17:11 86 Predicts death – 17:13 87 Predicts Judas’ betrayal - 26:46 Predicts Judas’ betrayal - 14:42 88 Display of power – 18:6 89 Heals the servant’s ear - 22:51 90 The Resurrection – 20:14 91 Jesus veiled his appearance - 24:16 92 Jesus inexplicably disappears - 24:31 93 Jesus inexplicably appears - 24:36 Jesus inexplicably appears - 20:19 94 Predicts Pentecost – 24:49 95 Jesus inexplicably appears - 20:26 96 Miraculous catch of fish - 21:6 97 Prophecies Peter’s death by crucifixion - 21:18 98 The Ascension – 16:19 The Ascension - 24:51 The harmony of the Gospels # According to Tatian’s diatessaron, the so-called 37 miracles become 98! Although the Gospel authors themselves did not provide a clear chronology, by placing the miracles of Jesus in order like this, I believe the diatessaron of Tatian shows it is possible to see harmony instead of contradictions in the Gospels.\nSources # 1 Willmington, H., 2018. An Introduction to the Miracles of Jesus Christ.\n2 Eusebius of Caesarea., 324-325. Ecclesiastical History. 3 Petersen, W.L., 2015. Tatian\u0026rsquo;s Diatessaron: its creation, dissemination, significance, and history in scholarship (Vol. 25). Brill.\n","date":"20 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/jesus-miracles-in-order-free-download/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Jesus’ Miracles in Order - Free Download","type":"articles"},{"content":" 1. Make the Sign of the Cross # .\nIn the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n2. Hold the crucifix - Apostles\u0026rsquo; Creed: # I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,\nand in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,\nwho was conceived by the Holy Spirit,\nborn of the Virgin Mary,\nsuffered under Pontius Pilate,\nwas crucified, died and was buried;\nHe descended into hell;\non the third day He rose again from the dead;\nHe ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;\nfrom there He will come to judge the living and the dead.\nI believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church,\nthe communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins,\nthe resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.\nAmen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n3. Hold first bead - Our Father # Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be your name;\nYour kingdom come; your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.\nGive us this day our daily bread;\nand forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us;\nand lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n4. Next three smaller beads - Hail Mary # Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee.\nBlessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.\nHoly Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.\nAmen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n5. Next bigger bead - Glory Be \u0026amp; Fatima Prayer # Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\nand\nO My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n6. Hold center medal - Remember what day / which mysteries # Joyful mysteries - Monday \u0026amp; Saturday\nSorrowful mysteries - Tuesday \u0026amp; Friday\nGlorious mysteries - Wednesday \u0026amp; Sunday\nLuminous mysteries - Thursday\n7. Next 10 beads - Hail Mary whilst meditating on 1st mystery # .\nHail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee.\nBlessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.\nHoly Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.\nAmen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n8. Next bigger bead - Glory Be \u0026amp; Fatima Prayer # Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\nand\nO My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n9. Next 10 beads - Hail Mary whilst meditating on 2nd mystery # .\nHail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee.\nBlessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.\nHoly Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.\nAmen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n10. Next bigger bead - Glory Be \u0026amp; Fatima Prayer # Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\nand\nO My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n11. Next 10 beads - Hail Mary whilst meditating on 3rd mystery # .\nHail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee.\nBlessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.\nHoly Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.\nAmen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n12. Next bigger bead - Glory Be \u0026amp; Fatima Prayer # Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\nand\nO My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n13. Next 10 beads - Hail Mary whilst meditating on 4th mystery # .\nHail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee.\nBlessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.\nHoly Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.\nAmen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n14. Next bigger bead - Glory Be \u0026amp; Fatima Prayer # Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\nand\nO My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n15. Next 10 beads - Hail Mary whilst meditating on 5th mystery # .\nHail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee.\nBlessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.\nHoly Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.\nAmen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n16. Central medal - Glory Be \u0026amp; Fatima Prayer # Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\nand\nO My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n17. Central medal - Hail, Holy Queen # Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy,\nhail, our life, our sweetness and our hope.\nTo thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve,\nto thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.\nTurn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us,\nand after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus;\nO clement, O loving, O sweet virgin Mary.\nPray for us, O Holy Mother of God,\nthat we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.\nAmen\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n18. Last Rosary Prayer # Let us pray, O God, whose only begotten Son,\nby His life, death, and resurrection,\nhas purchased for us the rewards of eternal life.\nGrant, we beseech Thee,\nthat while meditating on these mysteries of the most holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary,\nthat we may both imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise,\nthrough Christ our Lord.\nAmen.\nYour browser does not support the audio element.\n","date":"20 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/how-to-pray-the-rosary-step-by-step-for-beginners/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"How To Pray The Rosary Step By Step For Beginners","type":"articles"},{"content":"I grew up in an Protestant Charistmatic church that believed in speaking in tongues. Much later, I was surprised to learn that some Catholics do it too. But what is it?\nLet\u0026rsquo;s see what the Bible and has to say\u0026hellip;\nSpeak in Tongues Bible Verses: # - Acts 2:4 # All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.\nThis is the first time the Bible mentions it, on the day of Pentecost. Jesus\u0026rsquo; deciples recieve the Holy Spirit and suddenly speak in new languages. It\u0026rsquo;s clear that the ability came from God, and they hadn\u0026rsquo;t learnt these languages.1 It also sounds like there were all doing it.\n- Mark 16:17 # And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues.\nSome interpret this to mean that every Christian will speak in tongues. But it might not mean this—St. Ambrose didn\u0026rsquo;t think so.2\nWho are the signs for? They are for people who do not believe.3\n- Acts 2:11 # Cretans and Arabs—in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power.\nWe learn here that they are real languages. I also find the phrase \u0026ldquo;about God’s deeds of power\u0026rdquo; interesting; whilst speaking in tongues, they were praising God.\n- Acts 10:45-46 # The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.\nThey recognised they had received the Holy Spirit because they spoke in tongues. This time, speaking in tongues was a sign for other believers, showing them that gentiles should be baptised too.4\n- Acts 19:6 # When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.\nHere, the evidence is tongues and prophesying. In my opinion, this contradicts those who claim that tongues is the only proof of receiving the Holy Spirit.\n- 1 Corinthians 12:28 # And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues.\nThis implies that only those \u0026ldquo;appointed\u0026rdquo; speak in tongues. Perhaps Paul places tongues last in the list because the Corinthians boasted about how much they do it.5\n- 1 Corinthians 12:30 # Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?\nThe rhetorical answer is clearly \u0026ldquo;no\u0026rdquo;. This shows that not everyone is supposed to speak in tongues. If everyone had the same gifts, then we wouldn’t need each other.6\n- 1 Corinthians 13:1 # If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.\nMany assume this means that angels have their own language. However, “tongues of angels\u0026quot; instead refer to the different human languages that arose at Babel. This is based on Deuteronomy 32:8, which in the Greek tradition says that God set the boundaries of the nations “according to the number of the angels of God.” The angels were assigned to the different nations after their languages were divided, and for this reason Paul could call these human languages “tongues of angels.”7\n- 1 Corinthians 14:2 # For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit.\nBecause of the words \u0026ldquo;nobody understands them\u0026rdquo; some take this to mean they are speaking in a spiritual or ‘heavenly’ language. But they are probably just speaking in human languages that no one around them can understand.8 Historically, the gift of tongues was believed to be human languages given by God to help preach the Gospel to foreigners.9 To my knowledge, there is no Church Father who taught that tongues include ‘heavenly’ languages.\n- 1 Corinthians 14:4-6 # Those who speak in a tongue build up themselves, but those who prophesy build up the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophecies is greater than he whp speaks with tongues, unless he interprets it so that the church may benefit. Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I speak to you in some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?\nIf they do not understand what they are saying, how does it build them up? St. John Chrysostom argued that God helps them understand, which is how they are built up, but He does not help them explain it to others.10 Personally, I\u0026rsquo;m not sure!\nWhat is clear is that the gifts which help others are better than those that just help yourself. Therefore, tongues is a less impressive gift.\n- 1 Corinthians 14:13 # Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.\nWhen was the last time you saw someone speaking in tongues also pray for the interpretation?\n- 1 Corinthians 14:18-19 # I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.\nPaul says he speaks in tongues only to show how unimportant it is compared to helping others.11\n- 1 Corinthians 14:22-23 # Tongues, then, are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind?\nIn what way are tongues a sign for unbelievers? Many argue that they are an evangelistic sign, revealing God’s power to people.12 But I do not believe this fits with Paul’s last comments about unbelievers being unimpressed by tongues.\nAn alternative view is that tongues are not a sign that God is revealing something to unbelievers, but instead a sign He is hiding the meaning from unbelievers.13 This interpretation is perhaps less obvious, but it fits better with Paul’s last comments.\n- 1 Corinthians 14:27 # If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret.\nI think this is a practical point from Paul—he doesn’t want all the time taken up with tongues14—but it also shows that those speaking in tongues can control when they speak it.\nPray in Tongues Scriptures: # 1. Romans 8:26 # In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.\nI’ve heard some use this as a proof text for praying in tongues. But those who pray in tongues claim to be speaking some sort of language, not \u0026ldquo;wordless groans\u0026rdquo;. So, I think this is a stretch.\n2. Ephesians 6:18 # And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people.\nThis is another verse often used to support praying in tongues. But I do not think it means this. As we’ve already seen, Paul says that those who speak in tongues do not understand what they are saying. How can you make requests and pray for people when you don’t know what you’re saying?\n3. Jude 1:20 # But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit.\nIf we assume Jude and Paul are on the same page, I don’t believe this refers to praying in tongues. Paul makes it clear this gift isn’t for everyone in 1 Corinthians 12:30, but this instruction is given for all.\n4. 1 Corinthians 14:14 # For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive.\nThis is the only verse which explicitly mentions praying in tongues. But in context with the rest of the chapter, Paul doesn’t make a big deal about it.\nSummary # Tongues are human languages that the person didn’t previously know. It can be controlled. Not everyone will speak in tongues. When someone does, they are talking about God’s power. It blesses the person speaking, but it’s not the most important gift. Those who speak in tongues should always ask God for the interpretation. It can be a sign to Christians that someone has received the Holy Spirit. It is a sign to non-Christians, either of God’s power or that God has chosen to hide His message from them. “Praying in the Spirit” probably isn’t the same thing as praying in tongues. Sources # 1 Cyril of Jerusalem, late 4th century, in Catechetical Lectures 17.16 (NPNF² 7:128).\n2 Ambrose of Milan, (late 4th century), in On the Holy Spirit 2.13.149–152, especially §§150–151.\n3 Apostolic Constitutions, likely 4th century, in Apostolic Constitutions 8.1.1, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 7:479–480. 4 John Chrysostom, late 4th or early 5th century, in Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 24, on Acts 10:44–48 (NPNF¹ 11).\n5 John Chrysostom, late 4th or early 5th century, in Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 32.2, on 1 Corinthians 12:28 (NPNF¹ 12).\n6 Severian of Gabala, early 5th century, in On the Holy Spirit, VI, CPG 4188, PG 52:821ff.\n7 Severian of Gabala, early 5th century, fragment on 1 Corinthians 13:1, in Karl Staab, ed., Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche: Aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 15 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1933), 268.\n8 Thomas Aquinas, mid 13th century, in Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura, cap. 14, lect. 1, nn. 814, 817.\n9 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, early to mid 5th century, in Interpretatio in XIV Epistolas S. Pauli, commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:2, PG 82:338C–D.\n10 John Chrysostom, late 4th or early 5th century, in Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 35, §1, on 1 Corinthians 14:4–6; NPNF¹ 12:209–210.\n11 John Chrysostom, late 4th or early 5th century, in Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 35.7, on 1 Corinthians 14:18–19 (NPNF¹ 12).\n12 John Chrysostom, late 4th or early 5th century, in Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 36.2, on 1 Corinthians 14:21–25 (NPNF¹ 12).\n13 Ambrosiaster, mid to late 4th century, in Commentarius in Epistulam I ad Corinthios, on 1 Corinthians 14:22, in H. J. Vogels (ed.), Ambrosiastri qui dicitur Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas, pars secunda: In Epistulas ad Corinthios, CSEL 81/2 (Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1968), p. 156.\n14 Ambrosiaster, mid to late 4th century, in Commentarius in Epistulam I ad Corinthios, ad 14:27, in CSEL 81/2, commentary on 1 Corinthians 14.\n","date":"20 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/speak-in-the-tongues-of-men-and-of-angels/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Speak in the Tongues of Men and of Angels","type":"articles"},{"content":"Dios te salve, María,\nLlena eres de gracia, el Señor es contigo.\nBendita tú eres entre todas las mujeres,\ny bendito es el fruto de tu vientre, Jesús.\nSanta María, Madre de Dios,\nruega por nosotros, pecadores,\nahora y en la hora de nuestra muerte.\nAmen\nListen to how it sounds in Spanish: # Your browser does not support the audio element. Download Free Prayer Card: # ","date":"20 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/hail-mary-prayer-in-spanish-free-prayer-card/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Hail Mary Prayer in Spanish - Free Prayer Card","type":"articles"},{"content":" 1. Water # Water is a symbol of baptism because the Bible says it is!\nThe Apostle St. Peter wrote:\nto those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolises baptism that now saves you\n1 Peter 3:20-21\nThe Greek word that the Bible uses for baptism is baptizo, which means to immerse. But immerse in what?\nIn Biblical times, water was a symbol of purity—it was used for ceremonial washing, such as in Leviticus 15:13 and 2 Kings 5:14. Immersing yourself in water could make you ritually clean.\nBy the time of John the Baptist in the New Testament, people were being immersed in water so their sins could be forgiven. Jesus went along with this too; not because He needed forgiveness, but to act as an example for us to follow.1\nTherefore, baptizo went from meaning any type of immersion to specifically water immersion for the forgiveness of sins. This is why water became one of the main baptism symbols.\n2. The Cross # Early Christians associated baptism with Jesus’ death on the Cross. The Apostle St. Paul taught:\nOr don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?\nRomans 6:3\nFor Jewish people, touching a dead person made you ritually impure.2 Linking a ceremonially unclean thing to something pure, like water, shows how Jesus turned things upside down.3\nFor early Christians, the connection between Jesus’ death on the Cross and baptism could result in your actual death due to Roman persecution.4 So the symbolism would have felt very real!\nIf the Cross is a symbol of baptism, then by extension, the sign of the Cross is a Catholic baptism symbol too. It is a christening symbol because during the baptism, the parents and god-parents trace it on the child’s forehead.\n3. Oil # Whilst there’s no mention of being anointed with oil alongside baptism in the Bible, the practise is very ancient. The earliest descriptions of church baptisms mention it.\nwhen we come out of the font, we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction\nTertullian, early 3rd century.5\nSt. Hippolytus of Rome, from the early 3rd century, also describes how, before being immersed, they receive an oil of exorcism, and afterwards, they are anointed with an oil of thanksgiving.6\nSt. Cyril of Jerusalem, in the mid 4th century, description of baptism agrees closely with St. Hippolytus. He taught that the oil received after baptism is a symbol of Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit after He was baptised. 7\nThe word Christ means anointed one. As Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit, we are anointed with oil, which is a sign of the Holy Spirit.\nFor the early Church, the oil was an essential part of baptism. St. Theophilus of Antioch, in the late 2nd century, says:\nwe are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God 8\nToday, Catholics receive the oil at baptism, making it a Catholic baptism symbol.\n4. White robe # Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow. Psalm 51:7\nToday, whether at a christening or adult baptism, a white robe, dress, or clothes are typically worn. This has roots going way back to the earliest days of Christianity.\nRevelation 6:11 in the Bible mentions God’s people being given a white robe. St. Ambrose, in the late 4th century, also tells us that after baptism, a white robe was given, which symbolises how their sins had been washed away.9\n5. Light # Jesus spoke to them, saying: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”\nJohn 8:12\nAs baptism symbolises Jesus’ death, it also symbolises His resurrection. As we go threw the water, we are raised with Christ to the light of life.\nThe early Christians understood this. St. Cyril of Jerusalem tells us that just before being baptised, the candidate would make a profession of faith. This included ”turning from the West to the East, the place of light.”7\nToday, Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestant baptisms include the giving of a baptism candle.\n6. Dove # The story of Noah’s flood in Genesis 8 tells us how he sent out a dove from the ark to see if land had begun to appear from the waters. There’s a lot of relevant imagery here—it’s no wonder the Apostle St. Peter connected this story with baptism (see 1 Peter 3:20-21)!\nSkipping forward to Jesus’ baptism, we see something similar:\nAs soon as Jesus was baptised, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descend like a dove and rest on him.\nMatthew 3:16.\nThese links weren’t missed by the early Church. St. Chrysostom, in the late 4th or early 5th century, taught that the dove represents purity and gentleness, and that we receive this by the Holy Spirit at baptism.\n7. Fish # Tertullian says:\nBut we little fishes, according to our Fish (ΙΧΘΥΝ) Jesus Christ, are born in the water, nor are we saved in any other manner than by remaining in the water.\nTertullian, late 2nd or early 3rd century.5\nI imagine you’re wondering what ΙΧΘΥΝ means? It is the ancient Greek word for fish. But it’s significant because Tertullian wrote in Latin—but when it came to writing fish, he suddenly goes to Greek.\nThis means he’s probably referencing something well known, as he doesn’t stop to explain it to his Latin audience.12 If you take each letter from ΙΧΘΥΣ, it forms an acronym for:\nἸησοῦς Xριστός Θεός Yἱός Σωτήρ\nin English: Jesus Christ God Son Saviour\nSo the wordplay predates Tertullian, going back to at least the 2nd century13, or possibly the 1st. 14\nAs fishes live in water, it’s obvious why Tertullian linked it to baptism and why it became a christening symbol.\n8. Baptismal font # As this is where most baptisms happen, this is probably the most obvious of baptism symbols.\nBut have you ever noticed where baptismal fonts are usually placed in churches?\nThey are at the entrance of the church. This symbolises that you enter the Church, spiritually and literally, by baptism!\nSources: # 1 Aquinas, S.T., 2016. Catena Aurea. Commentary On The Four Gospels, Collected Out Of The Works Of The Fathers. Read Books Ltd.\n2 Numbers 19:11.\n3 Groenewald, J., 2003. The foundation, value and meaning of baptism in the New Testament. HTS: Theological Studies, 59(2), pp.367-383.\n4 Theissen, G., 1999. A theory of primitive Christian religion. SCM Press.\n5 Tertullian, early 3rd century. On Baptism.\n6 St. Hippolytus, early 3rd century. Apostolic Tradition.\n7 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, mid 4th century. Catechetical Lectures.\n8 St. Theophilus of Antioch, late 2nd century. The Apology to Autolycus.\n9 St. Ambrose, late 4th century. On the Mysteries.\n10 St. Chrysostom, late 4th or early 5th century. Homilies on Matthew.\n11 Morey, C.R., 1910. The origin of the fish-symbol.\n12 Rasimus, T., 2012. Revisiting the Ichthys: A Suggestion Concerning the Origins of Christological Fish Symbolism. In Mystery and Secrecy in the Nag Hammadi Collection and Other Ancient Literature: Ideas and Practices (pp. 327-348). Brill.\n13 Collins, J.J., 1983. Sibylline Oracles. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1, pp.317-472.\n","date":"16 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/baptism-symbols/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Baptism Symbols: What Is the Symbol of Baptism \u0026 Christening?","type":"articles"},{"content":"","date":"14 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/tags/reviews/","section":"Tags","summary":"","title":"Reviews","type":"tags"},{"content":"","date":"14 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/tags/","section":"Tags","summary":"","title":"Tags","type":"tags"},{"content":"I had expected this to be a straightforward book review. Instead, one sentence sent me down a bibliographical rabbit hole.\nI loved Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence. It is short, severe in places, wonderfully freeing in others, and very similar in spirit to St. Alphonsus Liguori\u0026rsquo;s Uniformity with God\u0026rsquo;s Will. Its central message is simple: if God is really our Father, and if His Providence really governs our lives, then Christian peace cannot depend on everything going according to our own plans.\nThat message has stayed with me. I am giving the book 5/5 stars.\nBut there is a rather strange problem with the authorship printed on the cover.\nAn Oddity I Could Not Ignore # The modern English edition is normally attributed to Fr. Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure, S.J. and St. Claude de la Colombière, S.J. Saint-Jure lived from 1588 to 1657. St. Claude lived from 1641 to 1682.\nYet in the section attributed to Saint-Jure, the book quotes St. Alphonsus Liguori twice, once while discussing sickness and once while discussing death.\nThere is one rather obvious problem: St. Alphonsus was not born until 1696.\nSaint-Jure had been dead for nearly forty years.\nSo Saint-Jure certainly did not write those lines as they now appear.\nInitially I wondered whether the attribution on the book was simply wrong. The truth is more interesting.\nWho Actually Wrote Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence? # The book we now call Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence was not written as one book by Saint-Jure and St. Claude. It is a later compilation.\nThe introduction to the English text says quite openly that the first part was extracted from Saint-Jure\u0026rsquo;s much larger work, De la connaissance et de l\u0026rsquo;amour du Fils de Dieu, Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ, and that a further extract from the writings of St. Claude de la Colombière was added afterwards.\nSaint-Jure\u0026rsquo;s original work appeared in the seventeenth century. The Providence material is found in Book III, Chapter VIII. By the nineteenth century this chapter had taken on an independent life as a little devotional book. The French introduction recounts that Auguste Marceau encountered it at Nantes in 1842 and later had it reprinted at Lyon. A Jesuit bibliographical record for 1899 describes an edition of Saint-Jure\u0026rsquo;s De la divine Providence as a \u0026ldquo;4e édition, retouchée\u0026rdquo; — fourth edition, retouched. Editors were openly polishing the text a century before TAN existed.\nThat same French introduction is candid about what it did. It says the pages were extracted \u0026ldquo;almost textually\u0026rdquo; from Book III, Chapter VIII, and that the editors had introduced \u0026ldquo;quelques légères modifications plutôt matérielles\u0026rdquo; — a few slight, chiefly practical changes, with clearer divisions than earlier editions. We are not dealing with a photographic reproduction of a seventeenth-century manuscript. We are reading a devotional text that passed through generations of extraction, rearrangement, light editing, translation and republication.\nThe composite form is older than TAN, too. A French edition entitled Confiance en la Divine Providence: Secret de paix et de bonheur already contains everything we find in the English book: the Saint-Jure extract, the Alphonsus quotations, the Claude section and the closing exercise. It carries a Nihil Obstat from 1940 and an imprimatur from Sherbrooke dated 9 January 1954.\nBy 1961 an English translation by Professor Paul Garvin was being published by Alba House under the title The Secret of Peace and Happiness. The familiar TAN edition followed after a few stops in Canada:\nYear Edition 1961 Alba House, The Secret of Peace and Happiness, tr. Paul Garvin 1978, 1980 St. Raphael Editions, Sherbrooke, Quebec 1983 Issued in cooperation with TAN Books 1984 onward TAN, under the familiar Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence title Bibliographical records still list Garvin as the translator.\nSo the names on the cover are not fraudulent, but they are liable to give the wrong impression. Saint-Jure and St. Claude are the principal spiritual sources. They did not sit down together and write the present book.\nThere Is Even A Misattributed Chapter # This became still more interesting when I compared the modern book with an 1877 edition of Saint-Jure\u0026rsquo;s larger work.\nIn Book III, Chapter VIII, Saint-Jure has a Section X entitled Exercice particulier envers la Providence divine, or \u0026ldquo;A Particular Exercise Concerning Divine Providence\u0026rdquo;. It teaches the very exercise found in Chapter V of the modern English book: acts of faith in Providence, hope and confidence, esteem and love, followed by complete abandonment into the hands of God.\nYet the modern table of contents places Chapter V, \u0026ldquo;Exercise of Conformity to Divine Providence\u0026rdquo;, under Part Two: St. Claude de la Colombière.\nIn other words, at least one chapter in the modern arrangement is assigned to the wrong author. Chapter V is substantially Saint-Jure.\nThis is more than a theoretical question about bibliography. It tells us how the book reached us. What we possess is an edited devotional anthology whose internal boundaries became blurred during transmission.\nI found no evidence of some hidden or mysterious authorship behind the book. The paper trail is far more ordinary than that. It leads through a seventeenth-century Jesuit work, later Catholic extracts and reprints, an English translator, and modern publishers. The problem is untidy editorial history, not a secret author.\nSo Who Put St. Alphonsus Into Saint-Jure\u0026rsquo;s Text? # I cannot tell you with certainty.\nWhat can be said with certainty is that Saint-Jure did not do it. The dates make that impossible. And the interpolation was not introduced by TAN\u0026rsquo;s English edition either. The French tradition from which the English descends already contains the same lines — \u0026ldquo;Pour moi, dit saint Alphonse…\u0026rdquo; — so the Alphonsian material entered the little Providence booklet somewhere in its French editorial history, most likely during the nineteenth century, when the booklet was being extracted, reprinted and \u0026ldquo;retouched\u0026rdquo;. I have not found an accessible edition that lets me identify the exact editor and year. I would rather leave that question open than invent an answer.\nThere is, however, a lovely historical irony here. The influence appears to have originally travelled in the opposite direction. Research into the sources of St. Alphonsus\u0026rsquo;s Visits to the Blessed Sacrament has identified his use of an Italian version of Saint-Jure\u0026rsquo;s work. The Bibliothèque nationale de France catalogue even notes Saint-Jure\u0026rsquo;s text among the source materials published with a scholarly edition of Alphonsus.\nSo Saint-Jure influenced Alphonsus, and then at some later date an editor seems to have put Alphonsus back into Saint-Jure!\nDoes The Book Make God The Author Of Evil? # This is the part of the book that can trouble people most.\nSaint-Jure uses extraordinarily strong language about receiving misfortunes from the hand of God. Read quickly, some passages can sound as though a murderer, a thief, a persecutor or even the devil is merely a puppet, and that God Himself is therefore morally responsible for whatever evil takes place.\nThat would be contrary to Catholic teaching.\nBut it is also not what the book actually says when read as a whole.\nOnly a few paragraphs after some of its strongest statements, the book asks directly: How can God will or allow evil? It then says that God \u0026ldquo;is not and cannot be the author of sin\u0026rdquo; and distinguishes between the physical act itself and the moral evil introduced by the creature\u0026rsquo;s will. The sinful intention belongs to the sinner, not to God.\nThis is very close to the traditional distinction made by St. Thomas Aquinas. God is the first cause of the creature\u0026rsquo;s existence and power to act, while the defect which makes a freely chosen act sinful comes from the created will. Saint-Jure uses the old example of a man walking with a damaged leg: the power of movement is real, but the defect in the movement comes from the damaged leg.\nThe Catechism of the Catholic Church is especially helpful here:\nGod is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.\nIt immediately adds that God permits moral evil because He respects the freedom of His creatures, and that in His Providence He knows how to bring good from it.\nBoth truths have to remain together.\nGod is not the author of sin. Yet sin does not create a hole in the sovereignty of God through which Providence suddenly disappears.\n\u0026ldquo;You Meant Evil Against Me, But God Meant It For Good\u0026rdquo; # The best explanation is already in Scripture.\nJoseph\u0026rsquo;s brothers freely chose to betray him and sell him into slavery. Their action was sinful. They were responsible for it. Yet years later Joseph could say to them: \u0026ldquo;You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good\u0026rdquo; (Genesis 50:20).\nNotice that Joseph does not say their evil intention was secretly good. He calls it evil. Neither does he say that because they sinned, God had therefore lost control of the story.\nThe Catechism uses precisely this example when explaining Providence. It then points to an even greater one: the Crucifixion. The rejection and murder of Jesus Christ was a terrible moral evil caused by human sin. Yet through that very event God brought about the redemption of the world.\nThe same pattern is visible in Job. Satan is really Satan. The men who raid Job\u0026rsquo;s property are real human agents. Their actions are not morally transferred to God. Nevertheless Job can look beyond these secondary causes and say, \u0026ldquo;The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.\u0026rdquo;\nThis, I think, is the key to reading Saint-Jure properly.\nIf another person sins against me, saying that I receive the suffering under God\u0026rsquo;s Providence does not mean the other person is innocent. It does not mean God approves of the sin. It does not mean evil has become good.\nIt means that the sinner is not sovereign.\nA man\u0026rsquo;s malice cannot finally place me outside the care of my Father. Even the devil is not God\u0026rsquo;s equal. The Catechism teaches that Satan can cause grave harm, but his activity is still permitted by Divine Providence.\nThat is a much more comforting doctrine than the idea that God is merely watching helplessly while His plan for my life is wrecked by somebody else\u0026rsquo;s sin.\nSurrender Is Not Passivity # There is another possible misunderstanding worth clearing up.\nTrustful surrender does not mean that we should refuse medicine, stay silent about abuse, ignore injustice, decline lawful help or sit around doing nothing while evil occurs.\nSaint-Jure himself says this.\nWhen speaking about sickness, the book tells us to accept what God permits while at the same time doing \u0026ldquo;all that is reasonable in our power to get well again\u0026rdquo;. The reason given is wonderfully simple: because God wishes it so.\nThis is not fatalism. Christian abandonment still requires us to perform our duties, use the means God has placed before us, protect those entrusted to us, resist sin and act with prudence. What we surrender is the final outcome.\nI can go to the doctor and surrender to Providence. I can defend somebody from injustice and surrender to Providence. I can report a crime and surrender to Providence. I can pray desperately for a particular outcome and still finish, with Our Lord, \u0026ldquo;not my will, but Thine, be done.\u0026rdquo;\nThat is much harder than passivity.\nWhy I Give It 5/5 # The editorial history is messy. I would prefer TAN, or any future publisher, to explain much more clearly which passages come from Saint-Jure, which come from St. Claude, and which were added by later editors or translators. The Alphonsus references especially ought to be footnoted rather than quietly left inside a seventeenth-century author\u0026rsquo;s text.\nNone of that has made me value the spiritual teaching any less.\nIn fact, understanding the Catholic theology behind it has made me appreciate the book more. It is not teaching that evil is good. It is teaching that evil is not sovereign. It is not asking us to call a sinner innocent. It is asking us to believe that even another person\u0026rsquo;s sin cannot frustrate the Providence of God.\nThat is the book\u0026rsquo;s great strength.\nMost of my anxiety comes from a quiet assumption that if I do not control events, everything may go terribly wrong. Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence attacks that assumption at the root. God is not merely present when life goes according to plan. He is still God when the plan collapses, when prayers seem unanswered, when somebody treats us unjustly, when illness comes, and when we simply cannot understand what He is doing.\nThis does not remove the Cross. It tells us whose hands the Cross is in.\nI would happily recommend this alongside St. Alphonsus Liguori\u0026rsquo;s Uniformity with God\u0026rsquo;s Will, with one qualification: read its deliberately forceful language in the light of the Church\u0026rsquo;s teaching on Providence, human freedom and the permission of evil.\n★★★★★ 5/5\nSources # English text of Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence (with the two Alphonsus quotations) French edition, Confiance en la Divine Providence (1954 imprimatur; 1940 Nihil Obstat; \u0026ldquo;almost textually\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;légères modifications\u0026rdquo; admissions) 1877 edition of Saint-Jure, De la connaissance et de l\u0026rsquo;amour du Fils de Dieu (Book III, ch. VIII, § X \u0026ldquo;Exercice particulier\u0026rdquo;) ARSI Jesuit bibliography (1899) recording the \u0026ldquo;4e édition, retouchée\u0026rdquo; TAN Books listing (tr. Prof. Paul Garvin) Vatican biography of St. Alphonsus Liguori Vatican biography of St. Claude de la Colombière Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§ 311–312 ","date":"14 September 2026","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/trustful-surrender-to-divine-providence/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence: Book Review","type":"articles"},{"content":" 15 Emotional Healing Scriptures for the WoundedAt 27, I realized something was stopping me from building a true father-daughter relationship with the Lord.\nBeing an adult and trying to move on from childhood bullying, violence, emotional incest, and low self-confidence has been exceedingly hard. Up to this day, I can still feel the wound bleeding sometimes.\nWhen you can’t accept any father figure, how are you supposed to bond with God the Father?\nRecently I’ve found unexpected comfort in reading some emotionally healing scriptures. These 15 amazing Bible verses will help you heal a father wound or any kind of wound. They’ll help you love your Father in Heaven with confidence and a renewed trust.\n1. “The Lord is near to the brokenhearted, and saves the crushed in spirit.” — Psalm 34:18 # Download\nDownload\nDepression, grief, mourning… God is right by your side, allow yourself to lean on Him. He allows pain to happen like a father allows His beloved child to get up and make his first steps. Pain makes us grow, whether we like it or not, we simply need to accept God’s Love.\n2. “I have loved you with an everlasting love.” — Jeremiah 31:3 # Download\nDownload\nAnother verse that makes me shiver and tear up. The idea that someone loves me more than I can accept is such a comforting thought. Whoever I am, however I live, whatever I look like… Everything that I am is so important and loved beyond my human comprehension.\n3. “She is far more precious than jewels.” — Proverbs 31:10 # Download\nDownload\nThis quote in particular always gets me. I feel so important and beautiful!\nThink about an ocean of gold, pearls, and rubies, shiny and glittering under the sun. And see them turn into an ashen colour as the sunlight focuses on you. You with your imperfections, insecurities, wounds, traumas… Worth more than a river of pearls and trinkets of gold.\n4. “You are God’s masterpiece.” — Adapted from Ephesians 2:10 # Download\nDownload\nGod can’t make mistakes, He’s perfect in every way. And so are you, His creature. You’re not perfect as in “I don’t make mistakes” or “I’m perfectly beautiful”, no, you’re His best work because you’re free to love him back with all your strength.\n5. “I am with you always.” — Matthew 28:20 # Download\nDownload\nNo matter if you sin, no matter if you fail, no matter if you doubt Him, He’s always willing to open His arms for you, His favourite child.\n6. “Arise, my love, my beautiful one.” — Song of Solomon 2:10 # Download\nDownload\nJesus loves His Church, calling her the Bride, the Holy City, the New Jerusalem. Adorned with gold and jewelry, fine linens, and pearls, you are a beautiful ornament of the Church, and no matter your issues, Jesus will always yearn to draw you closer to Him.\nAll scriptures used in this post are from the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE).\n7. “God is within her, she will not fail.” — Adapted from Psalms 46:5 # Download\nDownload\nLean against the Lord and He will lend you His Strength. Trust Him, by His grace you won’t fail.\n8. “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior.” — Judges 6:12 # Download\nDownload\nYou ARE a warrior; you fight bravely against Satan and the iniquities of this world. Keep warring, the Lord is your shield.\n9. “Under his wings, you will find refuge.” — Psalm 91:4 # Download\nDownload\nHe will protect you from the rain and from your tears. God is all-powerful, full of love, and actively seeks your wellbeing. If you ask Him, He will provide you warmth and shelter.\n10. “Do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows.” — Matthew 10:31 # Download\nDownload\nA sparrow is a small bird, less valuable than any bird. Yet, not even one little sparrow could fall onto the ground without God knowing about it. You’re worth more than a million sparrows, so imagine how much your Father cares about you if you trip and fall.\n11. “You shall be a crown of beauty in the hand of the Lord.” — Isaiah 62:3 # Download\nDownload\nYou too, after your misfortune, AND in spite of your sins, can be consoled: for God, your beauty is always present. You are shiny in the palm of His Hand, worthy of being shown to the world as a treasure.\n12. “I loved you at your darkest.” — Adapted from Romans 5:8 # Download\nDownload\nEven in the deepest pits of your depressions, the harshest of your heartaches and pain, God was ALWAYS there. You may not feel Him all the time, but he’s faithful, fierce, and loving.\nDo you struggle with worrying too much? These Bible verses for anxiety and fear were also helpful to me in finding peace.\n13. “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” — Psalm 139:14 # Download\nDownload\nToo skinny, too fat, too pale, too dark, black, white, able, disabled… God conceived you perfect for Him, perfect to love and follow Him as a child follows their father.\n14. “When you pass through the waters, I’ll be with you.” — Isaiah 43:2 # Download\nDownload\nHe will always be with you, even in the hardest and loneliest times. He’ll carry you Home, in His arms, because you’re His Child. What father wouldn’t do this for their beloved son or daughter?\n15. “He makes beauty out of the ashes.” — Adapted from Isaiah 61:3 # Download\nDownload\nYou may feel like you’ve lost something you can never get back, but God will make you rise from your misery like a phoenix from its ashes. God the Father wants to give you new life.\nI hope these Bible verses for emotional strength will help you find whatever healing you seek. If you had an emotionally absent dad, building self-worth and trust in a father figure can be tough and take a long time—months, years, a lifetime—but stay safe in the embrace of the Lord your Father.\nAlso, I’d like to reassure you that needing help is not shameful! If you feel like you need to talk about the psychological wounds that stunt your spiritual development and mental health, please seek the help of somebody you trust. E.g. a priest you know well and/or a therapist.\nMeanwhile, I really hope these 15 scriptures will help you heal the father wound (or any wound) that hurts your soul, and build your relationship with God, your Father.\n","date":"2 August 2020","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/emotional-healing-scriptures/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"15 Emotional Healing Scriptures for the Wounded","type":"articles"},{"content":"","date":"2 August 2020","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/b%C3%A9r%C3%A9nice-newton/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Bérénice Newton","type":"authors"},{"content":" St. Paul\u0026rsquo;s Grotto in Rabat, MaltaSkip ahead→ 1. Our Journey 2. How to Get to St. Paul’s Grotto 3. Heading to the Grotto 4. Opening Times 5. Price 6. Entering Wignacourt Museum 7. St. Paul’s Catacombs 8. The Entrance to St. Paul’s Grotto 9. Inside St. Paul’s Grotto 10. The History of St. Paul’s Grotto 11. Spiritual Reflections 12. Leaving St. Paul’s Grotto 13. The Collegiate Church of St. Paul\nAfter a national (but expected) train strike in France following our Catholic wedding in pastoral countrysides, we just about caught our midnight plane to Malta, fumbling to our 4-star hotel in Saint Paul’s Bay, Qawra.\nGrowing up Evangelical, I’d always been fascinated by St. Paul, and overlooking Saint Paul’s island, nearby to where we stayed, my wife and I couldn’t help but meditate on the shipwreck that would change Malta forever.\nLooking out over St. Paul’s Island.\nWe’re speaking, of course, about St. Paul’s shipwreck and the Catholic light that shone brightly for three months hidden in a small grotto 1960 years ago.\nThe grotto (in reality a small, damp and seemingly unimportant cave) was the refuge of St. Paul and his followers while they traveled from Cyprus to Rome.\nLooking over this small island, my wife and I quickly formed the plan to visit it as soon as possible.\nOur Journey # Driving 25 minutes from Qawra to Rabat, we entered the old town blessed with abundant free parking and a gas station.\nWe knew we’d entered Catholic territory when the picturesque streets that we roamed burst with icons and statues of our dearly beloved saints.\nSt. Paul was calling us and, in about ten minutes, we arrived at the towering and impressive Collegiate Church of Saint Paul.\nHow to Get to St. Paul’s Grotto # The abundance of free parking and a gas station in Rabat makes driving the most convenient if you’re visiting from outside and don’t mind renting a car from one of Malta’s infamous car rentals.\nHowever, the budget option would be taking the bus as Rabat is a main residential area served with extensive bus routes linking it with Valletta and other residential areas around Malta.\nYou can buy bus tickets on buses for about 2€.\nFor Malta’s route maps and bus timetables, click here.\nHeading to the Grotto # While it’s tempting to be absorbed by the Collegiate Church of Saint Paul standing confidently in the small square, be sure to look to its right-hand side (if looking head-on) into College Street (Triq-Il Kullegg in Maltese.)\nIt’s a quaint alley and down it on its right you’ll find the entrance to the Wignacourt Museum that contains the grotto, catacombs, restaurant and access to the Collegiate Church of Saint Paul.\nOpening Times # The Wignacourt Museum (i.e. St. Paul’s Grotto) is open Monday to Sunday from 09:30 – 17:00.\nPrice # Although other websites indicate free entrance, this has changed due to recent refurbishments.\nAdults (18-60) pay 5€ each Students (12+) and seniors (61+) pay 3.50€ The sign presented no price for children under 12, so it might be free for them (but we didn’t ask.)\nAudio guides are available to purchase for 2€ each. They’re available in English, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Russian, and (of course) Maltese.\nYou may be required to present an ID card or student card while paying for your tickets.\nEntering Wignacourt Museum # If you struggle with walking, suffer from serious claustrophobia, or are very tall, this trip may not be for you!\nAfter purchasing your tickets you’ll pass a turnstile into a small room filled with a few introductory facts and interesting old photographs worth inspecting briefly.\nMoving on, you’ll climb down a flight of stone steps into a cave. And this is where it gets cool.\nYou’ll be following in the footsteps of Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, who visited here in 1990 and 2010 respectively.\nSt. Paul’s Catacombs # Down the steps, you’ll be offered St. Paul’s Catacombs (and WWII shelters) on the left and the blessed grotto straight ahead.\nWhile the catacombs and shelters are certainly worth visiting, we pretty much skipped these because my wife found them a little too claustrophobic, so I visited them alone later.\nAfter passing through the catacomb’s entrance featuring tools, helmets and lamps, you’ll travel down narrow, winding corridors.\nYou’ll witness cells carved into the rock that were used as shelter by Maltese soldiers and civilians during WWII.\nSome cells are wide, some are tiled…but all of them will make you feel lucky to not have been among those stuffed down here around 80 years ago.\nLocated deeper in this little maze of corridors, you’ll find the Agape Table. A curious construction that was used by the early Christians in their “agape feasts”.\nThese feasts were most likely commemorative and fraternal meals which took place near the tombs of loved ones on the anniversaries of their death.\nThe Agape Table.\nIf you’re heading to the catacombs, I’d recommend paying the extra 2€ for an audio guide to really get the most out of it.\nThe Entrance to St. Paul’s Grotto # After visiting St. Paul’s Catacombs (or instead of), head straight ahead into the blessed grotto.\nYou’ll climb down a few steps and enter a medium-sized room containing altars, statues, and frescos.\nOn your first right is Saint Luke’s altar, the second-right Saint Paul’s altar, and a third altar faces you from the opposite side of the room.\nOnly one of the wall frescos has survived and, according to the speculation of one American I overheard, may show Saint Paul and date to the 4th century. (Though to me it looks a little too pre-Raphaelite to be that early.)\nI and my wife, having just got married, spent a while in this room praying the prayer to Saint Paul printed on laminated paper in front of his statue.\n(And yes, we got a photo of it…because that’s what Millenials do!)\nHere is the text of the prayer to Saint Paul that we prayed…\nDownload\nIn this room, you can also light a candle as you prepare to enter the blessed grotto just a few steps away off to the left-hand side.\nShawls are conveniently located near the grotto’s entrance and can be used to cover up bare skin before entering this holy place.\nInside St. Paul’s Grotto # Entering St. Paul’s grotto was an unforgettable experience for me.\nThe space is simple and small, featuring a statue of St. Paul, lamps (one in the shape of a ship), and a bust commemorating Pope St. John Paul II’s visit here.\nIn truth, there isn’t much to look at inside, but if you slow down and take a moment to appreciate the momentous history of the place you’ll definitely appreciate it more.\nThe History of St. Paul’s Grotto # A Russian icon of St. Paul dated 1550AD.\nSt. Paul wasn’t always a Christian. He was a Jew who studied under the Pharisee Gamaliel, a leader of the Sanhedrin in the early 1st century and who may have later converted to Christianity himself.\nSt. Paul—or “Saul of Tarsus” as he was known then—persecuted Christians before encountering the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus around 31–36AD.\nSt. Paul, accompanied at various times by other saints, evangelized the pagan world for twenty years, receiving approval from Saints Peter, James, and John when visiting Jerusalem in 49AD.\nTen years later in 59AD, after being held prisoner for two years by the Roman procurator Marcus Antonius Felix, he appealed to Caesar and set sail to Rome.\nWhile passing through Cyprus towards Rome he was shipwrecked on an island called “Melita” (now known as Malta.)\n“Saint Paul Shipwrecked on Malta” painted by Laurent de La Hyre in 1630AD.\nThe whole incidence is recorded in Acts 27:27 – 28:11, and I have included audio for it below from the NIV Dramatized Audio Bible.src 1, src 2\n/audio/acts-2727-to-2811.mp3 After landing on Malta, St. Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake but miraculously survived due to God’s protection.\nSt. Paul then healed the chief official’s father which led to “the rest of the sick on the island” coming to him and being cured.\nSpiritual Reflections # Whilst the history is impressive, when I stood in that small grotto I couldn’t help but see the humbleness of it all.\nDid St. Paul and his followers hide here for safety? Or did they stay here simply to escape the heat and to rest?\nWhatever the reason, St. Paul said Mass, taught the faith, and healed people here. And, most likely, slept here too in the claustrophobic darkness of this small cave.\nHow did St. Paul feel being here?\nHe’d been kept a prisoner in the Holy Land the previous two years and had intended to be in Rome appealing his case to Caesar, and now all of sudden he finds himself in this small cave on this small island.\nAll St. Paul and his followers could cling to was their faith.\nIt was in this claustrophobic cave that they were able to fully practice that faith before setting off again to Rome to where St. Paul would die.\nLeaving St. Paul’s Grotto # As I left the grotto, these reflections stayed in my mind.\nIt was also great noticing—hanging on a wall just outside the grotto—evidence that perhaps my own meditations were not too dissimilar from that of Pope St. John Paul II’s.\n“And prayed for a long time”…I just love that last line!\nJust before we climbed the stairs up to St. Paul’s church built over the top of the grotto, my wife pointed my attention towards the man who had made this whole experience possible.\nAlof de Wignacourt was a French Catholic nobleman who declared the date of St. Paul’s shipwreck to be 10th February—a date still celebrated today (especially in the streets of Valletta in Malta.)\nHe also was the man who renovated this grotto and helped finance the building of the church built on top of it.\nTo which we move onto now!\nThe Collegiate Church of St. Paul # Moving away from the simplicity of the grotto, climbing up the steps I quietly thanked God for Alof de Wignacourt.\nThis part of the church, called the sanctuary of St Publius, is simply stunning.\nThe riches hidden in the hearts of those early Christians who resided in that dingy grotto were now to be seen in the exquisite Baroque architecture dating to the 17th century.\nFilled with paintings and statues of St. Paul, our Lady, and Jesus, the whole space is peaceful and conducive to prayer.\nIn fact, my wife and I prayed the whole Rosary here as a way to thank God for the graces he imparted to us on this trip.\nAfter praying the Rosary, we turned around and retraced our steps to exit the same way as we’d entered the hour before.\nAnd that was the totality of our trip to St. Paul’s grotto—a trip I would heartily recommend to all, religious or not.\nAre you planning on visiting St. Paul’s grotto in Rabat, Malta? If so, let me know how it goes!\nAnd if you have any questions about this trip, just let me know in the comment section below.\n","date":"13 November 2019","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/st-pauls-grotto/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"A Guide to St. Paul’s Grotto in Rabat, Malta","type":"articles"},{"content":" letter from hell Introduction # This Letter from Hell recounts the tragic story of the eternal damnation of a young woman named Ani.\nBoth the narrative and the letter transcribed below were found among the papers of a deceased nun, who in the world was known as Claire and worked with the condemned woman. This letter was revealed to Claire in a dream shortly after Ani was killed in a car accident.\nThe narrative received an Imprimatur from the diocese of Treves, Germany in 1953, authorizing its publication as highly instructive. While an Imprimatur is not an affirmation of authenticity, it does guarantee that the text is free from doctrinal error.\nThe letter first appeared in a book of revelations and prophecies.\nFr. Bernhardin Krempel, Doctor of Theology, published it separately and lent it more authority with his footnotes (included at the end) showing the letter’s absolute concordance with Catholic Doctrine.\nThe Letter from Hell # I had a friend. That is, we shared a mutual closeness as friends and neighbors while the two of us worked in the same office.\nLater, when Ani got married, I never saw her again.\nFrom the moment we met, what reigned between us, in its depth, was amiability more than friendship. Because of this, when she went to live in the elegant neighborhood of villas far from my home after her marriage, I didn’t really miss her very much.\nIn mid-September of 1937, while I was vacationing at Lake Garda, my mother wrote to me: “Imagine, Ani…dead. She lost her life in an automobile accident. She was buried yesterday in the cemetery of Woodstock.”\nThe news shocked me. I knew that Ani had never really been religious. Was she prepared when God called her suddenly?\nThe next morning I attended Holy Mass, which was said for her, in the chapel of the nun’s boarding house where I stayed. I prayed fervently for her eternal repose and also offered my Holy Communion for that intention.\nI felt increasingly ill at ease throughout the whole of the day, and that night I slept restlessly.\nI awoke suddenly, hearing something like the door of my room being shaken.\nAs I turned the light on, the clock on my nightstand showed ten minutes after midnight.\nI could see nothing. The house was silent. The waves of Lake Garda could be heard breaking monotonously on the wall of the boarding house garden. I did not hear the wind at all.\nNonetheless, upon awaking, I had the impression of having heard another noise besides the shaking of the door.\nIt was a sound similar to one I used to hear when, in bad humor, my former office manager would toss a problem letter on my desk.\nI considered for a moment whether to get up or not. Ah! It was nothing but a figment of my imagination brought on by the news of her death, I assured myself.\nRolling over, I prayed a few Our Fathers for the souls in Purgatory, and again I fell asleep.\nI then dreamed that I rose in the morning at six o’clock in order to go to the chapel. But on opening the door to my bedroom, I stepped on a parcel containing the pages of a letter. Picking it up and recognizing Ani’s handwriting, I screamed.\nTrembling as I held the pages in my hands, I was, I must confess, so shaken that I could not even utter an Our Father. I was almost suffocating.\nThere was nothing better to do but to flee that spot and go into the open air. I hastily arranged my hair, put the letter in my purse, and rushed from the house.\nOutside, I followed a winding path up through the hills, passing olive and laurel trees and the neighboring farms, and going beyond the renowned “Gardesana” highway. The morning broke radiantly.\nOn other days, I would stop every hundred paces, enchanted by the magnificent view of the lake and Garda Island. The most suave blue of the water refreshed me and, like a child admiringly gazing at her grandfather, I would gaze upon the ashen-colored Mount Baldo rising 7200 feet above the opposite shore of the lake.\nThat day, however, I did not have eyes for any of that.\nAfter walking a quarter of an hour, I mechanically let myself sink to the bank and leaned against two cypress trees where the day before I had taken such pleasure in reading “The Damsel Teresa.”\nFor the first time I regarded the cypress trees as symbols of death, something I had not taken notice of in the south, where these trees are common.\nI took up the letter. It lacked a signature, but it was, beyond a doubt, in Ani’s handwriting. There was no mistaking the large volute S nor the French T that used to irritate our manager at the office.\nThe style was not hers, at least not her usual style of speaking. She conversed and laughed so amiably, with her blue eyes and her graceful nose.\nOnly when we discussed religious topics did she become sarcastic and fall into a rude tone like that in the letter, whose agitated cadence I now entered.\nHere, word for word, is the “Letter from Beyond” of Ani, as I read it in the dream…\nClaire!\nDo not pray for me. I am damned. As I tell you this and relate to you certain circumstances and details about my condemnation, do not think that I do so out of friendship. Here we no longer love anyone. I do it as “a part of that power that always desires evil but always produces good.”\nIn truth, I would like to see you here where I will remain forever.1\nDo not be surprised at my intent. Here we all think the same way. Our will is petrified in evil—in what you call “evil.” Even when we do something “good,” as I do now in opening your eyes about Hell, we don’t do it with good intentions.2\nRemember that we knew each other for four years. You were 23 and had already worked in the office for six months when I arrived. You kept me out of trouble many times, and frequently gave me good advice while I worked as your trainee. But, what is that which is referred to as “good”?\nAt the time I praised your “charity.” Ridiculous! Your help arose from pure vainglory, as I had already suspected.\nHere we don’t acknowledge good in anyone!\nYou knew me in my youth, but I will now fill you in on certain details.\nAccording to my parents’ plan, I should never have existed. In their carelessness, I was conceived in disgrace. When I came into the light, my two sisters were already 14 and 15 years of age.\nI wish I’d never been born! I wish I could annihilate myself at this moment and escape these torments! There could be no pleasure comparable to being able to end my existence, like a piece of clothing reduced to ashes.3\nBut I must exist; I must be as I have made myself, with the entire blame of my end upon my shoulders.\nWhen my parents, still unmarried, moved from the countryside to the city, they drifted away from the Church, and they kept company with people who had fallen away from religion. Having met each other at a dance, they were “obliged” to get married six months later.\nDuring the wedding ceremony a few drops of holy water fell upon them, just sufficient to draw my mother to Sunday Mass a few times a year. She never taught me to pray correctly. She wore herself out in daily concerns, even when our situations were not that difficult.\nIt is only with deep repugnance and unspeakable disgust that I write words such as pray, Mass, holy water, and church. I profoundly detest those who go to church, as well as everyone and everything in general.\nFor us, everything is a torment. Everything we come to understand at death, every recollection of life and of what we know, becomes a burning flame.4\nAnd all of these memories serve to show us the horrible aspect of the graces we rejected. How this torments us!\nWe do not eat, we do not sleep, nor do we walk with our legs. Being spiritually enchained, we reprobates gaze in terror at our misspent lives, howling and gnashing our teeth, tormented and filled with hatred.\nAre you listening? Here we drink hatred as if it were water. We all hate one another.5\nMore than anything else, we hate God. I will try to make you understand how this is.\nThe blessed in Heaven must necessarily love God, for they constantly behold Him in His awe-inspiring beauty. That makes them ineffably happy. We know this, and the knowledge infuriates us.6\nOn earth, men know God through Creation and Revelation and are able to love Him, but they are not forced to do so.\nAnd the believer—I say this seethingly—who contemplates and meditates upon Christ stretched upon the Cross will love Him.\nBut the soul whom God approaches and surrounds, fulminating as one rejected, as Avenger and Judge, that soul hates God as we hate Him.7\nThis soul hates Him with all the strength of its perverse will. It hates Him eternally, in virtue of the deliberate resolution to reject God in which it ended its earthly life.\nThis perverse act of the will can never be rescinded, nor would we ever want it to be.\nDo you now understand why Hell must be eternal? It’s because our obstinacy never diminishes and never ends.\nBut being compelled to do so, I add that God is still merciful towards you.\nI say “compelled” because even though as I write this letter, I cannot lie as I would like to do. I put on the paper much that goes against my will. I also have to choke down the torrents of insults I would like to spew forth.\nGod showed mercy towards us in that He did not allow us to do all the evil that we wanted to do while on earth.\nHad he permitted us to do so, we would have greatly added to our guilt and chastisement. He allowed us to die prematurely, as is my case, or permitted attenuating circumstances.\nEven now He is merciful towards us, for He does not oblige us to draw near to Him. He allows us to remain in this distant place of Hell, thus diminishing our torment.8 Every step closer to God would torment me more than every step you might take toward a fire.\nYou were astonished one day when I told you in passing what my father had told me some days prior to my First Communion: “Take care, little Ani, that you get a beautiful dress; the rest is nothing but a sham.”\nI was almost ashamed for having shocked you so, but now I laugh about it. The best part of this sham was that Communion was only allowed at twelve years of age. By then, I had already amply sampled the world’s pleasures and had easily left everything religious aside, so I didn’t take Communion seriously.\nThe new custom of allowing children to receive Holy Communion at seven years of age infuriates us. We strive in every possible way to frustrate this, making people believe that in order to receive Communion there must be comprehension, and that it is necessary for children to have committed mortal sins before first receiving the Eucharist.\nThe “white God” \\[that is, the Sacred Host\\] will then be less prejudicial than if He were received with faith, hope, and love, the fruits of Baptism—I spit on this!—which are still alive in a child’s heart.\nDo you recall that I already had this same point of view on earth?\nAnyway, I return now to my father. He fought a lot with my mother.\nI rarely told you this because I was ashamed of it. Huh! What is shame? Something ridiculous! We are indifferent to everything.\nMy parents no longer slept in the same room. I slept in my mother’s room and my father slept in the adjoining room, to which he would retire at any hour of the night.\nHe drank heavily and exhausted all our wealth. My sisters were employed and needed the money they made, so Mother began to work.\nIn the last year of her bitter life, Father often would beat her when she did not want to give him any money. He was always very kind to me…\nI told you about this one day and you were scandalized—but what was there about me that didn’t scandalize you?—such as when I twice returned new pairs of shoes one day because the style of heel wasn’t modern enough for me.\nOn the night in which a mortal stroke took my father, something happened that I never told you, because I feared a disagreeable interpretation on your part. Today, however, you ought to know it. The fact is memorable, for it is the first time that my true spirit, like that of a cruel executioner, revealed itself.\nI was asleep in my mother’s bedroom. She was sleeping deeply, as her regular breathing indicated. Suddenly, I heard someone utter my name. An unfamiliar voice murmured, “What would happen if your father were to die?”\nI no longer loved my father, since he had begun to mistreat my mother. Properly speaking, I no longer loved anyone; I only clung to certain people who were still kind to me. Love without a natural motive scarcely exists except in souls that live in the state of grace, which I did not have.\nI responded to that mysterious questioner, “Surely he’s not dying.” After a brief interval, I heard the same well-understood question, without troubling myself as to where it came from.\n“Whatever! He’s not dying,” was the sullen reply that escaped me. For the third time I was questioned with this voice: “What would happen were your father to die?”\nIn a flash it passed through my mind how Father often came home somewhat drunk, scolding and fighting with Mother, and how often he embarrassed us in front of our neighbors and acquaintances!\nI then cried out stubbornly: “All right, then, it’s what he deserves. Let him die!”\nAfterwards, everything became still.\nThe following morning, when Mother went upstairs to tidy up Father’s room, she found the door locked. Around noon they forced it open. Father was lying half-dressed on his bed—dead, a corpse. He probably caught a cold while looking for a beer in the cellar. He had been sick a long time.\nCould it be that God had depended upon the will of a child, to whom this man had shown some goodness, to grant him more time and an opportunity to convert?\nYou and Marta made me enroll in the association of young ladies. I never told you that I found the instructions of the two directors to be quite conniving. I found the games amusing enough. As you know, I quickly came to hold a preponderant role in them, which flattered me.\nI always found the outings pleasant, sometimes even allowing myself to be taken to Confession and receive Holy Communion. I really had nothing to confess, for I never took account of my thoughts and sentiments. I was still not ready for worse things.\nOne day, I remember, you admonished me: “Ani, you will be lost if you don’t pray more.” In truth I prayed very little, and always reluctantly and with annoyance.\nYou were undoubtedly right. All those who burn in Hell either did not pray, or didn’t pray enough. Prayer is the first step towards God.\nIt is always decisive, especially prayer to her who is the Mother of God, whose name we are not even permitted to say. Devotion to her draws innumerable souls away from the devil, souls whose sins would otherwise have cast them into his hands.\nI continue, furious at being obliged to do so…\nPraying is the easiest thing on earth, and justly so, for God linked salvation to this simplest of actions.\nTo those who pray assiduously, God grants, bit by bit, so much light and strength that even a drowning sinner is able to raise himself up definitively through prayer, even though he may be immersed in mud up to his entire chest.\nIn fact, in my last years of life I no longer prayed, and thus deprived myself of the graces without which no one can be saved.\nHere we no longer receive any grace at all. Even if we did receive a grace, we would reject it with disdain. All the vacillations of earthly life end in the beyond.\nIn earthly life, man can pass from a state of sin to a state of grace. From grace he can fall into sin. I often fell out of weakness, rarely out of malice. With death, however, this inconsistent “yes” and “no,” this rising and falling, comes to an end. Through death, every individual enters into a final state, fixed and unalterable.\nAs one advances in age, these rises and falls become smaller. True, until one dies one can either convert or turn one’s back upon God. In death, however, one decides mechanically, with the last tremors of his will, in the same way he did throughout his entire life.\nA good or bad habit becomes second nature, and this is what moves a person one way or another in his final moments. So it was with me.\nFor years I had lived apart from God. Consequently, when I received that final call of grace, I decided against Him. It was fatal not because I had sinned so many times, but rather because I had so often refused to repent and amend my life.\nYou repeatedly admonished me to hear sermons and to read pious books, but I regularly excused myself, citing a lack of time. Could I have done anything more to increase my inner uncertainty?\nBy the time I reached this critical point, shortly before I left the association of young ladies, it would have been difficult for me to follow any other path.\nI felt unhappy and insecure. I had erected a huge wall impeding my conversion, which you must not have perceived. You must have thought my conversion easy when you once said to me: “Ani, make a good confession and everything will be okay.”\nI suspected that what you said was true, but the world, the flesh, and the devil already had me securely in their clutches. I never believed in the action of the devil, but now I attest that the devil powerfully influences people such as I back then.9\nOnly many prayers on the parts of others and my own prayers, together with sacrifices and sufferings, would have managed to wrench me away from him. And this only slowly.\nThere are very few people who are physically possessed, but many who are possessed interiorly. The devil cannot suppress the free will of those who give themselves over to his influence, yet, as a chastisement for the person’s almost total apostasy, God permits the person to be dominated by “evil.”\nAlthough I hate the devil, I like him because he and his helpers, the angels that fell with him at the beginning of time, strive to cause the loss of the people on earth. There are myriad demons. Uncountable numbers of them who wander through the world, like a swarm of flies, without their presence even being suspected.\nIt does not fall to us who have been condemned to tempt you; that is left to the fallen spirits.10 Our torments increase every time they bring another soul to Hell, but hatred is capable of anything\nEven though I trod tortuous byways, God sought me out. I prepared the way for grace by means of works of natural charity that I often did by the inclination of my character. At times, too, God beckoned me to church. When, despite work at the office during the day, I took care of my sick mother, no small sacrifice for me, I strongly felt these attractions to God.\nOnce, in the hospital chapel where you used to take me during our free time at mid-day, I was so moved that I found myself but one step away from conversion. And I cried.\nThe pleasures of the world, however, flowed over this grace like a torrent. The thorns choked out the wheat. Rationalizing that religion is sentimentalism, according to the manner it was discussed in the office, I cast this grace, like so many others, to the ground.\nOnce you reprimanded me because in church, rather than genuflecting, I made only a hasty nod of my head. You thought it was laziness, not suspecting that I’d already no longer believed in the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. I now believe it, though only naturally, in the manner that one believes in a storm, the signs and effects of which one perceives.\nIn the interim, I had arranged a religion for myself. The general opinion in the office, that after death souls would return to this world in other beings and would pass through yet other beings in an endless succession—that pleased me.\nWith this, I banished the distressing problem of the hereafter to the point that it is no longer troubling to me at all.\nWhy did you not remind me of the parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus, in which the narrator, Christ, immediately after their deaths, sent one to Hell and the other to Paradise?\nBut, what would this reminder have accomplished anyway? Nothing more than your pious advice.\nBit by bit I found a god, one privileged enough to be called a god, but yet distant enough that I didn’t have to deal with him. I was even confused enough to make of myself, at will and without changing my religion, a pantheistic god or even a proud deity.\nThis “god” had neither a heaven to console me nor a hell to frighten me. I left him in peace. This is what my adoration of him consisted of. One easily believes in what one loves.\nWith the passing of years, I became sufficiently convinced of my religion. I lived well with it, without it causing me any inconvenience.\nOnly one thing would have been able to bring me to my senses: a profound and prolonged suffering. But this suffering never came. Do you now understand that “Whom God loves, God chastises”?\nThe association of young ladies organized an outing one July day. I quite liked those outings, but not the sweetly pious women who went to them. Recently, an image far different from that one of Our Lady of Graces had been placed upon the altar of my heart.\nBesides that of Our Lady there stood the gentle, manly figure of Max, who worked in the warehouse. A short time prior to this we had conversed several times. On this occasion, he asked me out on the very Sunday of the ladies’ outing. Another woman whom he had been dating was in the hospital.\nHe noticed, of course, that I had my eyes on him, but I never thought about marrying him. He was well-to-do but too friendly toward anyone and every young lady. Up to that time I had wanted a man who belonged to me alone, and I alone to him. Thus, I had always kept a certain distance.\n\\[This is true. There was something noble about Ani, notwithstanding all of her religious indifference. It astonishes me that “honest” people are also capable of falling into Hell if they are dishonest enough to flee from encountering God.\\]Max heaped every kindness upon me on the day of that outing. Our conversation, of course, was certainly not that of your pious women.\nOn the following day in the office, you reprimanded me for not having gone with you. I then told you of my Sunday amusements.\nYour first question was: “Did you go to Mass?” Crazy! How could I have gone to Mass when we had agreed to leave at six in the morning? Do you still remember that I added excitedly, “The good God is not so mean as your little priests!” Now it falls to me to confess to you that, His infinite goodness notwithstanding, God takes everything much more serious than any priest.\nAfter this first outing with Max, I attended just one more meeting of the young ladies’ association. Certain things did attract me at Christmastime, but I had already dissociated myself from you interiorly.\nMovies, dances, and outings followed. At times Max and I argued, but I knew how to keep him interested in me.\nMy rival, upon being released from the hospital, was furious, and I found her very disagreeable. Her anger worked in my favor, though, for my discreet calm made a great impression upon Max and, ultimately, led him to choose me over her.\nI knew just how to denigrate her. I would speak calmly, seeming to be objective, but spewing venom from within. Sentiments and insinuations such as these rapidly lead one to Hell. They are diabolical, in the true sense of the word.\nWhy am I telling you this? To show you how I came to separate myself entirely from God.\nTo be so distant from God, it was not necessarily to be entirely familiar with Max. I knew that if I lowered myself to that before the time, he would look down on me, so I restrained myself and refused. In truth, I was ready to do anything I thought useful. Determined to win Max, I would stop at nothing.\nLittle by little we fell in love, for both of us possessed great qualities that we could mutually appreciate. I was talented and made of myself an able conversationalist, and so I eventually had Max in my hands, assured that I alone possessed him, at least in those last months before our wedding.\nThis is what constituted my apostasy from God: I made a mere creature into my god.\nIn no other way is this more fully realized than in the relationship between two creatures of the opposite sex; love is stifled in matter. This becomes the allure, the sting, and the venom of the object that is loved. The “adoration” that I rendered towards Max became an ardent religion.\nAt this stage of my life I would hypocritically run off to church during the office lunch hour, to the good-for-nothing priests, the mumbling of the Rosary, and other foolishness.\nYou strove to encourage this, with some intelligence but apparently without suspecting that, in a final analysis, I no longer had anything to do with these things. I sought only to set my conscience at ease—I still needed that—in order to justify my apostasy.\nIn the depth of my soul I lived in revolt against God. You did not perceive that. You always thought I was still Catholic. I wanted to be seen as such, even going so far as giving a donation to the church, thinking that a little bit of “insurance” couldn’t hurt.\nAs certain as you were about your answers, they always went in one ear and out the other. I was sure that you could not be right. Taking into consideration our strained relationship, when my marriage put some distance between us, the pain of our separation was only slight.\nI went to Confession and Holy Communion one more time before my wedding, but it was a mere formality. My husband felt the same way. But why not? We fulfilled those formalities just like any others.\nYou would call that “unworthy.” But after that unworthy Communion I had greater peace in mind. It was the last of my life.\nOur married life was generally harmonious. We had the same opinion on just about everything. That included our shared opinion regarding children: We didn’t want the burden. Deep down, my husband wanted one, naturally, but no more. Ultimately, I was able to banish the idea. I preferred fine clothing and furniture, tea with the ladies, rides in our car, and like amusements.\nThere passed a year of earthly pleasure from our wedding day until my sudden death.\nEvery Sunday we went for a drive or visited my husband’s relatives—I was ashamed of mine. My husband’s relatives, like us, swam well on the surface of life.\nInside, however, I never truly felt happy. Something always gnawed at my soul. I hoped that death, certainly far in the future, would end everything.\nWhen still a child, I once heard in a sermon that God rewards the good one does. If He cannot do it in the next life, He will do it on earth.\nThus, without my expecting it, I received an inheritance from my Aunt, and my husband had the good fortune of seeing his salary raised considerably. With this, we were able to decorate our new home well.\nMy religion was in its last agony, like daylight’s last glimmer in the distant sky. The clubs and cafés of the city and the restaurants where we ate when traveling did not draw us any closer to God. Everyone who frequented them lived as we did, concerned about externals, not essences or things of the soul.\nWhile on vacation we visited a famous cathedral, seeking only to savor the artistic value of the masterpieces it contained.\nI counteracted the religious air it radiated, chiefly that of the Middle Ages, seizing every opportunity for ridicule. Thus, I criticized a lay brother who served as our guide for being a bit unkempt and awkward; I criticized the trade of the pious monks who made and sold liqueur; I disparaged the eternal pealing of the bells calling people to churches that care only for money.\nI was thereby able to reject every grace that came knocking at my door.\nIn particular, I let my ill humor flow profusely over every old depiction of Hell in books, cemeteries, and elsewhere, showing devils roasting souls in red or yellow fire while their long-tailed associates continually brought more victims.\nClaire, while Hell might be poorly drawn, it can never be exaggerated.\nAbove all, I always scoffed at the fire of Hell. Do you recall our conversation on the fire of Hell when I jokingly put a lit match under your nose and asked, “Does it smell like this?”\nYou quickly blew out the match, but here the fire is never extinguished. Moreover, the fire of which the Bible speaks is not the torment of conscience. Fire means fire. One must understand Our Lord’s declaration in its literal sense: “Depart from Me, ye accursed, into everlasting fire.” Literally!\nOne might ask how it is that the spirit can be affected by material fire.\nHow then, on earth, does the soul suffer when one’s finger is held in a fire? The soul itself does not burn, but what pain the man as a whole endures!\nIn like manner, here we are imprisoned by the fire in our beings and faculties. Our souls are deprived of their natural movements; we can neither think nor want what we want.12\nDo not try to comprehend the mystery that, contrary to the laws of material nature, the fire of Hell burns without consuming.\nOur greatest torment consists in knowing with certainty that we will never see God.\nOh, how that toward which we were indifferent while on earth tortures us here!—When the knife but lies on the table, it gives only one a cold feeling. One can see its keen edge, but not feel it. But the moment it enters one’s flesh, he screams with pain.\nBefore, we only saw the loss of God; now we feel it.13\nAll souls do not suffer equally. The more frivolous, malicious, and determined someone was in sin, the more the loss of God weighs upon him, and the more torture he feels due to the creation he has abused.\nCatholics who are damned suffer more than those of other beliefs because, in general, they received more lights and graces without taking advantage of them.\nHe who knows more suffers more than those who had lesser knowledge.\nHe who sinned out of malice suffers more than those who fell from weakness.\nNo one, however, suffers more than he deserves. Would that this were not true, so that I might have some reason to hate!\nYou once told me that no one falls into Hell without knowing that this is his destination, as was revealed to a saint. Though I laughed at that, I yet entrenched myself behind the thought that there was still time for me to convert—that is how I thought in my heart.\nWhat you said is true. Certainly, before my sudden end, I did not know Hell as it truly is. No human being does. But of this I had no doubt: were I to die, I would enter into eternity in a state of revolt against God, and I will suffer the consequences.\nAs I already declared, I didn’t turn back but persevered along the same path, impelled by habit, whereby people act with great deliberation and regularity as they grow older.\nMy death occurred in the following way…\nA week ago—I speak to you in terms of the way in which you measure time; judging by the pain I have endured, I should have already been burning in Hell for ten years—on a Sunday, my husband and I went for a drive, my last one.\nThe day broke radiantly. I felt well, as I rarely did, but a sinister feeling came over me.\nOn our way home my husband and I were unexpectedly blinded by the lights of a car rapidly approaching from the opposite direction. My husband lost control of our car.\n“Jesus!” I shouted, not as a prayer, but as a scream. I felt a crushing pain—a trifle in comparison with my present pain. I then lost consciousness.\nStrange! On that very morning, the idea that I could, after all, go to Mass again came to me unexpectedly. It sounded to me like a supplication. Clear and determined, my “No!” nipped the thought in the bud. I must finish with this once and for all, and I assumed all the consequences.\nAnd now I endure them.\nYou know what happened after my death. The fate of my husband, my mother, of my body and burial, all of this you know down to the last details, as do I through a natural inclination we have here. We have only a confused knowledge of what transpires in the world, but we know what closely concerned us.\nAt the moment of my death I awoke from darkness. I found myself suddenly enveloped by a blinding light. It was at the same place where my body lay. It seemed almost like a theater, where the lights suddenly go out, the curtain noisily opens, and a tragically illuminated scene appears: the scene of my life.\nI saw my soul as if in a mirror. I saw the graces I had trampled underfoot from the time I was young until that final “No!” to God. I felt like an assassin brought to trial with my inanimate victim before me.\nRepent? Never Was I ashamed of myself? Not at all!\nNotwithstanding, it was impossible for me to remain in the presence of the God I had denied and rejected. Only one thing remained for me: the fire.\nThus, as Cain fled from the body of Abel, so did my soul flee far away from this overwhelming sight.\nThat was my private judgment.\nThe invisible Judge spoke: “Depart from Me!” and my soul swiftly fell, like a sulfurous shadow, into the place of eternal torment\nClosing Information from Claire # Thus ended the letter from Ani about Hell. The last words were so twisted as almost to be illegible. When I finished reading the last word, the entire letter turned to ashes.\nWhat is that I hear?\nAmidst the harsh tones of the lines I imagined reading, there resounded the sweet sound of a bell. I awoke suddenly to find myself still in my bedroom. The morning light of daybreak found its way in. From the parish church came the sound of the bells ringing the Angelus.\nHad it all been but a dream?\nI had never felt such consolation in the Angelic Salutation as I did after this dream. Pausing, I prayed three Ave Marias. It then became clear, most clear to me: One must always cling to Our Lord’s blessed Mother, venerate Mary as her own child, if one does not want to suffer the same fate told you—albeit in a dream—by a soul that will never see God.\nStill frightened and shaking due to that night-time revelation, I got up, dressed myself hastily, and rushed to the chapel of the house.\nMy heart beat violently. The guests kneeling closest to me looked at me with concern. Perhaps they thought that I was so excited and flushed because I had run down the stairway.\nThat afternoon in the garden I encountered a kindly, nearsighted lady from Budapest, frail as a child, suffering greatly, yet of lofty spirit and fervent in the service of God. She said to me, “Miss, Our Lord does not want to be served in haste.”\nBut then she perceived that something else had upset and preoccupied me. She added kindly: “Let nothing distress you—you know the advice of Saint Teresa—let nothing alarm you. Everything passes. He who possesses God lacks nothing. God alone suffices.”\nWhile she humbly whispered these words to me she seemed to be reading my soul.\n“God alone suffices.” Yes, He has to be enough for me, in this life and in the next. I want to possess Him there one day, as numerous as may be the sacrifices I have to make here in order to triumph. I do not want to fall into Hell.\n“Let nothing disturb thee; Let nothing dismay thee; All thing pass; God never changes. Patience attains all that it strives for. He who has God finds he lacks nothing: God alone suffices.” — St. Teresa of Ávila\nFootnotes: # 1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 4 — “Therefore, they \\[those in hell\\] will wish all the good were damned.” \\[[Return to text](#a)\\]2. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 1 — “This will is in them always evil: and this because they are completely turned away from the last end of a right will, nor can a will be good except it be directed to that same end. Hence even though they will some good, they do not will it well so that one be able to call their will good on that account.” \\[[Return to text](#b)\\]3. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 3 — “Although ‘not to be’ is very evil, in so far as it removes being, it is very good, in so far as it removes unhappiness, which is the greatest of evils, and thus it is preferred ‘not to be’.” \\[[Return to text](#c)\\]4. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 7 — “Accordingly, in the damned there will be actual consideration of the things they knew heretofore as matters of sorrow, but not as a cause of pleasure. For they will consider both the evil they have done, and for which they were damned, and the delightful goods they have lost, and on both counts they will suffer torments.” \\[[Return to text](#d)\\]5. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 4 — “Even as in the blessed in heaven there will be most perfect charity, so in the damned there will be the most perfect hate.” \\[[Return to text](#e)\\]6. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 9 — “The damned, before the judgment day, will see the blessed in glory, in such a way as to know, not what that glory is like, but only that they are in a state of glory that surpasses all thought.” \\[[Return to text](#f)\\]7. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 8 — “The damned do not hate God except because He punishes and forbids what is agreeable to their evil will: and consequently they will think of Him only as punishing and forbidding.” \\[[Return to text](#g)\\]8. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 21, Article 4 — “Even in the damnation of the reprobate mercy is seen, which, though it does not totally remit, yet somewhat alleviates, in punishing short of what is deserved.” \\[[Return to text](#h)\\]9. 1 Peter 5:8 — “Be sober and watch, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour.”\nEphesians 6:11-12 — “Put you on the armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” \\[[Return to text](#i)\\]10. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 6 — “Men who are damned are not occupied in drawing others to damnation, as the demons are, for which reason the latter demerit as regards their secondary punishment.” \\[[Return to text](#j)\\]11. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 4 — ”Although an increase in the number of the damned results in an increase of each one’s punishment, so much the more will their hatred and envy increase that they will prefer to be more tormented with many rather than less tormented alone.” \\[[Return to text](#k)\\]12. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, Question 70, Article 3 — “…the fire of its nature is able to have an incorporeal spirit united to it as a thing placed is united to a place; that as the instrument of Divine justice it is enabled to detain it enchained as it were, and in this respect this fire is really hurtful to the spirit, and thus the soul seeing the fire as something hurtful to it is tormented by the fire.” \\[[Return to text](#l)\\]13. A quote attributed to St. Augustine — “The separation from God is a torment as great as God.” \\[[Return to text](#m)\\]14. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 98, Article 2 — “Accordingly the wicked will not repent of their sins directly, because consent in the malice of sin will remain in them; but they will repent indirectly, inasmuch as they will suffer from the punishment inflicted on them for sin.” \\[[Return to text](#n)\\]15. That the punishment of Hell is eternal is a dogma, certainly the most terrible of all, is rooted in Sacred Scripture.\nMatthew 25:41 — “Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”\nJudith 16:17 — “Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; fire and worms he will give to their flesh; they shall weep in pain for ever.”\nMatthew 25:46 — “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”\n2 Thessalonians 1:9 — “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might”\nJude 1:13 — “…wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever.”\nRevelation 14:11 — “And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”\nRevelation 20:10 — “…and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”\nAnd many other Scriptures…\nThat the word eternal is not to be understood or interpreted as long is clear by such expressions as “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12; Mark 9:43) and “…the fire is not extinguished” (Mark 9:45).\nIf illustration of this dogma were not appropriate, then Our Lord would not have told the parable of poor Lazarus and the rich man. \\[[Return to text](#o)\\]","date":"9 September 2019","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/letter-from-hell/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"A Letter From Hell You Need to Read Right Now","type":"articles"},{"content":" It has become quite fashionable to announce, usually with great confidence, that Jesus was not born on December 25th. Depending on who you ask, he was born in spring when the lambs arrive, in autumn during the Feast of Tabernacles, or on some date we simply cannot know at all.\nSo when was Jesus born? Like… really?\nLet me be honest up front about what we are working with. The Gospels never tell us the date of Jesus’ birth. Neither Matthew nor Luke says it happened on such-and-such a day. If you are hoping for a verse that settles the question, it does not exist. Anyone who tells you the Bible proves December 25th, or disproves it, is overstating the case.\nBut that does not mean we know nothing. Luke, a careful historian, leaves a trail of chronological clues in his first two chapters. The earliest Christians, the disciples of the apostles, left writings on the question. And modern scholarship has discovered documents that show exactly where the traditional date came from. When you lay it all out, the evidence is surprisingly strong.\nThree witnesses deserve to be heard: the Bible, the early Church, and plain common sense. Let’s call them in that order.\n1. The Clues Hidden In Luke’s Gospel # A painting from 1878 showing Jews praying during the Day of Atonement, the one day of the year when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies.\nLuke begins his account not with Mary, but with Mary’s cousin Elizabeth and her husband Zachariah, a priest of the division of Abijah (Luke 1:5). That detail, easy to skim past, is the key that unlocks the whole timeline.\nKing David had organised the priests into twenty-four divisions, each serving at the temple for one week twice a year (1 Chronicles 24:7-19). Abijah was the eighth division. The obvious problem for us is working out when the eighth division actually served, and here history is kind to us. Rabbinic tradition, written down about eighty years after the event, records that the division of Jehoiarib was on duty when the Romans destroyed the temple on the 9th of Av in AD 70.1 Jehoiarib was the first division, so that date gives us a fixed anchor. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the same division names and rota, proving the system really did operate as described.2\nWorking backwards from that anchor, the division of Abijah was serving in the autumn, in the weeks around the festivals of the month of Tishri, roughly late September to early October. Early Christian writers worked out the same calculation long before we did. A fourth-century document called De solstitiis dates Zechariah’s service to the feasts of Tishri, a commentary ascribed to Epiphanius has him serving until the twenty-second of Tishri, and John Chrysostom preaches the same computation.3 A second-century retelling of the nativity, the Protoevangelium of James, even pictures Zacharias performing the high priest’s annual entry into the Holy of Holies, a duty the law allowed on one day only: the Day of Atonement, 10 Tishri.4\nNow follow the calendar forward:\nLuke tells us Elizabeth conceived straight after Zachariah’s week of service ended (Luke 1:23-24). John the Baptist was therefore conceived around late September, which is why his conception is still marked in late September on some church calendars, and born nine months later, around late June. The feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist is kept on June 24th to this day. Luke then tells us the angel Gabriel visited Mary in the sixth month, that is, the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (Luke 1:26, 36). Six months after late September is late March, which is why the Church has celebrated the Annunciation on March 25th for as long as records reach. Nine months after late March brings us to late December. Notice what that produces: John conceived near the autumn equinox, born near the summer solstice. Jesus conceived near the spring equinox, born near the winter solstice. December 25th.\nThere is one more piece of quiet consistency. Forty days after a boy’s birth, the law required his presentation at the temple (Leviticus 12). Add forty days to December 25th and you land on February 2nd, the feast of the Presentation, which Christians have kept since ancient times. The whole calendar clicks together like tumblers in a lock.\nI should be honest about the limits here. The priestly divisions served twice a year, and scholars who reconstruct the rota differ over the details by a few weeks. The calculation narrows the birth of Jesus to the December-January window rather than nailing the exact day on its own. For the specific day, we need our second witness.\n2. What The Early Church Actually Said # The Church Fathers were the successors of the apostles. When they agree on a detail this specific, it deserves a hearing.\nHere is something the sceptics rarely mention: Christians were already arguing about the date of Jesus’ birth by about AD 200, long before anyone had legalised Christianity, let alone invented a pagan excuse for a feast.\nAround AD 200, Clement of Alexandria reports that there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day, and lists the suggestions then in circulation: the 25th of the Egyptian month Pachon (our May 20th), and the 24th or 25th of Pharmouthi (April 19th or 20th).5 Note what this tells us: the question was already being asked, and debated, within a century and a half of the event.\nA few years later, around AD 204, Hippolytus of Rome, a disciple of St Irenaeus, wrote in his Commentary on Daniel: For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was eight days before the kalends of January, a Wednesday.6 Eight days before the kalends of January is December 25th. In fairness, this is debated: the phrase is missing from some discussions of the oldest manuscript, and a few scholars suspect it was added later, though its most recent translator defends it.7 Either way, it is by no means the only early witness.\nIn AD 243, an anonymous North African writer (the treatise De pascha computus, once attributed to St Cyprian) was already reasoning about the birth of Christ using Malachi’s prophecy of the sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2). That is thirty-one years before the pagan sun festival usually blamed for Christmas even existed.\nThe first unambiguous record of the feast itself comes from Rome. The Chronograph of 354, a Roman almanac, contains a martyrs’ calendar whose earliest layer dates to AD 336. Its very first entry reads: eight days before the kalends of January, Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.8 The calendar runs from December 25th to December 25th; at Rome, Christmas opened the church year.\nAnd here is a detail I find genuinely hard to explain away. Around AD 400, St Augustine mentions that the Donatists, a breakaway African sect who had separated from the Catholic Church in 311 and refused every innovation that came after, did not join in the newer feast of Epiphany on January 6th. Yet they never rejected Christmas on December 25th; Augustine takes their keeping it for granted.9 For the Donatists to have kept December 25th, the feast must already have been established in North Africa before their schism, that is, before AD 311 and before Constantine. A fourth-century Latin tractate called De solstitiis spells out the whole reasoning in writing: Zechariah’s service at the feasts of Tishri, John conceived at the autumn equinox and born at the summer solstice, Jesus conceived at the spring equinox and born at the winter solstice, December 25th.10\nIn AD 386 St John Chrysostom preached a Christmas sermon at Antioch in which he remarks that the feast had been known in his city not yet ten years, but had long been kept in the West, celebrated, he says, from Thrace all the way to Cadiz, the western edge of Spain.11 In other words, December 25th was already old in some places while still new in others, the signature of a tradition spreading outward, not being invented.\nOther witnesses keep stacking up:\nThe Apostolic Constitutions (c. AD 380) instruct Christians to celebrate the nativity on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month: December 25th.12 St Augustine, in De Trinitate, explains the maths openly: He is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered… but he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.13 Pope St Leo the Great preached his Christmas sermons on December 25th in the 440s and actually complains about Christians who still bowed to the rising sun that morning, hardly the behaviour of a church that had borrowed the date from sun-worshippers.14 A Christmas sermon preached at Bethlehem around AD 410, long attributed to St Jerome, says the tradition of December 25th came down from the apostles.15 And in the East? The eastern churches held January 6th, a date St Epiphanius still records for the nativity in the 370s (he calls it the eighth day before the Ides of January, thirteen days after the solstice), and the Armenian Church celebrates Christmas on January 6th to this day.16 Two dates, one origin, as we will see next. Even the Syriac tradition agrees: St Ephrem the Syrian sings that the Lord descended and dwelt in the womb of Mary in the spring month of Nisan, which pushes the birth into mid-winter.17\nSo the consensus by the fourth century: December 25th in the West, January 6th in the East, both reaching back into the third century at the latest, and both built on the same reasoning. Notice also what is absent. No ancient writer proposes September, October, spring or summer as the actual birthday. None.\n3. Where December 25th Actually Came From # So why those two dates, December 25th and January 6th? Because the early Christians shared a belief that sounds odd to us but was entirely natural to them.\nAncient Jewish tradition held that the great figures of salvation lived whole years: the rabbis taught that the patriarchs were born and died in the same month, and that Moses died on the very day of his birth.18 Early Christians applied the same instinct to Jesus. They dated his crucifixion to March 25th (Tertullian and the paschal table of Hippolytus both use it), and reasoned that the greatest of all lives must have been complete at both ends: the day he died must also be the day he was conceived. March 25th, the Annunciation. Nine months later, December 25th, Christmas.19\nThe eastern churches ran the identical calculation on a different calendar. They dated the passion to April 6th, so the conception fell on April 6th and the birth nine months later, on January 6th. Same logic, shifted twelve days.\nIn 1889 the French liturgical scholar Louis Duchesne proposed exactly this explanation, that the Church calculated the birthday rather than borrowing it, and the discovery of the De solstitiis tractate proved the calculation really was being done in the early centuries. Modern scholars like Thomas Talley, William Tighe, Andrew McGowan and Thomas Schmidt have built on that work, and the resulting picture is this: December 25th emerged from Christians thinking hard about the dates in their own Scriptures, not from Christians raiding someone else’s holiday.20\n4. “Christmas Is Just A Pagan Festival”, Examined # And she gave birth to a son, her first-born. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger… (Luke 2:7a)\nNow for the objection everyone knows: December 25th was copied from the pagans.\nTake the two candidates one at a time. Saturnalia, the famous Roman festival, ran from December 17th to 23rd. Wrong date. Natalis Solis Invicti, the birthday of the Unconquered Sun, was indeed kept on December 25th, but it was instituted by the emperor Aurelian in AD 274. Compare the dates: Clement was reporting Christian date-proposals around 200, De pascha computus was reasoning about the nativity in 243, and the Donatists were keeping December 25th before 311. Christians had been circling that date for generations before Aurelian’s festival began, and they belonged to a persecuted minority that was notably suspicious of pagan holidays.\nHistorian William Tighe draws the obvious conclusion the other way around: Aurelian, who was hostile to Christianity and trying to unify his collapsing empire around a revived sun cult, most likely planted his festival on December 25th precisely because the date already mattered to Roman Christians.21 Whether or not you buy that, the chronology is a stubborn fact: the pagan festival on December 25th is later than the earliest Christian interest in the date.\nAnd what do the early Christians themselves say? Nothing about borrowing, ever. No ancient writer explains Christmas as a takeover of the sun feast. The first time that claim appears anywhere is a note scribbled in the margin of a Syriac manuscript in the twelfth century, over 800 years after the fact, claiming the nativity had been moved from January 6th to December 25th to upstage the pagans.22 Meanwhile Pope Leo was still preaching against sun-worship happening at dawn on Christmas morning. If the feast had been borrowed to replace the festival, you would expect someone to have mentioned it. Nobody does.\nTo be fair, plenty of modern scholars still think some mutual influence happened later, once both festivals shared the calendar. That is possible. But it is a very different claim from Christmas was invented to replace a pagan festival, which the evidence simply does not support.\n5. The Everyday Objections # Two practical objections get raised against a December birth, and both are worth checking because this is where common sense earns its keep.\nShepherds would not have been out in the fields in December. Luke says the shepherds were keeping watch over their flock by night (Luke 2:8), and sceptics reply that Judean winters are too cold for that. Two answers. First, the weather: December days around Bethlehem average roughly 13-15°C, cool but far from snowbound, and winter is actually the grazing season, since the winter rains are what make the hillsides green. Second, and more interesting: the Mishnah records that the flocks pastured in the stretch between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder, the tower of the flock on the road near Bethlehem (Genesis 35:21, Micah 4:8), were reserved for the temple sacrifices, and they stayed out in the fields all year round, even through February.23 If the shepherds of Luke 2 were keeping temple flocks, as Alfred Edersheim argued, then sheep and shepherds in the fields in December were not just possible, they were the norm. Is this conclusive? No. But shepherds could not have been out in December is simply wrong.\nRome would not have called a census in winter. Why not? The Roman administration did not shut down for rain, and the ninety-mile journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem through a mild Judean winter was entirely manageable for most travellers. Neither Luke nor anyone else hints that the season made the registration impossible.\nAnd one more honest point in the other direction: Origen notes that the earliest generations did not celebrate birthdays at all, regarding them as pagan custom.24 So nobody is claiming there were first-century Christmas parties. The claim is narrower: that Christians early on worked out when the birth happened, and later celebrated it. Those are different things, and the evidence fits the narrower claim very well.\n6. The Rivals, Fairly Weighed # Almost every alternative date you have heard falls into one of four camps.\nJanuary 6th. This is the serious runner-up. It is genuinely ancient (Epiphanius attests it for the nativity in the 370s, and Clement mentions Christians honouring it even earlier), it is still Christmas Day for Armenian Christians, and it comes out of the same family of reasoning as December 25th, just computed on the eastern calendar. If you told me Jesus was born in the first week of January I would call that entirely plausible.\nSeptember or October (the Feast of Tabernacles). The modern favourite. Its supporters argue that John tabernacled among us (John 1:14 uses the Greek word for pitching a tent or dwelling in a booth), that festival crowds would explain the full inn at Bethlehem, and that a different reconstruction of the priestly courses can put Zachariah’s service earlier in the year, giving a September birth instead. The Revelation 12 woman clothed with the sun gets pressed into astronomical service too. These are clever arguments, and a September date is a real possibility worth respect. The weakness is historical: no Christian writer in the first several centuries proposes an autumn birth, and no church ever celebrated one.\nSpring (March or April). Usually argued from lambs: shepherds watch at night during lambing. Clement reports April dates were proposed in his day, and De pascha computus placed the Incarnation in late March. The snag is that Palestinian lambs are mostly born in December and January, not April, so the best everyday argument for spring actually points backwards into mid-winter.\nMay, summer, and other guesses. Clement’s list already contained a May 20th proposal in the second century, and summer dates get suggested today on the strength of warm weather. Weather is the only thing these have going for them, and weather alone was never the point.\n7. The Scoreboard # Here is every serious suggestion, ranked by how much support it can actually muster:\nRank Proposed date The Bible Church Fathers Tradition Common sense 1 December 25th ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 January 6th ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 September/October (Tabernacles) ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ 4 March/April (spring) ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ 5 May 20th (25 Pachon) ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ 6 Summer (June-August) ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ A quick explanation of the ticks and crosses:\nThe Bible: does Scripture’s chronology support it? December and January both fit Luke’s six-month interval once Zachariah’s course is anchored. A September date requires re-anchoring the courses differently, which is possible but contested, so it earns a qualified tick. Spring and later dates have nothing textual behind them at all. Church Fathers: does any early Christian writer attest it? December 25th has Hippolytus, the Chronograph of 354, the De solstitiis computation, Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo and more. January 6th has Epiphanius and the eastern tradition. The spring and May dates existed as proposals Clement heard about, so they score a weak tick. Nobody in the early Church ever proposed an autumn or summer nativity. Tradition: did any church actually keep it as the nativity? December 25th was the Roman and universal western date; January 6th was the eastern equivalent and is still kept by Armenians. Every other date has zero liturgical support. Common sense: does the proposal fit the everyday circumstances Luke describes? Winter dates pass easily once you check the climate and the temple flocks; September gets its tick for the festival-crowd logic; spring fails because its flagship argument (lambing season) gets the calendar backwards; summer is fine weather-wise but is nothing more than that. So, When Was Jesus Born? # Was Jesus born on December 25th? Almost certainly on December 25th, or within a very few days of it, in the late December to early January window.\nThe course of Abijah puts John’s conception in the autumn and therefore Jesus’ birth in mid-winter. The earliest Christians reached December 25th or January 6th by that same route and by the shared logic of a life complete from conception to cross. The feast was being kept before Constantine, before Aurelian’s sun festival appears in any record, and before anyone had thought up the pagan-copying theory. And the supposed knockout blows, cold shepherds and an impossible winter census, evaporate once you look up the weather and the Mishnah.\nCould the date still be wrong? Of course. The Gospels do not name it, and honest history admits its margins. But if someone asks which date has Scripture, tradition and reason all pulling in the same direction, there are only two serious answers, December 25th and January 6th, and the first edges it on broader church father support. The Church did not pick a convenient pagan day. She seems to have remembered the real one.\nAnd that, in the end, is the only claim worth making anyway: not we celebrate December 25th because it is provably his birthday, but we celebrate on December 25th because the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. The day serves the mystery, not the other way around.\nSources: # 1 Mishnah, Ta’anit 4:5; Tosefta, Ta’anit 3:9; Seder Olam Rabbah 30: the course of Jehoiarib was serving when the temple was destroyed on 9 Av, AD 70.\n2 Dead Sea Scrolls calendar texts (4Q320, 4Q321, the Mishmarot), which preserve the twenty-four priestly courses and their order.\n3 De solstitia et aequinoctia conceptionis et nativitatis Domini nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae (4th c., ed. B. Botte); Pseudo-Epiphanius, Armenian commentary on Luke (fol. 74); John Chrysostom, In diem natalem (PG 49, 358). See Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year (Pueblo, 1986), pp. 91-99.\n4 Protoevangelium of James 8-9: Zacharias enters the Holy of Holies taking the robe with the twelve bells, i.e. performing the high priest’s office of the Day of Atonement (cf. Leviticus 16).\n5 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21 (c. AD 200).\n6 Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel 4.23.3 (c. AD 204): eight days before the kalends of January, i.e. December 25th.\n7 On the textual question see T.C. Schmidt, Calculating December 25 as the Birth of Jesus in Hippolytus’ Canon and Chronicon, Vigiliae Christianae 69 (2015), who defends the reading against the doubts raised since Hilgenfeld (1897).\n8 Chronograph of 354, Depositio Martyrum: VIII kal. Ian. natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae. The calendar’s original layer dates to AD 336.\n9 Augustine, Sermon 202 (on Epiphany): the Donatists refuse the January 6th feast but show no such scruple about December 25th, which therefore predates their schism of 311. See Talley, op. cit., pp. 86-87.\n10 De solstitiis (see note 3): John conceived at the autumnal equinox and born at the summer solstice; Jesus conceived at the spring equinox (March 25th, also held to be the date of the passion) and born at the winter solstice (December 25th).\n11 John Chrysostom, In diem natalem (PG 49, 351-362), preached at Antioch on December 25th, AD 386.\n12 Apostolic Constitutions 5.13: the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month (March being counted the first month, the ninth month is December).\n13 Augustine, De Trinitate 4.5.\n14 Leo the Great, Nativity Sermons 21-27 (esp. Sermon 22 and 27 on lingering sun-worship).\n15 Homily 88 On the Nativity of Christ, attributed to St Jerome.\n16 Epiphanius, Panarion 51.22 (nativity on the eighth before the Ides of January, i.e. January 6th); Clement, Stromata 1.21 (the Basilideans honoured January 6th); the Armenian Church keeps the nativity on January 6th to this day.\n17 Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on the Resurrection 4.10: in Nisan… he descended and dwelt in the womb of Mary.\n18 Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 11a and Kiddushin 38a; Seder Olam 10 (the righteous die on their birthdays).\n19 Tertullian, Adversus Judaeos 8; Hippolytus, paschal table and Commentary on Daniel 4.23.3.\n20 Louis Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien (1889); Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year (1986); William J. Tighe, Calculating Christmas, Touchstone (Dec 2003); Andrew McGowan, How December 25 Became Christmas, Biblical Archaeology Review 28/6 (2002); T.C. Schmidt, Hippolytus of Rome: Commentary on Daniel and Chronicon (Gorgias, 2017); K.M. Simmons, The Origins of Christmas and the Date of Christ’s Birth, JETS 58/2 (2015).\n21 Tighe, Calculating Christmas (see note 20); on Aurelian’s institution of the Natalis Solis Invicti on December 25th, AD 274, see the Chronograph of 354 and G.H. Halsberghe, The Cult of Sol Invictus (1972). Saturnalia: Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.10 (December 17-23).\n22 Marginal gloss on a manuscript of Dionysius bar-Salibi (d. 1171); discussed and cautioned against by B. Botte, Les origines de la Noël et de l’Épiphanie (1932), p. 66.\n23 Mishnah, Shekalim 7:4; Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, book II, ch. 6. Bethlehem December daytime temperatures average roughly 13-15°C.\n24 Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8.\nSuggested next reading: Why A Charismatic Evangelical Joined The Catholic Church\n","date":"25 December 2018","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/when-was-jesus-born/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"When Was Jesus Born? Was It December 25th?","type":"articles"},{"content":" Why Was St Joan Of Arc Burned To Death? TL;DR: Legally, Joan was burned as a relapsed heretic — she had put men’s clothes back on and reaffirmed that her voices were from God. Really, the English needed their most feared enemy destroyed as a convicted witch, so that Charles VII’s God-given crown would die with her; and when no honest charge could do it, her jailers engineered the relapse that did. On 30th May 1431 an illiterate peasant girl from the small, simple town of Domrémy in Northeastern France was put to death by burning in the Old Market of Rouen. This petite young woman was St Joan of Arc (Jeanne d’Arc in French). But why was St Joan of Arc burned to death?\nIt is one of those questions with two answers. There is the answer written in her death sentence, and then there is the real one, and the gap between them is the most interesting part of the whole story. I spent a long time buried in the record of her Trial of Condemnation and in the Trial of Rehabilitation that re-examined it a generation later, and here is what I found.\n1. The Simple Answer # Any biography of Joan of Arc will tell you that her appearance on the scene of the Hundred Years’ War in 1429 caused an uproar in Western Europe. She was loved by the French who were loyal to the Dauphin Charles VII, admired by other Europeans such as the Italian poet Christine de Pisan, and hated by the Burgundians and the English.\nIt could be said that, in some sense, she was the marmite of the 15th Century. Depending on who you were (and whose side you were on), you either loved or loathed her.\nThe simple, legal answer to our question is this: Joan was burned as a relapsed heretic. After months of interrogation she was convicted of wearing men’s clothing against the law of God, abjured her errors on a public scaffold, and then, days later, put the men’s clothing back on. A relapsed heretic could be handed to the secular power to be burned, and she was.\nAnd yet even that answer is stranger than it looks, because the men’s clothing was not really the reason she died. To see the real one, you have to look at a coronation.\n2. A Crown Received From Satan # A portrait of King Charles VII painted around 15 years after Joan’s death. | Why Was St Joan Of Arc Burned To Death?\nIn the summer of 1429, Joan had done the impossible. She had lifted the siege of Orléans, routed the English at Patay and marched Charles VII deep into enemy territory to be crowned and anointed at Reims on 17th July. And because her claim to be sent by God had been tested by French theologians at Poitiers and found worthy of belief, all of it was understood on both sides of the war as proof that God was on the side of the French.\nThat was the problem. If Joan was sent by God, then Charles was crowned by God, and the English claim to the French throne was simply wrong. But if Joan was a witch, inspired by demons and burning for heresy, then Charles VII had been crowned through sorcery: a king whose crown came from Satan.\nJoan had stated the threat in writing herself, in a letter dictated weeks before Orléans and delivered into the English siege lines, addressed to the king of England, the regent Bedford and his captains. It ordered them to surrender to the Maid, sent here by God the King of Heaven, the keys of all the good towns they had taken and violated in France, and warned that she had come to drive you out of all France. And it made the claim that sealed her fate: you shall not hold the kingdom of France from God… King Charles, the true heir, shall hold it, for God wills it so, and it is revealed to him by the Maid. To the English commanders who read it, that letter was a declaration of war on their king’s title, signed by heaven.\nEven the enemy’s own chronicles record what she meant to the French cause. A London city chronicle, written for English readers, calls her a fals wyche — and in the same sentence admits that the dolphyn and alle oure adversaries trusted holy to have conquered ayen alle Fraunce, held her among them as for a prophetesse and a worthy goddesse, and never had the worst of it in place that sche hadde ben inne. Wherever Joan stood, the English lost. The witch had to be invented, because the prophetess was winning.\nThe English said as much in writing. The German abbot Johannes Trithemius, summarising the English case a few decades later, states that they burned her as a sorceress and heretic to show that the king of the Franks, whom all call by the special title of most Christian, had strayed from the Catholic faith, and therefore to acclaim him unworthy of the realm, forasmuch as the said king had received the Maid, whom they judged a sorceress, and had given credence to her words. In short: ruin Joan, and you ruin Charles.\nNor was it only a matter of propaganda. Her enemies feared her in the most practical way possible. The Burgundian chronicler Enguerrand de Monstrelet, who was present at her capture at Compiègne on 23rd May 1430, records that the Burgundians and English rejoiced more than if they had taken five hundred fighting men: for they dreaded and feared no captain or other chief of war so much as they had ever done, until this present day, the said Maid.\nAnd the fear outlived her capture. Henry VI’s government had to issue edicts ordering sheriffs to arrest soldiers who had deserted rather than sail to France, men whom the terrors of the Maid had driven out of their wits. One Dominican friar testified that the English had been about to besiege the town of Louviers, but put it off until Joan was dealt with, deeming that during her life they would never have glory or prosperity in the business of war. The moment she was ash, they marched on Louviers.\nSo the English needed her dead. But they could not simply kill her.\n3. Why They Couldn’t Just Kill Her # A prisoner of war who turns up strangled in her cell becomes a martyr by teatime. What the English needed was worse than a corpse: they needed a Church verdict declaring that the girl who had crowned Charles was a heretic and a fraud, so that the crown itself would rot with her.\nThat meant it had to be a Church trial, run by Churchmen, ending in a Church sentence. And it meant the verdict had to be bought.\nThe receipts survive. Jean de Luxembourg, the Burgundian lord whose men had dragged Joan from her horse, sold her to the English crown for ten thousand livres tournois: a king’s ransom for a teenage girl, recorded in the English treasury accounts as payment to have Joan who calls herself the Maid, prisoner of war.\nThe man they hired to judge her was Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, a counsellor to the King of England whose compliance was sweetened by the promise of the vacant archbishopric of Rouen. His own expense claim survives too: 765 livres for 153 days of work for the business of Joan who is called the Maid, including the journeys to Burgundy and to Luxembourg to negotiate her purchase, all before her trial had even opened. The doctors of the University of Paris who pronounced her a heretic were likewise paid a daily rate to attend. Her trial had a price list, and everyone on it was English or paid by England.\n4. A Verdict In Search Of A Trial # Even so, buying the verdict was the easy part. Producing it was harder, because the defendant was a nineteen-year-old who out-argued the finest theological faculty in Europe for three months.\nThe fix was in everywhere you look in the record. A priest named Nicolas Loyseleur was planted in her cell posing as a captured French loyalist from her home province; he won her trust, heard her confession, and reported everything back to Cauchon, while notaries listened through a hole in the wall so that her private words could be turned into trap questions in court.\nChurch law said a prisoner of the faith belonged in a Church prison, and when the judges themselves were asked at the outset, they agreed it was more decent that she be kept in one. Cauchon refused, in his own words, for fear of displeasing the English, and left her chained in an English military castle guarded by English soldiers, a detail that matters enormously later. Pierre Cusquel, whose master ran Rouen’s building works, swore at the rehabilitation that an iron cage had been weighed out in his own house — made, he was told, to shut Joan in.\nShe appealed to the Pope, and was refused. When a friendly friar suggested she submit herself to the general Council of Basel instead, where her own side would be represented, she immediately agreed: Oh! since in that place there are some of our party, I am well willing to yield and submit myself to the council of Basel. Cauchon shouted him down, Hold your peace, in the devil’s name!, and ordered the notary not to write her submission down. When the same friar was caught quietly prompting her answers in a later session, the Earl of Warwick threatened to have him thrown into the Seine. When another assessor quietly asked the elderly Bishop of Avranches for St Thomas Aquinas’s ruling on appeals, and the answer came back that doubtful matters of faith should go to the Pope or a general council, the rehabilitation record says that answer was left out through malice.\nThe charges that made it to her sentence were, in typical deceitful fashion, the facts of her life distorted: her visions of saints became visions of demons; her leap from the tower of Beaurevoir — made, she said, because she had heard that everyone in Compiègne over the age of seven was to be put to fire and blood, and in the hope of saving my body and of going to succor many good people who were in need — became a suicide attempt born of despair; her refusal to submit to her English judges became a refusal to submit to the Church.\nBut the charge that finally killed her was none of these.\n5. Death By Trousers # Joan also wore her hair shorter during her military career and while in prison. The eminent and contemporary theologian Jean Gerson defended her hairstyle for practical reasons. | Why Was St Joan Of Arc Burned To Death?\nIt was, believe it or not, her clothes.\nNot her visions, not her letters, not the war itself. The accusation that could be proved by simply opening a cell door was that she dressed as a man: a tunic, hood and doublet, the ordinary working dress of a soldier.\nAs theology it was a thin charge, and Joan’s side knew it. St Thomas Aquinas had written, a century and a half earlier, that necessity made even cross-dressing permissible. Joan’s necessity was not subtle: she was a young woman held night and day among male guards in an English military prison, and she explained plainly that men’s dress was more permissible or convenient while she was among men. Later witnesses were blunter still: it was, they swore, the only reliable protection of her virginity in that cell.\nAs prosecution strategy, though, it was clever. Whether her voices were from God or the devil was unprovable either way. Whether she was wearing men’s clothes was a fact the judges could check for themselves, and, better still, could arrange. It became the tripwire they waited for.\nFirst, though, they needed her to take it off.\n6. The Day She Broke # On Thursday 24th May 1431 Joan was taken to the cemetery of Saint-Ouen and put on a public scaffold. This was no quiet threat in her cell; it was theatre, staged in front of a crowd. The preacher, Master Guillaume Erard, used his sermon to call Charles VII, to her face, a heretic and a schismatic, the real target of the trial said aloud at last. Joan, standing on his scaffold, answered that her king was the noblest Christian of all Christians, until the preacher ordered someone to make her hold her peace.\nThen they began to read out her death sentence. Joan interrupted — not to surrender, but to appeal over their heads, saying in a loud voice that she referred herself to the universal Church as to whether she ought to abjure. Erard gave her the binary: Thou shalt abjure them presently, or thou shalt be burned. And somewhere in the middle of the sentence being read, she broke. She agreed to submit, and signed the abjuration confessing she had lied about her revelations — signing not even with a name she could not write, but with a cross, made with the pen of the court usher Jean Massieu. An illiterate girl signing a document she had not understood was, by the Church’s own later reckoning, no informed consent at all. Her death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.\nThe English were furious. That is not a figure of speech: within days, eighty to a hundred of their soldiers mobbed the churchmen in the castle courtyard calling them traitors for letting her live. Loyseleur, the spy, told her she had done a good day’s work and saved her soul. Joan made one request, reasonable and utterly within her rights: now that she had submitted to the Church, take her out of English hands and into a Church prison.\nCauchon’s answer: Take her back where you found her.\nThat answer — not the sentence read on the scaffold — is what killed her. She went back to the same cell, the same guards, the same chains. And the men’s clothes she had just abjured? They were not even taken away. They went into a sack, kept in the very room where she was held.\n7. How The Relapse Was Made # “You say that you are my judge. I do not know if you are! But I tell you that you must take good care not to judge me wrongly, because you will put yourself in great danger. I warn you, so that if God punishes you for it, I would have done my duty by telling you!” — St Joan of Arc | Why Was St Joan Of Arc Burned To Death?\nWhat happened on Trinity Sunday morning is the contested heart of this story, and the two versions may both be true.\nJoan’s own recorded answer, given to the judges on the Monday, was careful. She said she had resumed men’s clothing of her own will, that it was more convenient among men, and that the promises made to her at her abjuration had not been kept: she had not been taken to Mass, she had not received the Eucharist, and she was still in irons.\nBut Jean Massieu, the court usher who was in and out of her cell daily, swore at her rehabilitation trial what the guards had actually done. By night she lay chained by the legs with two pairs of irons, locked to a beam at the foot of her bed, five Englishmen guarding her. On the Sunday morning she asked to be unchained to rise, and the guards took her woman’s dress, emptied the sack containing the men’s clothes over her and told her to get up. She refused all morning, Sirs, you know that it is forbidden me; without fail, I will not take it, until, at midday, bodily necessity forced her out of the bed and into the clothes they had given her. When she came back, they would not give her the woman’s dress however much she begged.\nFriar Martin Ladvenu, her confessor, swore a darker addition: that after her abjuration she had been violently tormented in the prison, molested, beaten and despoiled, and that an English milord had forced her. Friar Isambert de la Pierre saw her days later weeping, her face full of tears, disfigured and outraged. However it happened, exactly as the prosecutors needed, the prisoner stood before her judges dressed as a man again.\nAnd then she did the thing that truly sealed it. Asked whether she had heard her voices since the scaffold, she said she had, and that they had told her of the great pity of that great betrayal she had consented to in abjuring: she had condemned herself to save her life. Everything she had said on that scaffold, she said, she had said out of fear of the fire, and if she denied that God had sent her she would be condemning herself, because it was true that God had sent her. In the margin of the clerk’s minute, against this answer, three words were written: A deadly answer.\nShe added that she would rather do her penance all at once, by dying, than endure the prison any longer.\nAnd here is the detail that breaks my heart. In the same breath she offered the judges their compromise: if the judges wished, she would resume women’s clothing; for the rest she would do nothing else. The dress was negotiable. Her voices were not. She was offering to give them everything except the one thing the trial existed to take.\nCauchon walked out of her prison that day, saw the Earl of Warwick waiting with a crowd of Englishmen, and, laughing, called out to them: Farewell, farewell, it is done with her, make good cheer.\n8. The Sentence Nobody Pronounced # On Tuesday 29th May the assembled doctors voted, one after another, that she had relapsed. On the morning of Wednesday 30th May 1431 she was taken to the Old Market of Rouen, where Master Nicolas Midi preached to a crowd over a girl on a scaffold who had spent the dawn weeping, confessing and receiving the Eucharist. In front of the scaffold they hung a board itemising the charges against Jehanne who had herself called the Maid: liar, pernicious, deceiver of the people, diviner, superstitious, blasphemer of God, presumptuous, unbelieving, boaster, idolater, cruel, dissolute, invoker of devils, apostate, schismatic and heretic — and on her head they set a tall paper mitre painted with the words heretique, relapse, apostate, ydolatre. A Parisian royal notary, a man working for the English-backed government, copied the entire inscription into his official register that week — and then added a line of his own in Latin: it is said that in the end she repented tearfully and showed signs of penitence. Deus sue anime sit propicius et misericors: may God be merciful to her soul.\nThe sentence declared that she had returned to her errors as a dog is wont to return to its vomit, declared her a relapsed heretic, and handed her to the secular power with the traditional pious request that it moderate its judgment concerning you, short of death and mutilation of limbs. Everyone understood the fiction: the Church would not burn her; it would simply leave her where burning was certain.\nExcept that the fiction was never even completed. Two eyewitnesses, Friar Isambert de la Pierre and Friar Ladvenu, swore later that the secular judges sitting on their own scaffold never pronounced any sentence at all. There was no condemnation to death. She was simply marched down and handed to the executioner with the words: Do your duty. The authorities knew it was irregular: when the next suspected heretic was handed over, the Church formally warned the secular officers not to treat him as the Maid had been, who, without final sentence and definitive judgement, was consumed by the fire.\nShe prayed aloud for about half an hour, forgiving her enemies and asking the crowd, French and English alike, to pray for her, until, the record says, even the English were in tears. She asked for a cross; an English soldier fashioned her a little one from the end of a staff, which she kissed. She died with the name of Jesus on her lips while Friar Ladvenu held the crucifix high so she could see it through the flames.\nThe executioner came to the friars afterwards half-mad with horror, swearing that despite the oil, sulphur and coal he had applied, he could not burn her heart or entrails to ash. The English were taking no chances even with what was left of her. When the flames had done their work they ordered the executioner to part the fire so that the crowd could see her charred body — a witness at her rehabilitation says it was done lest it be said that she had escaped — and then had the ashes raked together and thrown into the Seine, lest, in Pope Pius II’s words, they should some time be an honour.\nBut the fear had already spread inside the English machine. John Tressart, secretary to the king of England, came back from the marketplace weeping and lamenting what he had seen: Nos sumus omnes perditi, quia una sancta persona fuit combusta — we are all lost, for a holy person has been burned. And the people of Rouen agreed with him: the same rehabilitation record notes that nearly the whole town was murmuring that a great injury and injustice had been done to Joan.\nMeanwhile the whitewash went out by post. The government of the boy-king Henry VI sent circular letters to the Emperor, kings, dukes and other princes of all Christendom, and to the bishops and nobles of France, announcing the just punishment of an erroneous diviner: a woman of wondrous presumption who had dressed as a man, boasted of visions of St Michael and St Catherine, and seduced the people for nearly a year. The letter insists that although Joan had inflicted great losses on the English, it was not our intent to avenge the injury, nor to hand her straight over for punishment — the king had merely answered the bishop’s request and delivered her to the judgement of Holy Mother Church, as befits a Christian king. The crown that had paid ten thousand livres for her wanted every court in Europe to understand that England had not killed her. The Church had. That was the whole point of the purchase.\nA Dominican named Brother Peter Bosquier dared to say publicly that her judges had done ill. They sentenced him to prison on bread and water until the following Easter. Telling the truth about her trial was already dangerous before her ashes were cold.\n9. So Why Was St Joan Of Arc Burned To Death? # Here, then, is the honest answer.\nLegally, Joan of Arc was burned because she was a relapsed heretic: she had abjured her errors, then resumed men’s clothing and reaffirmed her voices. That is what the sentence says, and it is formally true.\nReally, she was burned because the English needed two things at once. They needed the most feared commander in France removed, the girl they dreaded more than five hundred fighting men, the reason their own soldiers were deserting. And they needed her destroyed not as a prisoner but as a fraud, so that the coronation she had made possible at Reims could be written off as the work of a witch, and Charles VII’s crown as a gift from Satan.\nThat second answer is not a modern revision; it was the common report at the time. The clerk who kept the municipal register at La Rochelle recorded flatly that she was burned at Rouen par faux témoignages et accusements — by false testimony and false accusations. A chronicle kept at Tournai reports what ordinary people were saying: that she had been destroyed through the envy of captains and of councillors more loyal to her enemies than to their own king, the judges having found no other cause or guilt except that she had worn men’s clothing. The same verdict kept being repeated for a century afterwards — Varanius’s Latin epic has the English able to allege no crime in the girl except her arms and her male clothing, and Fronton du Duc’s tragedy protests that her judges found no greater pretext than that she had abused her sex. A dress was the only thing they could prove, because a dress was all they ever had.\nThe men’s clothing was the tripwire they set for her, and the relapse was, in the words of her own rehabilitation proceedings, feigned and contrived: her woman’s dress was taken from her, her guards had tried to rape her, and the promises that had won her signature were never kept. As the Church’s own promoter later summarised it, she was coerced and not having woman’s garments… compelled to take man’s dress for the protection of her chastity. Whatever the judges chose to call it, the practical effect was this: a chained girl put back on the clothes that protected her from the men guarding her, and was burned for it.\n10. The Verdict They Couldn’t Defend # The men who ran that trial knew what they had done. When the judges afterwards drew up a document claiming Joan had confessed on her last morning that her voices had deceived her, the sworn notaries who had recorded everything else in her trial refused to sign it.\nThe truth caught up in the end. Once Normandy was back in French hands, Charles VII’s own commission admitted that the English had caused Joan to die iniquitously and against reason, most cruelly. And on 7th November 1455, in the church of Paris, an elderly widow named Isabelle d’Arc threw herself at the judges’ feet with great groans and sighs, holding the Pope’s rescript in her hands, and demanded her daughter’s name back:\n“I had a daughter, born in legitimate marriage, whom I fortified worthily with the sacraments of baptism and confirmation and raised in the fear of God and respect for the tradition of the Church… Nevertheless, certain enemies betrayed her in a trial concerning the Faith, and, without any aid given to her innocence, in a perfidious, violent, and iniquitous trial, without shadow of right, they condemned her in a damnable and criminal fashion and made her die most cruelly by fire.” — Joan’s mother, Isabelle Romée, opening the trial that vindicated her daughter | Why Was St Joan Of Arc Burned To Death?\nOn 7th July 1456 the Church gave its answer. The falsified articles sent to Paris were declared corruptly, guilefully, calumniously, fraudulently and maliciously extracted, and the judges decreed them torn out of the record. The whole process — every session, both sentences, the abjuration, the execution and everything that followed from it — was pronounced null and void, invalid and irritated and inane, containing guile, calumny, iniquity, repugnance and manifest error of law and fact. Nearly five centuries after that, on 16th May 1920, the same Church that had failed her at Rouen declared her a saint.\nSo the real answer to why was St Joan of Arc burned to death? is not in the end about a dress code. It is about a frightened occupying power, a purchased bishop, and a nineteen-year-old they could neither beat nor break, only delegitimise and depose.\nSaint Joan of Arc, pray for us!\nWant More? # Read next The Real Truth About Joan Of Arc. Browse the full Trial of Condemnation of Joan of Arc and the Trial of Rehabilitation on this site. Join our St. Joan of Arc Facebook group. Watch my (somewhat awkward) dictation of Joan of Arc’s life on YouTube. Or watch this song I wrote about her below! ","date":"9 December 2018","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/why-was-st-joan-of-arc-burned-to-death/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Why Was St Joan Of Arc Burned To Death?","type":"articles"},{"content":" 10 Bible Verses for Anxiety to Reclaim Your PeaceWhen you feel your peace threatened, which Bible verses will help you alleviate anxiety, stress and worry?\nMany of the characters and authors in the Bible knew what it was like to feel anxious…Jesus included!\nBut you don’t have to keep on worrying. You can live a holy life of joy and faith as a child in God’s kingdom.\nHere are 10 Bible verses for anxiety that’ll destroy worry, reclaim your peace, and bring you rest.\nBible Verses for Anxiety # 1. “For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope.” — Jeremiah 29:11\nDownload\nDownload\n2. “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” — Romans 8:28\nDownload\nDownload\n3. “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him, because he cares for you.” — 1 Peter 5:6-7\nDownload\nDownload\nAll Scriptures used in this post are from the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE).\n4. “Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” — Philippians 4:6\nDownload\nDownload\n5. “Cast your burden on the Lord, and he will sustain you; he will never permit the righteous to be moved.” — Psalm 55:22\nDownload\nDownload\n6. “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid.” — John 14:27\nDownload\nDownload\n7. “Do not fear, for I am with you, do not be afraid, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my victorious right hand.” — Isaiah 41:10\nDownload\nDownload\n8. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.” — Proverbs 3:5\nDownload\nDownload\n9. “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life…can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?” — Matthew 6:25-27\nDownload\nDownload\n10. “I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!” — John 16:33\nDownload\nDownload\nOther Bible Verses About Anxiety # Here are other great Scriptures you can read that’ll give you some strength next time you’re tempted to worry!\nIf you’d like me to make any of these into images too, just comment below and let me know!\n1 Peter 3:14 — “But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated…” Psalm 34:4 — “I sought the Lord, and he answered me, and delivered me from all my fears.” Psalm 56:3 — “…when I am afraid, I put my trust in you.” 2 Timothy 1:7 — “…for God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline.” 1 John 4:18 — “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.” Psalm 94:19 — “When the cares of my heart are many, your consolations cheer my soul.” Isaiah 43:1 — “But now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.” Proverbs 12:25 — “Anxiety weighs down the human heart, but a good word cheers it up.” Psalm 23:4 — “Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no evil; for you are with me; your rod and your staff—they comfort me.” Joshua 1:9 — “I hereby command you: Be strong and courageous; do not be frightened or dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.” Matthew 6:34 — “So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.” Deuteronomy 3:22 — “Do not fear them, for it is the Lord your God who fights for you.” Revelation 1:17 — “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last…” Mark 5:36 — “But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the leader of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.” Romans 8:38-39 — “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Zephaniah 3:17 — “The Lord, your God, is in your midst, a warrior who gives victory; he will rejoice over you with gladness, he will renew you in his love; he will exult over you with loud singing…” Do you know of any more good Bible verses for anxiety? If so, please feel free to comment below!\nSuggested next reading: Why a Charismatic Evangelical Joined the Catholic Church\n","date":"26 May 2018","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/bible-verses-for-anxiety/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"10 Bible Verses for Anxiety to Reclaim Your Peace","type":"articles"},{"content":"Anxiety is a common occurrence. Who, throughout their entire life, has never felt anxious? We all know what it feels like. In fact, studies suggest that Western societies are becoming more anxious in recent times—so much so that it’s even been called the “Anxiety Epidemic”.\nWhile the causes of this are almost definitely varied and deep, and would probably warrant a whole article in of itself, there are a few easy-to-memorize Bible verses and saint quotes that, if one meditates on daily, reads aloud, and falls back upon, will surely find a greater sense of stability and security moving forward into the rest of their lives.\nSo, let’s glean from the words of our holy saints—our holy swordbearers in this great fight of life.\nSaint Quotes: # 1. “If certain thoughts bother you, it is the devil who causes you to worry, and not God, Who, being the spirit of peace, grants you tranquility.” — St. Padre Pio # 2. “Do not have any anxiety about the future. Leave everything in God’s hands for he will take care of you.” — St. John the Baptist de La Salle # 3. “Go forth in peace, for you have followed the good road. Go forth without fear, for he who created you has made you holy, has always protected you, and loves you as a mother. Blessed be you, my God, for having created me.” — St. Clare of Assisi # 4. “Pray, hope, and don’t worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.” — St. Padre Pio # 5. “Lay all your cares about the future trustingly in God’s hands, and let yourself be guided by the Lord just like a little child…” — St. Edith Stein # 6. “The greatest obstacles to holiness are discouragement and an exaggerated anxiety…” — St. Faustina # 7. “Let nothing disturb you, nothing cause you fear. All things pass; God is unchanging. Patience obtains all. Whoever has God needs nothing else; God alone suffices.” — St. Teresa of Avila # 8. “Stop listening to your fears. God is your guide and your Father, Teacher, and Spouse. Abandon yourself into the divine bosom of His most holy good pleasure. Keep up your spiritual exercises and be faithful in prayer.” — St. Paul of the Cross # 9. “Anxiety is the greatest evil that can befall the soul—sin only excepted…When our heart is troubled and disturbed within itself, it loses the strength necessary to maintain the virtues that it had acquired. At the same time, it loses the means to resist the temptations of the enemy, who then uses his utmost efforts to fish, as they say, in troubled waters.” — St. Francis de Sales # 10. “And of what should we be afraid? Our captain on this battlefield is Christ Jesus. We have discovered what we have to do. Christ has bound our enemies for us and weakened them that they cannot overcome us unless we so choose to let them. So we must fight courageously and mark ourselves with the sign of the most Holy Cross.” — St. Catherine of Sienna # ","date":"25 May 2018","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/saint-quotes-for-anxiety/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"10 Saint Quotes for Anxiety","type":"articles"},{"content":" Some of you may already know that I run a little Facebook group dedicated to St. Joan of Arc. A few of you may even have heard the song I wrote about her (you\u0026rsquo;ll find it at the bottom of this page, so consider yourselves warned). So it probably won\u0026rsquo;t come as a shock to learn that, over the years, I\u0026rsquo;ve developed a bit of an obsession with the Maid of Orléans.\nAnd yet, for all my reading, I\u0026rsquo;ve always found Joan hard to pin down, and so has everyone else. She was difficult to define in the 15th Century and she still is today. That makes it quite hard to work out what\u0026rsquo;s true about Joan of Arc and what isn\u0026rsquo;t.\nBecause here is the thing that has nagged at me for years: everybody claims Joan. The feminists claim her as their prototype. The nationalists claim her. Protestants have tried claiming her as a kind of proto-reformer. She\u0026rsquo;s been called a witch, a whore, a cross-dresser and a schizophrenic: everything, it seems, except what she actually was.\nSo a while back I decided to do something surprisingly few people bother to do. Instead of reading another modern biography (and goodness knows there are thousands of them, each spinning a different angle), I went back to the sources. In the early months of 1431, an illiterate nineteen-year-old girl sat in an English-held castle in Rouen and answered hundreds of questions put to her by some of the most learned churchmen in Europe, and the clerks wrote down her answers almost word for word. That document, the record of her Trial of Condemnation, still exists today.\nAnd it is gripping.\nWhether or not you end up as convinced as I am, I can promise you this much: the real Joan is far more interesting than any of the myths. Here is what I found.\n1. Everybody Wants A Piece Of Joan # First, a quick tour of the claimants, because the tug-of-war over Joan began almost the moment she died.\nShe was deeply loved by the French during her brief time with them, so much so that, after her death, a lookalike toured the country collecting accolades by pretending to be her, claiming she had escaped the flames. This money-grabbing deception was pulled off, it must be noted, with the help of Joan\u0026rsquo;s own surviving brothers. It appears families really do give birth to both sinners and saints!\nThe strangest claimant was a copy nobody could fake. Months after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, the French captains took up a young shepherd called Guillaume le Berger, who claimed divine revelations of his own and showed wounds in his hands, feet and side after the fashion of St. Francis\u0026rsquo;s stigmata. The Burgundian chronicler Jean Lefèvre called the men who promoted him people of foolish credence. The experiment ended at the skirmish chroniclers name the Battle of the Shepherd: the boy was captured, led bound like a thief through Paris in nine-year-old King Henry\u0026rsquo;s triumphal entry, dismissed as a fool and, Lefèvre says, drowned in the Seine. Martial d\u0026rsquo;Auvergne\u0026rsquo;s verses put the point sadly: the poor lad had said he was sent by God for the love of the late Maid, and every man wished to do like her. Nobody ever managed it twice.\nConversely, and understandably, she was loathed by the English of her day, the ones who captured her, accused her of demonic possession and burnt her. Even 160 years later, Shakespeare portrayed her in Henry VI as a witch and a whore, in line with the insults English soldiers threw at her during the Siege of Orléans (the latter insult making her weep).\nWilliam Shakespeare (1564-1616). This portrait, dated 1610 and attributed to John Taylor, hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. Shakespeare wrote his historical play Henry VI in 1591.\nAnd yet long before Shakespeare, we see a speck of English decency in the honest observation of one anonymous English soldier who, upon hearing Joan\u0026rsquo;s torrid screams and repeated invocation of the name of Jesus as she died, lamented these terrible words: God forgive us: we have burned a saint.\nFast forward to our own time and the claims multiply. She has been called the first feminist, the first Protestant, even one of the first advocates of transgenderism, all because she wore male armour. In secular England she is superficially admired as a brave woman, but the truth about Joan of Arc is rarely explored beyond that point. In fact, it is so unexplored that hundreds of people google was Joan of Arc real every month!\nAnd if that wasn\u0026rsquo;t confusing enough, there are other facets of Joan\u0026rsquo;s personality that do strike one as contradictory. She was, all at the same time, an illiterate peasant girl and an ennobled dignitary, the youngest ever commander and a girl more comfortable around soldiers than women at court, a perpetual virgin and a mystical visionary, meek and mild yet strong-willed and confident, often close to tears yet a relentless juggernaut against the English, uneducated yet a quick learner, an exemplary strategist untrained in theology, a menace to the Hussites, a great debater, an expert diplomat, a bastion of common sense, a miracle-worker, a teenager of unswerving supernatural faith and, to top it all off, an excellent sewer by her own account.\nSmall wonder the biographers keep trying.\n2. The Most Documented Teenager In History # Here is where it gets interesting for a modern reader, because we can actually let Joan speak for herself.\nBetween February and May of 1431, Joan was interrogated across a series of public sessions in the castle chapel and then, day after day, in her prison cell. Dozens of doctors of theology and law took turns questioning her, and the notaries wrote it all down. Every dodge, every deflection, every bold answer. The resulting record is so detailed that we know Joan of Arc better than almost anyone else in the entire Middle Ages.\nNor does the documentation end there. Twenty-five years after her death, the Church opened a second trial, the Trial of Rehabilitation, and tracked down everyone still living who had known her: her childhood friends, her comrades in arms, the priests who had examined her, even officials who had sat in on her condemnation. Their sworn memories of her are every bit as striking as her own answers.\nSo when people ask was Joan of Arc real?, the honest answer is that she\u0026rsquo;s one of the best-attested human beings of the medieval world. The question isn\u0026rsquo;t whether we know her. It\u0026rsquo;s whether we like what the record actually says.\nAnd the record does not stop with the trials. Joan marched through a Europe crawling with chroniclers, and they wrote her down as she went: Perceval de Cagny riding beside her favourite commander, the Duke of Alençon; the Burgundian Monstrelet standing in the camp that captured her; a German courtier, a Scottish abbot, even a pope. Thirteen of her own dictated letters survive too, and while she was still alive, poets were already turning her into verse. So we can watch Joan through other people\u0026rsquo;s eyes as well as her own, and that is where the picture gets really vivid.\n3. The King Who Was About To Give Up # Before we get to her trial, you need to see what Joan walked into at Chinon, because the chronicles make clear it was not a heroic court-in-waiting. It was a sinking ship.\nPope Pius II, who collected eyewitness accounts at the Council of Basel a few years later, records that when Joan set out, Charles VII was not planning a comeback. He was planning an abdication. He had resolved to write to the King of Castile offering him the crown of France in exchange for some corner of land wherein he might lurk in safety. The heir of France was shopping for a hiding place when an eighteen-year-old peasant girl arrived to tell him to fight.\nAnd he was broke. The Dean of Saint-Thibaud records that Charles was so poor a shoemaker in Bourges once refused him credit for a pair of boots, and took back the one he had already put on. Paris and Reims were in enemy hands, and Orléans was in its seventh month of siege.\nShe won her escort to that audience with a prediction nobody could explain away. On the day the French army was cut to pieces at the Battle of the Herrings, over a hundred miles away and before any courier could possibly have arrived, the Journal of the Siege records that Joan told Robert de Baudricourt, the sceptical captain of Vaucouleurs, that the king had had great damage before Orléans, and would have still more, if she were not led to him. Baudricourt, who the chronicler says had already proved her and found her very wise and as it were truthful, finally gave in. He had her dressed in man\u0026rsquo;s clothing and gave her an escort. Her first miracle was not worked on a battlefield. It was persuading a hard-headed border captain to stake his reputation on a shepherdess.\nSo the celebrated first audience was a last throw of the dice, and Charles played it like a man who trusted nobody. He stayed in the crowd while more splendidly dressed lords stood about him, and when Joan addressed him he answered: It is not I who am King, Joan, pointing at one of them: There is the King. The chronicler Jean Chartier records her reply: In God\u0026rsquo;s name, gentle prince, it is you and no other. And as the questioning went on, the clerks and captains marvelled at the girl who answered as knowingly about war as about the things of God.\nWhatever else she told him stayed behind sworn lips. Before a handful of witnesses bound to silence, the Chronique de la Pucelle records, she told the king of something he had done right secretly, at which he was much astonished, for there was nobody who could know it but God and he. To this day nobody knows what she said. Her confessor Brother Pasquerel would offer only that the king and the Duke of Alençon knew certain secrets which they could declare if they willed. Neither ever did.\nThen the French did something the English never did: they checked. For six weeks, the German courtier Eberhard de Windecken records, she was examined at Poitiers by old, experienced folk, by the learned, clergy and lay, by women and men, openly and secretly. The conclusion reported back to the king: no evil was found in the aforenamed maid, but all goodness: humility, maidenhood, spirituality, honesty, sobriety. And when Charles asked for a sign to prove she came from God, she told him she would give it at Orléans, and not sooner, because God had so ordained it.\nThe examiners went in scoffing and came out converted. Before they heard her, the Chronique de la Pucelle says, the learned men of Poitiers dismissed the whole business as ravings and fancies; afterwards there was none of them who did not say that she was a creature of God; and some of them, in returning, wept hot tears. Brother Séguin, the Dean of Poitiers\u0026rsquo; theology faculty who interrogated her and lived to testify at her rehabilitation, asked her what tongue her voice spoke. A better tongue than yours, she told the Limousin professor. And when a Jacobin doctor objected that if God willed the English gone, arms were unnecessary, she gave the answer that should be printed on every pacifist\u0026rsquo;s wall: she wished only a few men who would fight, and God would give the victory.\nWindecken also preserves the conditions she set the king before she lifted a finger: that he should give his kingdom back to God who lent it to him; that he should pardon everyone who had fought against him; and that he should humble himself so that anyone, rich or poor, friend or enemy, could come to him for grace. The illiterate teenager was not asking a king for a job. She was telling a king how to be one.\n4. Her Trial Was Rigged From The Start # Now, I have to be honest about what I found in that record, because this is the part that reads less like history and more like a thriller.\nThe judge, Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, was a counsellor to the King of England, and English Privy Council records show that his compliance was bought with the promise of the then-vacant archbishopric of Rouen. The man judging Joan literally had a promotion riding on her conviction.\nHer confidant was a plant. A canon named Nicolas Loyseleur was placed in her cell, posing as a prisoner loyal to the French party and claiming to be from Joan\u0026rsquo;s own province of Lorraine. He gained her trust by talking about the king and his own supposed revelations, and he promised Joan she would be saved. All the while, he secretly reported everything she said back to the bishop, including what she told him in confession, which is a serious breach of Catholic canon law. Legend has it that on the day of her execution he was so distraught over his sin that he begged forgiveness at Joan\u0026rsquo;s feet. However, the historical record of his later actions puts this story in serious doubt.\nIt gets worse. The notary Guillaume Manchon testified that at the start of the trial he was stationed with a colleague in a neighbouring chamber where there was a hole through which one could listen, so that whatever Joan confided to Loyseleur, even in confession, could be written down and turned into interrogatories to catch her craftily. And when Manchon went on faithfully writing down her answers, excuses and all, the judges tried dictating a different Latin wording to him, while two concealed scribes behind a curtain produced a parallel record with her defences simply left out. Where the manuscript margin still reads Nota, Manchon said, that is where the fight happened, and where she had to be interrogated all over again because what he had written was true.\nHer prison was not a Church prison at all. She was kept in an English military castle, in iron chains and fetters, guarded night and day by unscrupulous English soldiers. These are conditions she repeatedly complained about, and they explain her insistence on protective male clothing better than any ideology can.\nFor her first weeks in Rouen they kept her in something worse than a cell: a smith named Étienne Castille built her an iron cage, and she was held in it upright, bound by the neck, hands and feet, until the process began.\nWhen the one sympathetic examiner, Master Jean de La Fontaine, tried to enlighten her on points of law, Cauchon threatened him. After March 27 he simply disappears from the sessions. Master Jean Lohier, a respected Norman lawyer brought in to review the case, declared the whole trial worthless: it had no proper form, the court sat behind closed doors, the King of France\u0026rsquo;s party was never summoned, and a simple girl faced a room full of masters and doctors with no counsel. Cauchon stormed to the assembled masters that Lohier would call everything in question, and Lohier wisely left Rouen. And when sympathetic churchmen pointed out that the Council of Basel was then sitting, with clergy of Joan\u0026rsquo;s own obedience present, and suggested she submit to it, the bishop shouted Be silent in the name of the devil! The men who suggested it were expelled from the city under pain of death.\nAnd they used the sacraments as leverage. Joan begged to hear Mass, but the judges made her an offer: abandon your male clothing first. Her counter-offer is so very Joan that it deserves quoting: she asked them to have a long garment made for me, reaching to the ground, without a train, and give it to me to go to Mass; and afterwards, on my return, I will resume the clothing I have.\nFinally, on May 9, they brought her into the great tower of the castle and showed her the instruments of torture, prepared and ready. A nineteen-year-old girl stood before them and said this:\nTruly, if you should make me have my limbs torn apart, and make my soul depart from my body, I would not say anything else to you; and if I should say anything of this to you, afterward I would always say that you had made me say it by force.\nThree days later the judges assembled and concluded that torture, in her case, would profit little. Read that again. The entire apparatus of the English occupation and the University of Paris blinked first.\nAnd the fix went all the way to the purse-strings, because the accountants kept receipts. The English crown\u0026rsquo;s own ledgers record Cauchon being paid for 153 days of work on the business of Joan who is called the Maid, including journeys to the Duke of Burgundy and to Jean de Luxembourg to negotiate her purchase, all before the trial had even opened. The same ledgers show the doctors of the University of Paris who pronounced her a heretic each drawing twenty sous tournois a day for attending her trial. The men who judged her were literally on the payroll of the regime that had bought her: Luxembourg had just sold his prisoner to the English for some ten thousand gold pieces, a king\u0026rsquo;s ransom for a teenage girl. The Estates of occupied Normandy were made to vote a war tax that the surviving assessments describe as levied for the purchase of the Maid and the continuation of the war, and the treasurer of Normandy was ordered to buy 2,636 gold nobles in English money to settle the bill. Joan of Arc was acquired the way you buy cargo: by invoice.\n5. The Answers That Stopped Me In My Tracks # This is my favourite section, because Joan on the page is funny, sharp and utterly fearless: sometimes all three in one answer.\nAsked the classic trap question (do you know that you are in the grace of God?) she was caught between two fatal answers. Say yes and she\u0026rsquo;d be condemned as presumptuous; say no and she\u0026rsquo;d be admitting she was a sinner abandoned by God. Here\u0026rsquo;s what an illiterate teenager said to a room full of the finest theological minds in Europe:\nIf I am not, may God place me there; and if I am, may God keep me in it. I should be the most sorrowful in all the world, if I knew myself not to be in the grace of God.\nThe notaries wrote it down, and over 550 years later, so did the writers of The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church. They must have known they were witnessing something remarkable, because the trap never worked again.\nAsked whether St. Margaret spoke English, she replied: How should she speak English, since she is not of the party of the English?\nAsked whether St. Michael was naked, she answered with the brisk theology of a farm girl: Do you think that God has not wherewithal to clothe him? And whether he had hair: Why should it have been cut off?\nWhen Brother Richard approached her at Troyes nervously making the sign of the cross and sprinkling holy water (testing whether she\u0026rsquo;d react like a demon) she told him: Approach boldly, I will not fly away. The friar paid for his association with her in the end: in March 1431, while Joan sat in her cell at Rouen, the vicars of the bishop of Poitiers and the inquisitor had the Parlement there order the popular preacher to stop preaching and to remain under arrest in his Franciscan convent. The register does not say what he had been saying. It is hard not to wonder whether he was preaching too warmly about the prisoner her king had abandoned.\nPressed to swear the same oath for a second time, she pushed back like any teenager would: I made the oath to you yesterday; it ought well to suffice you. You burden me too much. And then, in a line that reads almost like prophecy, she warned the very bishop who would have her burned: Take good heed of this, that you say you are my judge, because you assume a great burden.\nAsked which she preferred, her banner or her famous sword, she answered that she preferred the banner forty times more, and the reason gives the lie to the whole bloodthirsty warmonger caricature: she said she carried the banner herself when attacking for avoiding lest she should kill anyone; and she says that she never killed a man. And asked why that banner had been carried into the church at Reims for the coronation ahead of every captain\u0026rsquo;s banner, she gave an answer that still catches in the throat: it had been in pain: it was well reasonable that it should have honour.\nAnd on the one secret they truly wanted, the private sign she had given her king, the thing that convinced Charles VII to trust her, she stonewalled for weeks: I always answered you that you will not extract that from my mouth. Go to ask him. She had sworn to St. Catherine never to speak of it, she said, because men pressed me too much to speak. Pressed past the point of refusal, in the March prison sessions she finally gave them an answer so grand it sounds like a parable: an angel had brought the king a crown of fine gold, which no goldsmith in the world could have made so rich; it lay in the royal treasury, she said, and would endure a thousand years and more. Memory, metaphor, or a teenager spinning a tale for her tormentors? Either way she could not resist the last word. Asked whether the sign was gold, silver or precious stone, she answered: I will not tell you; nor could any man describe a thing so rich as the sign; and yet the sign that you need is that God deliver me from your hands, and it is the most certain that He can send you. It seems Charles took his own share of that secret to the grave; years on, historians still debate what it could have been.\n6. The Bits I Had To Read Twice # Then there are the passages where I genuinely had to stop and re-read, because they sound like legend but sit right there in the sworn record.\nHer sword was found by miracle. She told the judges that her voices had revealed a sword buried in the ground behind the altar of the church of St. Catherine of Fierbois, marked with five crosses and thick with rust. She sent a man she\u0026rsquo;d never seen to fetch it; the churchmen found it exactly where she said, and when they rubbed it, the rust fell away immediately.\nShe predicted her own wound. At the assault on the bastille of the Bridge at Orléans, Joan was the first to set a ladder against the walls, and took an arrow (or crossbow bolt) in the neck. The record states she had foretold this to the king before it happened. She was healed within fifteen days and back at work.\nShe predicted her own capture, too, and the date. Weeks before Compiègne, she told the court, Saints Catherine and Margaret had warned her at Melun that she would be taken before the feast of Saint John, and repeated the warning many times, and almost daily. She begged them for one mercy: that when she was captured she would die at once, without long vexation of prison. The voices answered only that she must accept everything gladly, and that it had to happen so. Asked whether she would still have ridden out that day had she known the hour, she gave the honest answer: no, she would not have gone willingly, but nevertheless, she would have obeyed the command of those voices, whatever might have happened to her. She rode out. She was taken.\nShe prophesied the liberation of France on a deadline. In March 1431 she told her judges: Before seven years are passed, the English will lose all in France, and this will be by a great victory which God will send to the French. And she added, with typical zealous impatience, I should be well angry that it were so much deferred. Paris returned to French hands in April 1436, five years after a condemned prisoner said it would.\nShe survived a jump that should have killed her. Imprisoned in the tower of Beaurevoir after her capture, hearing that Compiègne was to be put to fire and sword and that she\u0026rsquo;d been sold to the English, she jumped, commending herself to God on the way down. She couldn\u0026rsquo;t eat for days afterwards, until, she said, St. Catherine told her to confess and ask God\u0026rsquo;s forgiveness for the jump, and promised that Compiègne would be relieved before winter. It was.\nShe even had to account for a miracle. At Lagny, she told the court, a baby three days old was carried before the image of Our Lady in the church; it was said no life had appeared in him for three days, and he was as black as her own tunic. The town\u0026rsquo;s girls were praying for him, so she went and knelt on her knees and prayed with them, and at last life appeared in the child, who gasped three times, was baptised, and immediately afterwards died, to be buried in consecrated ground. Her judges wrote that one down too.\nAnd she debunked a rival prophetess with the cheerful scepticism of a born detective. Catherine de La Rochelle claimed a white lady clothed in cloth of gold came to her every night, promising to sniff out hidden treasure that could pay Joan\u0026rsquo;s men-at-arms. Joan\u0026rsquo;s response is the most sensible in the whole record: she asked to share Catherine\u0026rsquo;s bed so she could see the apparition for herself. She watched until midnight and saw nothing. Catherine swore the lady had come while Joan slept. So Joan slept through the next day in order to keep watch the entire following night, lay beside the prophetess till dawn, and saw nothing again, though Catherine kept promising Yes, immediately. Her verdict, delivered to Catherine\u0026rsquo;s face, was that she should go back to her husband, keep house and raise her children. Her own saints, she told the judges, had told her the whole business was nothing but foolishness. The prophetess\u0026rsquo;s champion, Brother Richard, never forgave her for it.\nAnd here is the strangest entry in the file, because it is not about Joan at all: it is about her father. She told the judges that her father had dreamed, again and again, that his daughter would go off with men-at-arms, and was so tormented by it that he told her brothers: If I thought that what I dreamed of her would happen, I would want you to drown her; and if you did not do it, I would drown her myself. She obeyed her parents in everything, she said, except that one departure. Asked whether leaving them was a sin, she answered that since God commanded it, if she had a hundred fathers and mothers, and she were the daughter of a king, she would nevertheless have departed. Afterwards she wrote to them, and they forgave her.\n7. What Her Friends Swore To # The Trial of Rehabilitation is where Joan\u0026rsquo;s story gets its colour back, because the people who actually knew her finally got to speak under oath, twenty-five years on.\nHer childhood friends from Domrémy remembered a girl so ordinary she was almost boring: she sewed, she span, she minded the animals, she went to church so often that the other girls teased her about it. One friend of Joan recalled that she was an excellent Catholic, and a modest woman: she communicated often, and, at sight of the Body of Christ, shed many tears. In all she did, except in affairs of war, she was a very simple young girl.\nThe first soldier to take her seriously was Jean de Metz of Vaucouleurs, and he swore to what the girl in the poor red dress told him when he asked whether the king must really be driven out and England rule: Before it be mid-Lent, it behoves me to be towards the King, though I should lose my feet up to the knees. For none in the world, neither kings nor dukes nor the daughter of the King of Scotland, can recover the realm of France, nor is there succour for him save from myself. Asked who her Lord was, she answered: God. Metz put on his armour and rode beside her all the way to Chinon.\nWhen she first arrived at Chinon, one eyewitness described a poor little shepherdess presenting herself before the king with great lowliness, saying simply: Most noble Lord Dauphin, I am come and am sent to you from God to give succour to the kingdom and to you. The king made her wait two days before he would even see her.\nDunois, the Bastard of Orléans, the commander whose city she saved, swore that her behaviour in war was a fact divine rather than human. He was there on the Loire when the convoy was stranded, the wind dead against them, and Joan told him: I bring you better succour than has ever come to any general or town whatsoever: the succour of the King of Heaven. The wind, Dunois testified, then turned all at once and became favourable, and the boats sailed straight to Orléans.\nDunois also swore to something quieter. Every day at vespers, he said, she slipped into a church, had the bells rung for half an hour, gathered the mendicant friars who followed the army, and prayed while they chanted an antiphon to Our Lady. And once, riding beside him through crowds roaring Noël! as the king entered Crépy, she said: Behold a good people; never saw I any other people who rejoiced so much at the coming of so noble a king. And would that I were so happy, when I shall end my days, that I might be buried in this land! Asked where she hoped to die, she answered: Where it shall please God. She wished, she added, only to lay down arms and go home to keep her parents\u0026rsquo; sheep with her brothers and sister.\nThough even that touching wish has a wrinkle in the paperwork. The contract registers of Orléans cathedral preserve the record of a house in the city that Joan had leased from the cathedral chapter, with a man named Guillot de Guienne standing surety for her while she campaigned. Nine months after her death the surety re-let the lease, and it still had fifty-nine years left to run. Whenever Joan pictured the war finished, it seems she pictured herself settled not among the flocks of Domrémy but in the city she had saved, among a population, as one historian put it, where she counted only friends.\nAnd Jean d\u0026rsquo;Aulon, the veteran knight the king appointed to guard her, gave the testimony that answers the crazy girl playing soldier claim better than anything else. Travelling, sleeping and fighting alongside her for a year, he swore he had never known a more sober or more chaste woman: Neither I nor others, when we were with her, had ever an evil thought: there was in her something divine. D\u0026rsquo;Aulon also told the story no novelist would dare invent. Joan spoke of her heavenly counsel as three: one who stayed with her always, one who came and went, and a third with whom the other two deliberated. D\u0026rsquo;Aulon once begged to be shown them. She told him he was not worthy or virtuous enough to see them, and he never asked again.\nHer chaplain Brother Pasquerel, who never left her side from Blois to Compiègne, swore to the details the generals missed. She confessed nearly every day. When food ran short on campaign she would sooner go hungry than touch stolen victuals. She wept over wounded Englishmen and had them confessed before they died. And she told Pasquerel that if she herself were killed, the king should found chapels to pray for the souls of the men who had died in the war.\nJoan described her heavenly Counsel to the court like this: when people wouldn\u0026rsquo;t believe her, she said, I retire alone, and pray to God\u0026hellip; and, my prayer ended, I hear a Voice which says to me: \u0026lsquo;Daughter of God! go on! go on! go on! I will be thy Help: go on!\u0026rsquo;\n8. By My Staff # Now for the part I enjoyed most in the chronicles, because the eyewitnesses did not just record Joan\u0026rsquo;s words. They recorded her weeks.\nHer oath, incidentally, was not by God or by heaven. The Duke of Alençon\u0026rsquo;s own chronicler, Perceval de Cagny, tells us she swore by my staff, a homely little oath she had taught the veteran soldier La Hire to use in place of God\u0026rsquo;s name.\nAt Orléans, the English condemned to the flames the very herald who had brought them her summons to leave France, and built the stake to burn him on. When they fled days later, they left him behind in irons. And William Glasdale, the captain who shouted filth at her across the siege lines, got a personal prophecy: she told him he would die before the English departed, and would never see them go. Days later the bridge of the Tourelles broke under him and he drowned in full armour in the Loire. And she was no adrenaline junkie: d\u0026rsquo;Aulon swore that never had she seen the blood of a Frenchman that her hair did not rise upon her.\nShe was shot through at that same assault, and the record says she had predicted the wound to the king beforehand. Windecken, writing from the official reports, tells us what she did next: she had a little olive oil put on it, went aside, knelt and called on the heavenly Father, then climbed back into the ditch and told her men the English had no more power. The Journal of the Siege, the contemporary Orléans diary, preserves the most quoted scene of the whole siege. She left her standard, rode a little apart to pray, and told a gentleman standing near to keep watch for the moment the tail of her standard touched the English fortification. A few minutes later he cried: Joan, the tail touches! Her answer: All is yours, and in you go! The assault was renewed and the fort fell. The English prisoners marched inside the city that evening swore to something stranger still: that while the French attacked, it had seemed to them that the whole world was assembled against them. And the next morning, when the beaten English drew up in battle order to cover their retreat, she forbade the French to attack for the love and honour of the holy Sunday, so long as the English did not assail them. The English took the hint and marched away. Joan had won Orléans without a battle on the last day of the siege.\nSix weeks later at Patay, the scouts could not find the English army at all, until a stag burst from cover and plunged through their hidden line, drawing the cry that gave them away. Asked where the enemy was to be found, Joan answered: Ride hardily, we shall have good conduct. It was a rout: thousands of English dead, the great Lord Talbot a prisoner, and Sir John Fastolf running so fast he was stripped of the Order of the Garter for cowardice. His peers later gave it back, but the stain stuck. At Jargeau days before, the captured Earl of Suffolk had refused to surrender to an unknown squire until he had knighted the man himself, so that history would record he had yielded to a knight. Alençon swore that during the Jargeau assault Joan pulled him from the spot where he stood, pointing to an engine in the town: that machine will slay thee. Alençon moved; a few moments later the engine\u0026rsquo;s stone killed the lord du Lude on the very spot he had just left.\nNot everyone who fought beside her believed in her, and the best account of a sceptic\u0026rsquo;s conversion comes from the sceptic\u0026rsquo;s own man. Arthur of Richemont, the exiled Constable of France, turned up at the siege of Beaugency with a private army the king had expressly forbidden him to bring. Joan and Alençon rode out to meet him; and Guillaume Gruel, the Constable\u0026rsquo;s own chronicler, records that she dismounted and threw her arms around his knees in greeting. The grizzled Breton warlord looked down at her and delivered the verdict of a man hedging every bet at once: Joan, I am told you mean to fight me. I know not whether you are of God or no. If you are of God, I fear you not at all, for God knows my good will. If you are of the devil, I fear you even less. They joined forces, and Beaugency surrendered the next morning. When Talbot, Scales and Fastolf, marching to relieve it, heard that the Constable had arrived, they abandoned the attempt — which is how the road to Patay was left open.\nThe march on Reims nearly died at Troyes. The army had run out of bread, the council had voted to turn back, and it was the old counsellor Robert Le Maçon who said: send for the Maid. Joan rode in, asked the king twice whether he would believe what she told him, then declared: Gentle King of France, if you will remain here before your city of Troyes, it will be in your obedience within two days, whether by force or by love. Then she rode along the ranks with a staff in her hand, directing the gathering of doors, tables and shutters for siege works. Troyes opened its gates the next day, and when the garrison marched out under safe-conduct with their French prisoners, she made them give the prisoners up.\nAnd Reims was never just ceremony. The French believed no man was truly King of France until he was anointed with the holy oil kept there, sent down from heaven, they said, by a white dove to St. Remigius. Pius II records that the English had often discussed moving the oil out of the city but were, he says, hindered by divine will. Reims opened its gates; the English garrison marched out one gate as Charles rode in another; and Joan stood in the cathedral holding her banner quite near the altar while he was crowned. In less than three months she had put a king on his throne, and men, Perceval says, served her for the hope that she came from God, more than for wages: Pius II puts the volunteers at thirty thousand horsemen who came at their own expense.\nIt was not all glory, and the chroniclers do not pretend otherwise. On that same march she fell on two or three camp-follower women with the flat of the miraculous Fierbois sword and broke it; the king scolded her that she should have used a good stick instead of a sword that had come from God. At Paris in September she took a crossbow bolt through the thigh, lay in the moat until dark and had to be dragged out against her will, crying: By my staff, the place would have been taken. She was in the saddle at dawn demanding to attack again, but while she argued, the king had Alençon\u0026rsquo;s new bridge across the Seine secretly demolished in the night so she could not cross. When he then turned the army south, Joan left her whole harness, every piece of her armour, before the image of Our Lady at the abbey of Saint-Denis.\nAfter that, the court fenced her in. Alençon, says Perceval, was never allowed to campaign with her again; the lord of La Trémoille, who governed the king, saw to that. Fed up with a council that preferred truces to victories, she finally slipped away without even taking leave of the king and went to fight the raiders around Lagny. Even out of favour she was lethal: at Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier, when the assault broke and the French fell back, d\u0026rsquo;Aulon, himself shot through the heel, watched her ride back almost alone, crying to the stragglers To the faggots and the hurdles every man, to make the bridge! The town was stormed straightway. At Compiègne on 23 May 1430, she was in the rearguard covering her men\u0026rsquo;s retreat when the town\u0026rsquo;s own captain raised the bridge and shut the gate in her face, and she was dragged from her horse by a Burgundian archer. To the hands grabbing at her she gave the only answer that mattered to her: I have sworn and given my faith to another than you, and to him I will keep my oath.\nOne French chronicle adds a scene I want to believe. That morning at Compiègne, after confessing and hearing Mass at Saint-Jacques, she leaned on a pillar and told the hundred or so little children gathered to gawp at her: My children and dear friends, I signify to you that I have been sold and betrayed, and that shortly I shall be delivered to death. So I supplicate you to pray God for me. And the same chronicle could not resist the coda: the captain who shut that gate, Guillaume de Flavy, was never punished by any man, so God arranged that Flavy\u0026rsquo;s own wife had him strangled in his bed by her barber, and then received the king\u0026rsquo;s pardon.\n9. In Her Own Letters # We also have Joan\u0026rsquo;s own letters. Thirteen of them survive, dictated to scribes but very much hers in tone: blunt, confident and shot through with the same voice you hear in the trial.\nThe first was sent to the English commanders besieging Orléans, written before she\u0026rsquo;d lifted a finger in battle. A teenager, writing to the most feared army in Europe:\nHand over to the Maiden, who is sent here by God the King of Heaven, the keys to all the towns which you have taken and violated in France\u0026hellip; I am sent here by God the King of Heaven to drive you entirely out of France.\nShe warned them that she would raise a mighty outcry as has not been heard in France in a thousand years. A few weeks later she had done precisely that.\nWhen the English predictably ignored her letters, she had the next one tied to a shaft and shot into their camp by a crossbowman. That is the detail I love most: most people who ignore an email just get a follow-up, Joan sent hers by arrow.\nAnd she had a secret code. She often wrote the names Jhesus Maria with a cross on her letters, but sometimes, she told the court, she placed the cross in sign that he of her party to whom she wrote, should not do that which she wrote to him. A teenage girl running a cipher under everyone\u0026rsquo;s noses.\nShe could be gloriously matter-of-fact about the impossible too. Her letter to the loyal French town of Tournai reads like a war bulletin from a commander three times her age: in eight days she has chased the English out of all the places they held upon the river Loire, by assault or otherwise. And on the very day Charles was crowned at Reims, the busiest day of her life, she found time to write to the Duke of Burgundy begging him to make peace, with an extraordinary alternative if he insisted on fighting someone: if it please you to make war, then go upon the Saracens. At the summit of her triumph, her instinct was to point an enemy army at a worthier target.\nHer letters to the citizens of Reims are my favourites, because they show Joan the protector rather than the warlord. Hearing they feared a siege, she wrote: I promise and certify you that I shall not abandon you so long as I live, and told them to send word of any traitors in their midst, and as soon as I can, I shall remove them from among you. On the truce Charles had just signed with Burgundy she was blunt: I am not content, and I know not if I shall keep them. And to any enemy thinking of marching on the city she promised to make them wear out their spurs so hastily that they shall not know where to take them.\nWe even know what she looked like mid-campaign, because two young noblemen, Guy and André de Laval, wrote home describing the day they met her: armed all in white save the head, a little axe in her hand, on a great black courser that would not stand still for her to mount until she ordered it led to the wayside cross. Then, in a right woman\u0026rsquo;s voice, she called to the priests to make processions and prayers to God, and rode off saying Forward, forward. The brothers\u0026rsquo; verdict, written to their own mother and grandmother: it seems a thing altogether divine, her deeds, and to see her and to hear her.\nAnd one last letter, to the town of Riom, asks for powders, saltpetre, sulphur; shot, strong crossbows and other implements of war for the siege of La Charité. It is signed JEHANNE in a cramped, uncertain hand, the letters guided for her, because Joan could not write. The original still exists; a single hair and the mark of a finger are still pressed into the broken wax seal. Her signature was hers, but someone held her hand to make it.\n10. What The Rest Of The World Wrote # But perhaps the most striking material in these volumes is what other people wrote about Joan while it was all still happening, from every side of the war and beyond.\nStart with her enemies. Enguerrand de Monstrelet was a Burgundian chronicler writing for the very faction that captured her, and he was at Compiègne. He records that when Joan was taken, the Burgundians and English rejoiced more than if they had taken five hundred fighting men: for they dreaded and feared no captain or other chief of war so much as they had ever done the said Maid. Her enemies rated her the most dangerous commander in France.\nAnd you can see that fear in their paperwork. The English crown\u0026rsquo;s own writs survive, ordering sheriffs across England to hunt down captains and soldiers who had deserted rather than cross the Channel. The official rubrics on those writs explain why the men ran: they were terrified by the enchantments of the Maid, and the terrors of the Maid had driven them out of their wits. Henry VI\u0026rsquo;s government was reduced to begging its own army to come to France.\nAnd the Duke of Burgundy announced her capture to Henry VI himself, in a letter written from the field that same evening, naming himself the instrument of divine providence in her downfall: with them came she that thei calle the Pucelle… and God yaf me such grace, that she that thei calle the Pucelle was taken. The London civic chronicles recorded the event with a compliment they could not quite bury in the abuse: she was a fals wyche, they wrote, yet the French helden here amonges them as for a prophetesse and a worthy goddesse, for she had never had the worsse in place that sche hadde ben inne. A false witch who had never been beaten: even the enemy\u0026rsquo;s annals could not make the two halves of that sentence fit. A monk at St Albans, entering the news in his annals for 1430, could only note that a girl called Le Puselle de Francia had been taken in the deceitful crowd of the French.\nThe hostile diarist known as the Bourgeois of Paris, who loathed her, still records the rumour going round the capital: that as a little girl minding the sheep, the birds of the woods and fields came at her call to eat bread in her lap. He marks it apocryphal himself. Even her enemies could not resist repeating the legends.\nThen there are the foreigners who watched from a safe distance. Walter Bower, a Scottish abbot writing his national chronicle from eyewitness reports, was fascinated by the little ring she wore on her left hand and gazed at continually, the very detail her prosecutors would twist into evidence of sorcery. Bower even found her foretold in Merlin\u0026rsquo;s prophecies — Behold, wars resound; a maiden bears the banners — and signed off with the most beautifully hedged verdict in the whole corpus: she had done much good for the realm of France and struck terror into the English, he concedes, but by what spirit she presumed these things, He knows who knows all. Pope Pius II gave her a sober chapter of his history a generation later, declining to rule whether it was a divine work or a human device but confirming every fact; he even reports the cynical theory of his day, that some clever nobleman invented her as God\u0026rsquo;s messenger, on the grounds that there is no man who refuses God as leader. And St. Antonino of Florence, a canonised saint like Joan herself, weighed her deeds and found in her nothing dishonest… nothing superstitious, in nothing deviating from the truth of the faith. Another Scot went further than Bower ever dared: the compiler of the Liber Pluscardensis introduces his account of a certain marvellous maiden, Joan by claiming he had seen her, known her, and remained in her company until the end of her life, a Scot, if his word is to be taken, in French service to the last. And a Venetian merchant at Bruges, Pancrazio Giustinian, writing home just weeks after the coronation, set down her programme as the French court understood it: raise the siege of Orléans, crown the king, make peace between him and the English, and free the Duke of Orléans from his English prison, or, if the English would not give him up, she would cross into England and take him in spite of them. Whatever else Joan was planning, it did not stop at the Channel.\nHer fame outran her armies. In 1429 the town accounts of Ratisbon, while the Emperor Sigismund was lodged there, record a payment of twenty-four pfennigs to view a picture showing how the Maid fought in France: a blockbuster portrait of a teenage girl, exhibited in a country she never saw, while she was still fighting. That summer a letter from German agents reported that the Flemings and Picards would by no means leave their own country to help the English, and that much chivalry sets out from these German lands; they wish to go find the Dauphin at Reims: knights were riding west just to see her. A Paris student named Jean de Vaulx wrote her deeds on the flyleaves of his own copy of Terence, he said, since it was a marvel. And when the Burgundian envoy Bertrandon de La Broquière reached Constantinople in 1433, the Greeks asked him whether it could possibly be true that the Duke of Burgundy had taken the Maid, for it seemed to the Greeks a thing impossible. News of Joan had reached the end of the known world.\nBut the most beautiful testimony of all comes from a woman. Christine de Pisan, often called the first professional female writer in Europe, was sixty-seven and had spent eleven years cloistered in an abbey since the Burgundian revolution drove her from Paris. In July 1429, while Joan was still alive and still winning, Christine broke her silence to write the last poem of her life, the only French verses about Joan composed in her lifetime that survive. They begin like this:\nI, Christine, who have wept\nEleven years in a closed abbey…\nNow at last I begin to laugh.\nA little girl of sixteen years,\nIs it not a thing beyond nature?\nTo whom arms are not heavy,\nBut it seems that her nourishment\nIs there, so strong and hardy is she in it,\nAnd before her go fleeing\nThe enemies, and none endures.\nSuch strength had neither Hector nor Achilles;\nBut all this does God who leads her.\nThe woman often called Europe\u0026rsquo;s first feminist came out of retirement for Joan. Read that slowly.\nChristine was not the only one writing verse in those weeks. Somewhere in the Dauphiné, a nameless court clerk scribbled a patriotic ballad on the blank cover of a legal file, and it survived four hundred years purely because it was scrap paper. It opens with the insult every medieval Frenchman knew, the old folk legend that the English had tails: Back, tailed Englishmen, back! Your luck is over… And Joan, the sweet maid, by whom you are confounded. Joan was folklore before she was history.\n11. The Day She Almost Broke # But now comes the part nobody expects, and for me it\u0026rsquo;s the most human moment in her entire story.\nJoan did what any good Catholic would do: she appealed to the Pope. Three times on the scaffold at Saint-Ouen cemetery on May 24 she asked for her words and deeds to be sent to Rome to be judged by our Lord the Supreme Pontiff, to whom and to God first, I refer myself. Three times they refused; it was, they told her, not possible to go so far to seek our Lord the Pope. An English-run tribunal was not about to post its star prisoner to Rome.\nSo they began reading out the death sentence, and somewhere in the middle of it, Joan broke. She interrupted the reading and agreed to submit. An abjuration was drawn up, and she signed it with a mark, since she was illiterate. Even that signature has a smell about it. The clerk Jean Massieu testified that Joan asked for the schedule first to be seen by the clerks and the Church before she would sign; the preacher Erard cut that off with Thou shalt abjure them presently, or thou shalt be burned. So she signed. Loyseleur then told her she had done a good day\u0026rsquo;s work and saved her soul, at which she asked the reasonable thing: Now then, among you people of the Church, take me to your prisons, and let me no longer be in the hand of these English. Cauchon\u0026rsquo;s answer: Take her back where you found her. Her death sentence was commuted to life in prison, in the same English cell, on the same chains.\nBut here is what happened next, and it\u0026rsquo;s the bit that makes me love her more, not less. Within days, she said, her voices told her of the great pity of that great betrayal she had consented to, that in abjuring she had condemned herself to save her life. She took back her male clothing (partly, she explained, because it was safer among her male guards, and partly because the promises made to her, Mass, the Eucharist, release from her chains, had not been kept). The mechanics of that relapse deserve attention. Massieu testified that while she slept, her guards took away her woman\u0026rsquo;s garments, emptied onto her bed the sack containing her old male dress, and refused to give her anything else. She held out until midday, she said, before bodily necessity forced her to rise and put it on, protesting Sirs, you know that it is forbidden me. Brother Isambert de la Pierre testified she told him she had meanwhile been molested, beaten and despoiled, and that an English lord had tried to force her. The masters and notaries were then summoned so that everyone could come and look at the relapsed heretic in her breeches. And when the judges came to her cell to ask why, she told them plainly that everything she had said on the scaffold, she had said out of fear of the fire.\nPius II\u0026rsquo;s account adds a colder detail on how the relapse was manufactured. Her guards, he writes, kept laying pieces of military kit before her (a cloak one day, a cuirass or a breastplate the next) until, unwary, she dressed as a man again, not knowing she was putting on death. However it happened, the English had their relapsed heretic within days.\nIn the margin of the manuscript, the clerk recorded just three words: a deadly answer.\nOn May 30, 1431, in the Old Market of Rouen, the judges declared her a relapsed heretic and handed her to the secular power, asking the same secular power to moderate its judgment concerning you, short of death and mutilation of limbs. The legal fiction everyone understood: the Church would not burn her; it would simply leave her where burning was certain. And even that was a shortcut: the secular judges sat on their scaffold in the Old Market, but witnesses swore that no lay sentence was ever read. Two serjeants took her down and handed her to the executioner. They knew it was unlawful, too: when the next accused heretic, Georges Folenfant, came through, the church judges themselves sent to warn the bailiff of Rouen that this man was not to be dealt with as the Maid had been, who, without final sentence and definitive judgement, was consumed by the fire.\nTwo last exchanges deserve to survive. When Bishop Cauchon came to see the woman he had condemned, she told him to his face: Bishop, I die by you, and, in another account, Alas! I die by you, for if you had given me to be kept in the prisons of the Church, I should not be here. And the preacher Nicolas Midi\u0026rsquo;s dismissal of her was the coldest line in the record: Joan, go in peace; the Church can no more defend thee, and delivers thee into the secular hand. She knelt, prayed aloud, forgave her enemies, embraced the crucifix, and went to the fire.\nShe died asking a Dominican priest to hold the cross of Our Lord up high so she could see it through the flames. When Joan saw the fire, she told me to get down and to raise our Lord\u0026rsquo;s Cross very high so that she could see it, and this I did: Martin Ladvenu\u0026rsquo;s eyewitness account. The name of Jesus was the last word on her lips. Afraid she might become a martyr\u0026rsquo;s saint whose relics could be gathered, the English threw her ashes into the Seine.\nEven then, the cover-up couldn\u0026rsquo;t keep its story straight. The judges afterwards drew up a document claiming Joan had admitted on her last morning that her voices had deceived her. But that document bears no notarial signature: the sworn clerks who had recorded everything else refused to validate it. The one piece of evidence that she lost faith is the one piece her own enemies\u0026rsquo; scribes wouldn\u0026rsquo;t put their names to. And the hostile press invented more besides: Robert Fabyan\u0026rsquo;s English chronicle would claim she had feyned her wyth childe to put off the flames, but whan the contrary of it was knowen, she was therefor iuged and brent: a slander the sworn record disproves at every point, but one that English readers were still being sold more than eighty years on. Yet the first printed history of France quietly vindicated her own last appeal: Robert Gaguin\u0026rsquo;s Compendium, the book that taught Europe her story for a century, ends his account of her trial with the verdict that what she had done should have been submitted to the judgement of the Apostolic See: the very thing she asked for three times on the scaffold and was refused.\nOne more detail comes sworn by the men who stood closest to the fire. That evening the executioner found the Dominicans Ladvenu and Isambert stricken and moved with a marvellous repentance, fearing, he said, that he could never be pardoned for what he had done to that holy woman. He told them that though he had applied oil, the sulphur and the coal to her remains, he had not been able in any wise to consume or render into ashes the entrails or the heart, and was as astonished as at a most evident miracle. The bailiff\u0026rsquo;s own clerk, Jean Fleury, heard him report that the heart stayed whole and full of blood. Read it how you like: the man who burned her believed he had seen something beyond burning.\nAnd when a Dominican friar, Brother Peter Bosquier, dared say publicly that her judges had done ill, he was sentenced to prison on bread and water until the following Easter. Telling the truth about her trial was already dangerous before her ashes were cold.\nWhen Joan saw the fire, she told me to get down and to raise our Lord\u0026rsquo;s Cross very high so that she could see it, and this I did (Martin Ladvenu, the Dominican holding the cross). Painting by Jules Eugène Lenepveu (1819-1898). Cropped and touched up from a photograph by Hervé Lewandowski / Centre des monuments nationaux, via Wikimedia Commons, under Licence Ouverte 1.0.\n12. So What Is The Truth About Joan Of Arc? # After reading the record, the famous modern claims fall away one by one, and what\u0026rsquo;s left is almost embarrassingly simple: a pious Catholic girl who called herself, without pretension or propaganda, the Maid, a virgin consecrated simply and purely to God.\nJoan may have possessed lofty and mystical traits too, but in essence she remained a very simple young girl. Upon hearing that she was to be burnt alive the next morning, her first thought was not of glory or legacy but of purity: Must this body, so far undefiled, now be burnt to ashes in a woeful death?\nJoan of Arc sees Saints Catherine and Michael in Hermann Anton Stilke\u0026rsquo;s 1843 painting, Appearance of Saints Catherine and Michael to Joan of Arc, now held at the Hermitage Museum.\nHer passage into Heaven was through a refining fire, literally. As Mark Twain, no Catholic himself, put it: She rises stainlessly pure, in mind and heart, in speech and deed and spirit, and will so endure to the end of time.\nThe best definition of St. Joan of Arc is surely found in the St. that stands before her name. She is, first and foremost, a Catholic saint, and aren\u0026rsquo;t we proud to claim her as one of our own.\nSo let\u0026rsquo;s let Joan have the last word in refuting the myths:\nThe truth about Joan of Arc is that:\nShe was a staunch Catholic: in a letter to the proto-Protestant Hussites she wrote: I will eliminate your false and vile superstition and relieve you of either your heresy or your life. But if you would prefer to return to the Catholic faith and the original light, then send me your ambassadors and I will tell them what you need to do. She was a proud virgin: The first time I heard the Voice I vowed to remain a virgin for as long as it pleased God. She was humble and simple: Joan was a kind, humble and gentle girl; she went often and willingly to church and holy places… she kept busy as other girls do, doing housework and sometimes spinning; I saw her; she minded the flocks like her father did. She was not a radical feminist: I would rather be home, spinning wool beside my mother in Domrémy. But I must obey my Lord\u0026rsquo;s orders. (She also boasted, incidentally, that she did not fear any woman of Rouen in spinning and sewing. Make of that what you will.) She was not a cross-dresser: asked why she had resumed male clothing, she replied that she had done it for the protection of her virginity, for she was not secure while wearing female clothing with her guards, who had tried to rape her. Final Thoughts # And the paperwork that outlived her says the same thing in its own dry way. While she lived, churches across France were singing a collect composed in her honour: as by the hand of a woman Thou hast delivered Thy people. At her request, Charles exempted her home village of Domrémy from royal taxation, and French kings kept honouring it for three hundred years: on the tax rolls the entry beside her village read simply Nothing, the Maid, still confirmed by Louis XV in 1723. The city of Orléans paid a monthly pension to her mother Isabelle for the rest of Isabelle\u0026rsquo;s life, and has celebrated the 8th of May, the anniversary of its deliverance, ever since. The town\u0026rsquo;s own account books go further: as early as 1432, while Joan was still officially a condemned heretic, Orléans was buying wax tapers and paying eight friars of the mendicant orders to sing eight masses of the dead for the Maid Joan at the anniversary. And her family never quite let go of the title either: her brother Pierre\u0026rsquo;s son went through life as Jean de la Pucelle, John of the Maid, and the town was still buying wine for his wedding in 1457. Even Napoleon, asked to approve a statue of her in 1803, replied that Joan had proved there is no miracle which the French genius cannot operate when national independence is threatened.\nThis whistle-stop tour of the record may not convince everyone, and I haven\u0026rsquo;t even touched the stranger mystical details, like the Ladies\u0026rsquo; Tree at Domrémy, beneath which the village children danced on Laetare Sunday under a bower the old folk said had once belonged to the fées, and which her examiners tried very hard to turn into witchcraft. But the truth about Joan of Arc turned out to be simpler, holier and far more compelling than anything her modern claimants have made of her.\nA nineteen-year-old who could barely read or write sat in chains and out-argued the greatest theological faculty in Europe for three months. She broke for a single afternoon on a scaffold, then took it all back at the cost of her life. That, I think, is a saint.\nJoan of Arc listening to her voices, painted by Léon-François Bénouville (1821-1859). The painting hangs in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Rouen, France. Photo by Wuyouyuan, used under CC BY-SA 4.0, no changes made. Source: Wikimedia Commons.\nThink I\u0026rsquo;ve missed something? Feel free to message me on Facebook or by email here.\nWant more?\nRead next Why Was St. Joan Of Arc Burned To Death? Browse the full Trial of Condemnation of Joan of Arc on this site. Join our St. Joan of Arc Facebook group. Watch my (somewhat awkward) dictation of Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s life on YouTube. Or watch this song I wrote about her below! ","date":"20 May 2018","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/truth-about-joan-of-arc/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"The Truth About Joan of Arc Everyone Needs to Know","type":"articles"},{"content":" Objections To The EucharistHere are some of the actual objections we have received from Protestants regarding the Mass, and our responses in turn:\nObjection 1: # Jesus suffered once and once only. Romans 5:12 tells us that, through the sin of Adam, sin entered the world and because of that sin came death. Death passed to all mankind because of Adam’s sin. Jesus died once on the cross—the victory of Satan over Jesus, albeit a temporary victory—that Christ might become obedient to death on our behalf. God could not look upon his much-loved Son as he bore our sin. To re-create the body and blood of Jesus in the Mass (as Roman Catholic’s must believe) is to celebrate Satan’s victory over Jesus. # Forgive me if I’m wrong, but underlying this argument is the understanding that Catholics believe that Christ is re-sacrificed at every Mass. However, this is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. In paragraph 1330, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the Mass “makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the savior”. In other words, at Mass the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ at Calvary is not repeated—rather it is re-presented. When a Catholic goes to Mass they are, in a mystical sense, at the foot of the cross. Malachi prophesizes about the sacrifice of the Mass in Malachi 1:11: “For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.”\nLatin Tridentine Mass, the fulfillment of Malachi 1:11.\nThe second thing about your argument that I disagree with is your understanding of Christ’s death; you argue that Satan temporarily defeated Christ on the cross. I would argue that it is precisely in Christ’s death where Satan is defeated. In fact, I would argue Satan did not want Christ to be killed. In Matthew 16, Peter tries to persuade Christ not to go to Jerusalem after Jesus has told him that he must go to suffer and be killed. Jesus’ response to this is very intriguing: “Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me” (Matthew 16:23). Satan is working through Peter so that Jesus does not die. This contradicts the idea that Jesus’ death is a satanic victory.\nObjection 2: # When Jesus first instituted the Last Supper, he didn’t break off a finger and say, “This is my body”. In fact, he broke a loaf of bread. Would he not just have given them part of his body had he really wanted to? Likewise, could he not have opened a vein and let out some blood into a cup and invite His disciples to drink real blood? No! This is symbolic. Bread and wine symbolize the whole life of Jesus. His death, his resurrection, and ascension into heaven. # The Last Supper by the Spanish painter Pedro Berruguete. Painted sometime between 1495-1500AD.\nI believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Mass. There are a handful of reasons why I hold this position. In John chapter 6, Jesus is explicitly clear about the real presence of the Eucharist. After comparing himself to the manna bread in the Exodus, Jesus continuously refers to himself as the bread of life. In verse 51, he says “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread that will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the world is my flesh”. In the following verse, we learn that the Jews argue among themselves. It is clear how they interpret Jesus’ words; they believe he wants them to eat him. That is why they say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52). Jesus does not rebuke their understanding. He actually does the opposite and affirms their understanding by saying in John 6:53-59,\n“Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.”\nJesus has made his point crystal clear. We are to eat his body and drink his blood. This would have been very difficult for a Jewish audience. Over and over again in the Law, it is written that drinking blood is forbidden because “the life is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11). However, Jesus seems to be using this to make his point even clearer. He states in John 6:53 that, if we don’t drink his blood, we have no life. Whereas you cannot drink the blood of the old sacrifices because the life is in the blood, we are to drink Jesus’ blood in the new covenant because the life is in the blood, and we receive his life! Other people use different arguments. For example, Protestant reformer Martin Luther strongly believed in the real presence of the Eucharist. He would strongly defend its authenticity by stating that Jesus himself said: “This IS my body”. According to Luther, you cannot get away from that fact.\nMoreover, when I first started to read the early Church Fathers, I was challenged by how clearly they taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They saw the real presence as a crucial doctrine and, in actual fact, its authenticity was not fully questioned until Huldrych Zwingli in the 1500s. That is a very long time after Christ and so begs the question of why God would have allowed His Church to have gotten it so horribly wrong for 1500 years. The implication of this is extremely problematic for Protestants. If the Church got this wrong from the earliest days up until the 16th Century, then how do we know they didn’t get other doctrines wrong, such as for example, deciding which books should be in the Bible? There were many books that were rejected as heretical by the Church because they did not agree with what the Church was teaching. There’s no reason to trust that the Church was 100% right about the canon of Scripture, but 100% wrong about the real presence of the Eucharist—there is no reason (other than arbitrary) to believe this. You cannot argue this from Scripture, because that is building your whole argument on the assumption that the right books were compiled and canonized. In other words, you would be assuming what you are trying to prove. Let’s see what the early Christians—those who lived in the same context as Jesus and who knew the disciples themselves—say about the Eucharist?\nIgnatius of Antioch, in 110AD says, “Take note of those who hold heretical opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1).\nSt. Ignatius of Antioch being eaten alive during his martyrdom. Possibly painted by Cesare Fracanzano (1605-1651).\nIgnatius also writes, “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3).\nJustin Martyr in 151AD says, “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66).\nIrenaeus in 189AD writes, “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32).\nThe Church has always been clear. They unanimously believed that Christ was literally present in the Eucharist; it is unquestionable. These were disciples of the Apostles, meaning the Apostles almost definitely taught the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.\nSuggested next reading: Objections To Papal Primacy\n","date":"19 May 2018","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/objections-to-the-eucharist/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Protestant Objections to the Eucharist","type":"articles"},{"content":"What makes a catholic a Roman Catholic? Papal primacy.\nThe Catholic understanding of papal primacy—the unique universal authority of the Bishop of Rome—is one of the major ecclesiological differences between Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians.\nThe Protestant reformer, John Calvin, once wrote: why Rome? And this sort of question is still very much asked today.\nFrom the biblical case for Peter’s primacy to the witness of the early Church, apostolic succession, Rome, papal infallibility, and common Protestant objections, this guide explains the Catholic doctrine of papal primacy in one place.\nPapal Primacy Definition # Papal primacy, also known as the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, is a Christian ecclesiological doctrine concerning the respect and authority that is due to the Pope from other bishops and their episcopal sees.\n— Wikipedia\nThe doctrine of papal primacy is all about the authority of the pope and the respect due to him.\nThe pope, exercising the office of St. Peter instituted by Jesus, possesses greater authority than any other bishop around the world.\nThis office of St. Peter is often called the chair of Peter, the Apostolic See, or the Holy See (see coming from the Latin sedes which literally means seat.)\nPope St. Gregory the Great (reigned 590-604 AD) popularised the title servant of the servants of God to describe the role of a pope, but he also writes elsewhere it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches. (Registrum Epistolarum, Book III, Letter 30)\nHence this link between authority and servanthood is an important aspect of papal primacy. A link confirmed by Jesus in Matthew 23:11, He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.\nWhile this verse sheds some light on the pope, it also explains why Jesus is, in reality, the head of the Church because He is (among other things) the greatest servant of all.\nThe pope, however, because of his role in occupying the chair of Peter, is the vicar of Christ (i.e. the lieutenant or earthly representative of Christ) and so, therefore, has the most authority on earth while Christ is in Heaven.\nSummary: Papal primacy is the teaching that the pope has the highest earthly authority in the Church because he sits on the chair of St. Peter.\nThe Catechism describes the Pope, the Bishop of Rome and successor of St. Peter, as the “perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity” of the bishops and faithful, and teaches that by virtue of his office he possesses “full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church.” This same teaching is summarized in Canon 331 of the Code of Canon Law.\nWas a Visible Petrine Office Intended? # A common Protestant objection is that the New Testament recognises bishops and deacons but never establishes a higher office of “pope”, and that Peter never explicitly claims such a position for himself. But the Catholic case does not depend on Peter adopting a later title. It depends on whether Scripture and the earliest Christian witnesses present him as holding a distinct leadership role within the apostolic college.\nTo say that there was never intended to be a visible hierarchical position in the Church is therefore a much bigger claim than it may first appear.\nAfter all, in the Old Covenant, God established a priesthood with a head; the high priest. It cannot be completely out of the question, therefore, to assume that likewise in the New Covenant there is also a priesthood with a visible earthly leader.\nSome Protestants believe that Christ just abolished that structure, yet there is no Scriptural or historical evidence, nor logical reasons for this.\nJesus himself said that he did not come to abolish, but to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17). The Scriptures clearly point towards St. Peter being the leader of the Apostles (Matthew 16:19, John 21:15-17, Matthew 10:2). Early Christians—people who were trained by the Apostles themselves—testify in the 1st and 2nd Century to papal primacy.\nFor example, in 200AD, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Saviour paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly gasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you.’”\nClement, writing in 221AD said, “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the surest foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the Apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect.”\nThe great theologian St. Augustine of Hippo also had a similar understanding. In his commentary on John, he writes, “Who is ignorant that the first of the Apostles is the most blessed Peter?”\nSt. Augustine of Hippo, the famous early Christian theologian and philosopher from Numidia.\nThese are all people living about 100 years after the Apostles, in an almost identical culture, and where the Romans are persecuting Christianity—there was no reason to lie and no possibility for Roman corruption in the Church, therefore. Yet their view of St. Peter is crystal clear; St. Peter was the first among the Apostles.\nWhere Papal Authority Comes From # The relic of the chair of Peter in St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City. Source: Sergey Smirnov (Modifications made.)\nPapal authority exists exclusively in the Chair of St. Peter—no chair, no authority.\nThis pattern also existed in the Old Testament with the chair of Moses mentioned in Matthew 23:2-3. According to Jesus, the Pharisees sat in that chair and that was what gave them authority. (Matthew 23:1-3)\nThe Chair of St. Peter, however, was invested with authority by Jesus Himself. (Matthew 16:18-19) And as the name suggests, the first occupant of the Chair of Peter was…St. Peter.\nThis is significant since it shows that popes don’t possess authority in of themselves, but the office itself carries that authority.\nTherefore, when a pope dies or resigns, he loses that authority and an electee takes that seat, resuming his authority.\nThe process of a new pope succeeding one recently deceased is at the heart of the doctrine of apostolic succession.\nThat succession continues today with Pope Leo XIV, the 267th Pope and Bishop of Rome.\nPrimacy Does Not Mean a Pope Is Personally Impeccable # Galatians 2 raises an obvious question: if Peter possessed primacy, how could Paul rebuke him publicly? The answer depends on distinguishing papal primacy from the idea that a pope is personally impeccable or incapable of making mistakes.\nAn early 17th Century painting by the high-Baroque Italian painter, Guido Reni, showing St. Paul rebuking the repentant St. Peter.\nNowhere does the Catholic Church teach that the Pope cannot ever be wrong. This is not what papal primacy entails. There have been many times where a Pope has said something that has later turned out to be false.\nFor example, in the 17th Century, Pope Paul V—for various reasons (and alongside other theologians, philosophers, and scientists at the time)—rejected Galileo’s theory that the Earth revolved around the sun. Obviously, it turns out he was wrong to maintain the Ptolemaic geocentric model which taught that the sun revolved around the Earth.\nThe Catholic Church does teach, however, that in very specific and unique circumstances, the Pope can speak without error. As paragraph 891 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”\nThere are two key parts to this text: “by virtue of office” and “faith and morals”. I’ll briefly discuss the second of these points first.\nAccording to the Catholic Church, the Pope, as Christ’s vicar on Earth, is able to proclaim the truth without error if it is on the subject of faith and morals. It also has to be said ex cathedra, meaning “from the chair”.\nIn Acts 15, the Apostles meet to discuss whether the new Christians needed to be circumcised. This was a matter of faith and morals. The Apostles did not get their Bibles out and debate and (inevitably) disagree with each other. Rather St. Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit and being preserved from error, proclaimed that circumcision is not necessary for the new Gentile Christians. The Apostles do not even question that he was right.\nThe Catholic understanding is that this is what happens not only in Acts 15 but in every subsequent Church council.\nThe Twelve Apostles…the Council of Jerusalem was undoubtedly the most star-studded cast of all Church councils!\nThe Catechism also notes that the Roman Pontiff enjoys this infallibility “in virtue of his office”. That is to say, the Pope was not infallible before he was ordained as Pope; before he becomes Pope, he does not have this ability.\nDo we see any Scriptural evidence for this? Yes, I think we do.\nIn the Old Covenant, we know that God granted special graces to the priests, especially the high priest by virtue of office. For example, in John 11, John tells us that, “He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation” (John 11:51). John here hints that because Caiaphas was high priest, he was able to prophesy.\nIn Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus tells us that the Pharisees were teaching authoritatively simply by virtue of sitting on Moses’ seat. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it.” (Matthew 23:2-3a) Jesus says here that because Pharisees are in fact Pharisees, they have authority to teach.\nJesus goes on to say, “Do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach” (Matthew 23:3b). Christ is making it clear here that even though they are hypocrites, the Pharisees and scribes have authority to teach by virtue of office; i.e. that they “sit on Moses’ seat”. It is the same in the New Covenant, with the priests and high priest.\nPeter’s Primacy in Scripture # As well as apostolic succession, papal primacy requires the doctrine of St. Peter’s primacy to stand.\nWithout either, the doctrine of papal primacy falls.\nAccording to the early Church Fathers, there is an abundance of scriptural proof showing that St. Peter’s authority surpassed that of the other disciples of Jesus.\nWhile the Church Fathers comment on many scriptures regarding St. Peter’s supremacy, some key passages include Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17, and Luke 22:31-32.\nHere are the thoughts of Pope St. Leo the Great on Matthew 16:18, St. John Chrysostom on John 21:15, and St. Augustine on Luke 22:31-32 respectively.\nSt. Leo the Great on Matthew 16:18 # …the universal Church has become a rock through the building up of that original Rock, and the first of the Apostles, the most blessed Peter, heard the voice of the Lord saying, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church\n—Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 156, paragraph 2\nHere Pope St. Leo I (400–461 AD) calls St. Peter the first of the Apostles while seeming to identify that original Rock with Peter. By doing so, he shows the cause and effect of St. Peter’s building up and the solidity of the whole Church.\nSt. Leo’s observation carries on Matthew 16:18’s wordplay with Peter’s name since, in Greek, Peter is Πέτρος (Petros), which means rock.\n…the building up of that original Rock seems to be referring to St. Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20, Mark 8:27–30 and Luke 9:18–20, as well as Jesus’ prayer for St. Peter’s faith in Luke 22:31-32.\nBecause of this, St. Peter is able to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32) and tend to Christ’s flock in a unique way. (John 21:16)\nIn summary, St. Peter must have primacy since he is the first of the Apostles and his faith’s strength is linked to the strength of the whole Church.\nSt. John Chrysostom on John 21:15 # He [Jesus] says unto him, Feed My sheep. And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others…Jesus puts into his [Peter’s] hands the chief authority among the brethren\n—St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on the Gospel of John\nSt. John Chrysostom (347–407 AD) notes that Jesus passed by the others when pinpointing Peter as the chosen one of the Apostles to feed Christ’s flock.\nMoreover, throughout the Gospels and Acts, Peter repeatedly appears as a spokesman for the Twelve Apostles, which is consistent with John Chrysostom’s description of him as “the mouth of the disciples.”\nBut the simple reason that Jesus passed by the others is that Peter has the chief authority among the brethren. And this is why Paul visited him above all others in Galatians 1:18 and stayed with him 15 days.\nIn summary, St. Peter must have primacy since he has the chief authority among the brethren, having been the only one charged by Jesus to feed his sheep.\nSt. Augustine on Luke 22:31-32 # He [Jesus] said in the same place of the Gospel, This night has Satan desired to sift you as wheat, and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. He that defends prays, and shall not he pray who is in peril? For in the words of the Lord, when the Son of Man shall come, do you think that He shall find faith on the earth? He spoke of that faith, which is perfect.\n—St. Augustine, Sermon 65 on the New Testament, paragraph 1\nWhile St. Augustine mostly lets this scripture speak for itself, he does highlight the relationship between prayer and the defense of the faith while also reflecting on Jesus’ desire for perfect faith in Luke 18:8.\nIf Jesus, desiring perfect faith from his disciples, singles out Peter by exclusively praying for his faith, then is it any surprise that Jesus would also single him out to tend his flock?\nIn summary, it is logical for St. Peter to be the prime apostle since he is the apostle best equipped by Jesus to inspire perfect faith in others since his faith will fail not.\nWhy Didn’t Jesus Simply Call Peter the Greatest? # Luke 22:24-34 presents another natural question. When the disciples dispute about which of them is the greatest, why does Jesus not simply settle the matter by announcing that Peter will be the first earthly father or leader of the Church?\nIt is true that Jesus never explicitly states that St. Peter is the “first Father of the Church.” However, neither does he explicitly state many things that are nonetheless true.\nFor example, he does not state that He is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity or—in fact—that the Trinity exists at all, but it is nonetheless true. It is however implied, and papal primacy is the same here.\nJesus response in Luke 22:24-34 is about being the greatest in the sense of service; it is not concerned with worldly hierarchy, and the two should not be mixed.\nFor example, Jesus himself is said to have “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:7), yet this in no way detracts from his authority in the Church.\nJesus tells us that, “The greatest among you must become the youngest, and the leader like one who serves” (v26). He then goes on in the same passage, singling out Simon St. Peter, saying: “Strengthen your brothers and sisters” and, also, that St. Peter’s “faith will not fail”.\nThus Jesus models true servant leadership and specifically instructs St. Peter to do the same. He, therefore, implies St. Peter’s primacy in instructing St. Peter to be the greatest servant of them all.\nPope St. Gregory I (pope from 590 to 604) was the first pope to use the phrase “servant of the servants of God” to refer to himself and, after the 12th Century, the title came to be used exclusively for the Pope.\n“Christ Washing the Feet of the Apostles” by the unknown painter called the “Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet”. Painted 1475AD.\nThere are other examples in Scripture where St. Peter’s primacy is more clearly demonstrated. For example, St. Peter (and St. Peter alone) is specifically given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19), as well as being the only disciple charged to feed Christ’s lambs and sheep, which included the 11 other Apostles (John 21).\nAs well as this, St. Peter is made the rock on which the Church is built upon (Matthew 16:18). Moreover, every time the names of the Apostles are listed, except for Galatians 2:9, St. Peter’s name appears first. In Matthew 10:2 it explicitly says that St. Peter is first. It is also St. Peter who chooses a replacement for Judas Iscariot. No other disciple is given these specific leadership duties.\nIs the Rock Peter, His Faith, or Jesus? # (Hint: It’s all 3!)\nOftentimes, we can automatically assume an either/or approach to biblical interpretation instead of a both/and approach.\nThe question of whether Jesus is identifying the rock in Matthew 16:18 as Peter’s faith or Peter himself is one such instance where a both/and approach is instructive.\nThis is because the Church Fathers identify the rock as Peter as well as his confession of faith. (They also point out that Jesus is the rock; a fact neither Catholics nor Protestants would disagree with.)\nThese varied interpretations are valid, plain readings of the text and shouldn’t be seen as contradictory.\nHowever, for the purpose of this post, here are a few Church Father quotes that show their interpretation of Peter being the rock.\nLetter to Pope Damasus I (377 AD), paragraph 2\nExposition of the Christian Faith, book 4, paragraph 57\nHomilies 4:1 (351 AD) — not available online in English\nAgainst the Donatists, book 2, section 2\nSermon 3, paragraph 3\nA linguistical objection to Peter being the rock is the Greek word used for Peter’s name in Matthew 16:18—Πέτρος (Petros)—and the Greek word used for rock—πέτρα (Petra)—in the term on this rock later on in the verse.\nSome say by this that if Jesus was identifying the rock with Peter, then the text would use the same word each time. Since, for example, Jesus is called the petra in 1 Corinthians 10:4 when it says the rock was Christ.\nWhile there are multiple ways to resolve this seeming linguistical problem, the simplest explanation is found as follows:\nPetros is the masculine version of Petra. Peter was given a name change by Jesus in Matthew 16:18 from Simon to Petros. It was appropriate for Peter to have a male name since he’s male. 1 Corinthians 10:4 which says the petra was Christ is acceptable because it’s not changing Jesus’ name to petra but making a theological point. The identification of Peter as the rock is also a view shared by theologians, including the Protestant theologian Robert McAfee Brown who says,\nProtestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the rock on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.\nWhile I personally feel Robert McAfee Brown is a bit too restrictive in his assessment of Matthew 16:18 (the Church Fathers believe the rock to be Peter, his faith, and Jesus), it nonetheless shows how the Catholic view is reasonable.\nThis also answers a common either/or objection: if Jesus is the foundation of the Church, how can Peter also be called its rock? Catholic theology readily affirms that Jesus is the Church’s ultimate foundation. The claim about Peter is subordinate to that truth: in Matthew 16:18, Christ himself gives Simon the name Peter and speaks of building his Church on “this rock.” Calling Peter the rock therefore does not displace Christ; it describes a role Christ gives him within the Church Christ himself builds.\nWas Peter the First Pope? # The word pope comes from the Greek word πάππας (páppas); an affectionate term for father similar to our term papa today.\nPáppas came to refer to bishops and patriarchs and, in the Latin Catholic Church, eventually became the customary title of the Bishop of Rome. Some non-Catholic Christian patriarchs, including the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, also retain the title.\nResultingly, Peter being the first bishop in Rome meant that he was also the first pope (using the modern meaning of the term.)\nDoes Peter’s Marriage Conflict with Clerical Celibacy? # Peter’s marriage is sometimes raised as an objection to the papacy: if Peter had a wife, does that undermine the later Latin discipline of clerical celibacy?\n“Christ Healing the Mother of Simon Peter’s Wife” by John Bridges, 1839AD.\nIt does not. The Catholic Church does not teach that every clergyman must be celibate because the Apostles were. As this objection itself points out, not all of the Apostles were celibate.\nHowever, it wasn’t until the 11th Century that priests were expected to be celibate. The reason was that priests were behaving immorally, so the Pope made it mandatory that Priests are celibate.\nThis was to follow St. Paul’s advice where he says it is easier to give your undivided attention to the Lord if you are single (1 Corinthians 7).\nTherefore, the Pope’s requirement of celibacy does not collapse. It is just a practical suggestion for clergy and, some may argue, necessary for other practical reasons.\nDid Peter Go to Rome? # But wait…did Peter even go to Rome? Yes, he did.\nAnd we know this mainly due to history and slightly due to Scripture.\nPeter sends greetings from “Babylon” in 1 Peter 5:13, a name that early Christian interpretation has often understood symbolically as Rome.\nBut the historical evidence for Peter being in Rome is what settles the case.\nWidely corroborated tradition places Peter in Rome for three reasons:\nHim founding the Church in Rome with St. Paul. Him being the first Bishop of Rome. Him dying there. If Scripture Doesn’t Call Peter Bishop of Rome, Why Believe It? # Scripture does not explicitly say, “Peter was Bishop of Rome.” That absence is often raised against the Catholic claim. But Scripture records only part of Peter’s life, so the fact that a later event or office is not narrated in the New Testament does not by itself show that it never happened.\nIt is true that Scripture does not tell us that St. Peter was bishop of Rome, but that is because Scripture only records part of St. Peter’s life; if something is not in Scripture, it doesn’t mean it is automatically not true.\nFor example, it would be wrong to say, “It is not true that many of the Apostles were martyred because there is no Scriptural evidence for it”. We know that the Apostles were martyred because there is historical evidence outside the Bible for it. The same can be said about St. Peter and Rome.\nSt. Irenaeus of Lyons, halfway through the 2nd Century writes, “The very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul.”\nA 19th Century statue of the 2nd Century Greek cleric, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, located in the Frederiksstaden district of Copenhagen, Denmark.\nIn 190AD, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome.”\nI could also quote Jerome, Eusebius, and Clement. The evidence seems to be clear; St. Peter definitely went to Rome, and being an Apostle, the historical data strongly supports the claim that he was a bishop too.\nWho Succeeded Peter as Pope? # The 2nd bishop of Rome was St. Linus who was pope for roughly 12 years.\nHe’s mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Timothy 4:21 and was the first Roman-born pope of many.\nLinus being the 2nd bishop of Rome is confirmed by various Church Fathers.\n…the blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.\n—St. Ireneaus of Lyon, Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3, paragraph 3\n[Linus was] the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church.\n—St. Jerome, Chronicon, 14g\nAfter the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle.\n—Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, book 3, chapter 2\nApostolic Succession List # Below is an apostolic succession list of all the popes from St. Peter to the present day.\nDownload\nPeter’s Primacy in Tradition \u0026amp; History # While the early Church Fathers point to Scripture, they also state it as if it were some commonly-known fact of the early Church.\n26. Go your way, therefore, to my brethren — that is, to those everlasting doors, which, as soon as they see Jesus, are lifted up. Peter is an everlasting door, against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail. Matthew 16:18 John and James, the sons of thunder, to wit, Mark 3:17 are everlasting doom. Everlasting are the doors of the Church, where the prophet, desirous to proclaim the praises of Christ, says: That I may tell all your praises in the gates of the daughter of Sion. – 26, Chapter 2, Book IV, Exposition of the Christian Faith, St. Ambrose\n57. Moreover, that you may know that it is after His Manhood that He entreats, and in virtue of His Godhead that He commands, it is written for you in the Gospel that He said to Peter: I have prayed for you, that your faith fail not. Luke 22:32 To the same Apostle, again, when on a former occasion he said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, He made answer: You are Peter, and upon this Rock will I build My Church, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 16:18 Could He not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on His own authority, He gave the kingdom, whom He called the Rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church? Consider, then, the manner of His entreaty, the occasions of His commanding. He entreats, when He is shown to us as on the eve of suffering: He commands, when He is believed to be the Son of God. – 57, Chapter 5, Book IV, Exposition of the Christian Faith, St. Ambrose\n1. Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord has made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he comes shall find so doing. Matthew 24:45-46 Not worthless is this servant: some great one ought he to be. Let us think who he may be. 2. It is Peter, chosen by the Lord Himself to feed His flock, who merits thrice to hear the words: Feed My little lambs; feed My lambs; feed My sheep. And so, by feeding well the flock of Christ with the food of faith, he effaced the sin of his former fall. For this reason is he thrice admonished to feed the flock; thrice is he asked whether he loves the Lord, in order that he may thrice confess Him, Whom he had thrice denied before His Crucifixion. – 1 and 2, Prologue, Book V, Exposition of the Christian Faith, St. Ambrose\n146b. See, then, in Peter God wrought the grace of preaching. And who would dare to deny the operation of Christ in him, since he was certainly elected and chosen by Christ, when the Lord said: Feed My lambs. John 21:15. 147. The operation, then, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, unless perchance you, who deny the oneness of the same operation upon the Apostle, think this; that the Father and the Spirit wrought in Peter, in whom the Son had wrought, as if the operation of the Son by no means sufficed for him to the attainment of the grace. And so the strength of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit being as it were joined and brought together, the work was manifold, lest the operation of Christ alone should be too weak to establish Peter. 148. And not only in Peter is there found to be one operation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but also in all the apostles the unity of the divine operation, and a certain authority over the dispensations of heaven. – 146-148, Chapter 13, Book II, On the Holy Spirit, St. Ambrose *The Trinity established Peter (as well as all the apostles.)\n158. Nor was Paul inferior to Peter, though the latter was the foundation of the Church, and the former a wise builder knowing how to make firm the footsteps of the nations who believed; Paul was not, I say, unworthy of the fellowship of the apostles, but is easily comparable with the first, and second to none. For he who knows not that he is inferior makes himself equal. – 158, Chapter 13, Book II, On the Holy Spirit, St. Ambrose *The Trinity established Peter (as well as all the apostles.)\n123. Because Peter believed this, he received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and without anxiety for himself forgave sins. – 123, Chapter 17, Book III, On the Holy Spirit, St. Ambrose\n“The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples…” — St. Clement of Alexandria, “Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved?” 21:3–5 [A.D. 200].\nAnd in fact, many of the Protestant reformers a thousand years later also hold to Peter’s primacy.\nDid the Catholic Church Begin in the Fourth Century? # A broader historical challenge claims that the Church of Rome did not really emerge until the fourth century and that, for the preceding centuries, Christians simply followed the teaching of the Apostles without anything resembling Catholic apostolic succession. If that were true, tracing the papacy back to Peter would indeed be difficult.\nThe question, then, is whether recognisably Catholic features actually appear before the fourth century. To test that claim, we can look at the features that most clearly distinguish Catholic ecclesiology and sacramental life, then ask how early they appear in Christian sources.\nFor the purposes of this, I’ll take a handful of absolutely distinctive features that can only identify as Catholic. There are the absolute fundamentals of Christianity, such as Christ’s nature, the reality of his death and resurrection, but we both agree on those doctrines, so I’ll focus on the distinctly Catholic features of the early Church.\nThese include:\na hierarchical church structure with clergy having apostolic succession, a belief that all Church councils are guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, a belief in the real presence of Christ at the Eucharist, a belief in the baptismal washing away of sins, and the belief in confession. All other dogmas, such as Purgatory and the Marian doctrines are not as elementary as these points, and hence the Church defined them far later in Church history.\nWas the early church “Catholic”?\nThe first feature was Church hierarchy. Did this feature exist before the 4th Century? It did. In fact, it existed one generation after the Apostles, as is clear in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John.\nSt. Ignatius wrote 7 letters as he was being brought to Rome to be martyred by the Romans in around 100AD. To use just one quote, in his letter to the Trallians, St. Ignatius says, “In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the Apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”\nThis quote clearly shows the three different offices of the early Church. It is clearly demonstrated. In fact, St. Ignatius writes to 7 different Churches across the world, and they all have this hierarchy.\nThe next feature is apostolic succession; did these clergymen have apostolic succession from the original Apostles? Again the testimony of the early Church clearly shows that they believed this.\nIn 80AD, St. Clement of Rome writes, “Through countryside and city [the Apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier…Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”\nSt. Clement, who is writing 47 years after Jesus’ death is telling us that the Apostles appointed people as bishops, and then when they died, they were succeeded by others. There isn’t a good reason to doubt this.\nIn fact Acts 6:6 mentions appointing St. Stephen as a leader through the laying on of hands, and the New Testament epistles are flooded with reference to appointing leaders. We have no reason to doubt Clement, therefore.\nAn artist’s interpretation of St. Paul ordaining St. Timothy.\nSo far then, within the 1st Century, we have bishops, presbyters (which can be translated as elder or priest) and deacons, and they can trace their appointment back to the Apostles. In other words, there is apostolic succession (more on that topic here).\nThe next feature is the belief that the Holy Spirit guides the Church councils infallibly. Since the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem, is recorded in the book of Acts, it makes sense to start there.\nAt this council, the issue was over the necessity of the Mosaic Law for new Christian believers, and in particular the issue of circumcision. After the council has been settled, and it has been decided that circumcision is not necessary, there is simply no debate on the matter, but why is this?\nI would argue that it is because the Apostles believed that their discussions were led by the Holy Spirit, and once the issue had been settled, the Apostles did not even question the validity of their decision.\nSt. Peter is rebuked by St. Paul because he compromises, not because he disagrees with the council. This again is in line with what Jesus says in John 16:13, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”\nAccording to Jesus, the Holy Spirit will guide the Apostles into all truth, and therefore also to his successors. It wasn’t as if the Holy Spirit only led the Apostles, then withdrew from the world. It is also untrue, as many Protestants claim, that Jesus is saying he will lead all people into all truth, and all churches.\nThe reason this cannot be true is that there are approximately 40,000 different Protestant denominations, all claiming that the Holy Spirit has led them, but they all have different interpretations, which contradict with other Protestant interpretation. They cannot all be correct since it is fallacious to say contradictory positions can simultaneously be true.\nIn addition to the apostolic age, an identical pattern is seen with other councils. That is, when a council has approved or defined a certain doctrine and condemned another understanding as heretical, that is simply the end of the matter. As St. Augustine of Hippo said, “Rome has spoken, the matter is ended.”\nSt. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City.\nThe next feature I will discuss is the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. A great Biblical defense could be made here, however, in this response, I will quickly show how the early Church of the 1stCentury firmly, and even aggressively affirmed Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In his letter to the Smyrneans, St. Ignatius of Antioch writes, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.”\nAs mentioned earlier, St. Ignatius is either writing at the end of the 1st Century or at the very beginning of the 2nd. Elsewhere, St. Ignatius refers to the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ”. Not only does he believe that Christ really is present in the bread and wine, but he aggressively defends it, saying that the heretics (who in this case are docetists) are heretics by virtue of the fact that they do not believe the Eucharist to be Christ’s body.\nSt. Justin Martyr, writing in around 165AD said, “For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus”.\nIt can be concluded that the early Church, within 100 years of Christ’s death, believe the Eucharist to be the real presence of Christ.\nThe icon of the baptism of Jesus.\nThe early Church also believed that baptism washed away sins. St. Irenaeus in the 2nd Century writes, “And dipped himself, says [the Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’”\nThe early Church also taught the necessity of baptism, as does St. Peter in 1 Peter 3:21.\nThe final Catholic feature I mentioned is confession. There is a very strong reference to confession in John 20:21-23: “Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”\nJesus here is speaking to the Apostles after his resurrection and is giving them his own authority to forgive sins. Here he institutes the sacrament of confession, whereby people confess their sins to the Apostles and, in the future, to their successors, and they are able to forgive sins, not in their own strength, but by the breath of God, which Jesus gave when he breathed on the Apostles.\nA confessional booth in Notre-Dame Basilica in Montréal, Canada.\nThis understanding is also testified in the early Church by Hippolytus, writing early in the 3rd Century: “[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy Apostles and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command.”\nTo conclude this whole response then, I would disagree that the Catholic Church began in the 4th Century. The 1st Century and 2nd Century church had very Catholic characteristics.\nThey believed in a hierarchical church structure, with clergyman having apostolic succession back to the Apostles, they believed that Church councils were led infallibly by the Holy Spirit, they believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they believed that baptism washed away sin, and they believed that the Apostles and their successors could forgive sins through Christ.\nI would conclude by suggesting that this Church was, in fact, the Catholic Church. One could argue that this Church is different from the one seen in Scripture. After all, I’ve only argued that the generation after the Apostles were Catholic.\nHowever, that argument is highly unlikely—after all, how could everything have gone so wrong a mere few decades after Christ? Further, this line of thinking is not even Biblical. Christ says that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18), St. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).\nIf someone were to argue that the Church started off well, and then immediately became corrupt is to say that the gates of hell did prevail against the Church and, therefore, that it is not the pillar and foundation of truth. That is to contradict Scripture.\nIt is far more reasonable to say that the Church did not teach heresy, but that it was guarded by the Holy Spirit, and preserved from error. That Church is the Catholic Church, and the promise remains true today.\n","date":"15 May 2018","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/papal-primacy/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"Papal Primacy: Biblical Evidence, Early Church History \u0026 Protestant Objections Answered","type":"articles"},{"content":" Catholic Convert: Why An Evangelical Became CatholicA few months ago I made an announcement to all my family and friends of my desire to become a Catholic. This 2-year desire will reach its ultimate fulfillment this Holy Saturday, as I receive my Lord and my God, Jesus Christ—His body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist at my local Catholic church.\nIf one understands what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, then they may begin to appreciate the excitement I feel for this momentous occasion!\nA Desire For Unity # Initially, when I announced that I was planning to become a Catholic, I had a fair number of people understandably ask why. It was my heart, however, not to go into too many specific details for the sake of unity—how often do we concentrate on what separates us rather than what unites us? And having been raised an evangelical Christian as well as working in full-time ministry for a number of years, this unity is dear to my heart.\nI have been greatly influenced by various evangelical leaders, some of whom I know personally, others I have known briefly, and yet many more I know of from afar. These are soldiers in Christ. And we desperately need each other as the mind of our culture increasingly becomes close-minded to, or ignorant of, God’s ways.\nWith that in consideration, I nonetheless feel it is appropriate at this time for me to provide my inquisitive friends—and most importantly—fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, a reasonable explanation for why I’m converting to Catholicism.\nMy reasons may or may not persuade you—“que sera sera”! My only motive is to present my journey to those interested using a clear and honest approach, and I dearly hope my conviction is not misinterpreted as putting anyone down.\nHence, in a heart of humility and love, I intend over the course of several blogs to provide a few reasons as to why I am becoming a Catholic. So, without further ado, let’s begin with reason 1:\n1. The Catholic Church Has A Valid Claim To Authority # As I have aforementioned, I was raised an evangelical Christian for which I am deeply thankful. Moreover, I was nurtured to love Scripture from an early age. It was my late-night habitual reading of the Bible when I was 11 years old that prompted me to question whether I was interpreting Scripture properly.\nReading Bible commentaries I soon realised that they did not always agree with one another—in fact, there was hardly what you would call consensus on even essential Christian truths.\nWhich way am I supposed to be going? (This is located in Saint Moritz, Switzerland).\nAs I expressed this concern to others I was recommended by some to ensure that I read Scripture “with the Holy Spirit”. This certainly sounded intriguing at the time, although later on, I realised that this technique simply did not cut it when it came to teaching Christian truth.\nFurthermore, this over-reliance on subjective feelings seemed to skirt dangerously with the warning in James 3:1 that Christian teachers are judged more strictly by God—I thus concluded that this doctrinal confusion was a serious problem.\nTwo Pastors, Two Different Opinions # This issue can be illustrated by the fact that two Protestant pastors reading St. Paul’s letters, both filled with the Holy Spirit, can come to opposite conclusions in regards to the nature of Christian baptism. One would teach baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, the other that it is merely a symbol of faith that has no power to save and therefore not strictly necessary.\nTwo Holy Spirit-filled Christian leaders, two sincere hearts, one Bible, and disturbingly opposite opinions on a very important technicality regarding salvation.\nEven the earliest Protestant leaders such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Huldrych Zwingli, etc. would often vehemently disagree with one another on core Christian teachings such as the nature of Jesus Christ, salvation, grace, baptism \u0026amp; infant baptism, communion, free will \u0026amp; predestination, etc.\nThis isn’t beauty in diversity; this is doctrinal chaos!\nMartin Luther, the monk who—as the apparent story goes—nailed his “Ninety-five Theses” to the door of the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg in protest against the sale of indulgences.\nIt became clear to me that there needed to be an authority outside the Bible to correctly interpret Scripture on these essential points of truth. But also an authority more grounded than the subjectivity of people who claimed the Holy Spirit guided their Biblical interpretations.\nIt seemed to me quite unacceptable that God could guide His Church so remarkably in the 1st Century only to let it veer off-course until Martin Luther arrived on the scene in the 16th Century as a vessel used by God to steer it back on track.\nI also found it unacceptable that God could seemingly drop a book down from Heaven called the Bible and leave His devoted followers scrambling, arguing and debating with one another on what it teaches regarding the most essential doctrines that relate to salvation itself.\n“…There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” — 2 Peter 3:16b\nIt is the Bible after all that admits to being occasionally difficult to understand while simultaneously dishing out grave warnings about false teaching. Furthermore, Hebrews 6:1-2 added insult to injury by calling some of these key disputed doctrines within different denominations “elementary doctrines”.\n2000 years on and we still couldn’t agree on the simplest teachings of the Christian faith!\nFor some time I gave up on trying to rationalise elements of my faith and simply yielded to the possibility I would never be given logically satisfactory answers this side of heaven, at least as it pertained to some of the issues I have mentioned.\nAnd Suddenly… # Years later, however, due to my reading of Church history, common sense struck me a blow when I suddenly perceived that the Bible had not magically appeared from Heaven—as if God had let it fall from the sky, bound and complete in King James English! Quite the contrary!\nI was intrigued to discover that the Bible, in fact, came from the Catholic Church itself, and that through this Church God has lovingly provided us with everything we need to have the utmost confidence in our Christian faith \u0026amp; salvation.\nHave I lost you? Let me justify that last statement.\n“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord.” — St. Cyprian of Carthage, 251AD.\nFor the first 1000 years of Christian history, there was one Church, and the first documented case of it being called the “catholic church” comes a mere 70 years or so after Jesus in the writings of a Catholic bishop called St. Ignatius of Antioch.\nIt is basic math that informs us that the inception of Protestant denominations from the 16th Century onwards such as Lutheran, Reformed, Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. means that, at most, each denomination is only 500 years old.\nBefore this time, mainline Christians were either Catholic or Orthodox. As well as, I found that history clearly showed that the present-day Catholic Church is the historical continuation of the Church you see in the pages of the New Testament and of history.\nNow that is not to say there was no just reason to “protest” over the few hypocritical and dishonest clergymen in the Catholic Church during the 16th Century, but I simply question the decision of these early Protestant leaders in leaving the Catholic Church and forming their own denominations.\nI qualify this by pointing out that it was Jesus in Matthew 16:18 who decided to form and build His Church on his most preeminent disciple, St. Peter:\n“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.\nIt must be noted that the Greek word for “Peter” means rock. Elsewhere Jesus promises to send His Spirit to lead this Church into all truth. Once more, St. Paul affirms this reality in 1 Timothy 3:15 when he calls the Church the “pillar of the truth”.\nA 15th Century painting by the Italian Renaissance painter, Pietro Perugino, illustrating Matthew 16:19 where Jesus gives St. Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, i.e. the authority to teach.\nHistory reveals that it was this Holy Spirit-led Church—the Catholic Church—that decided which books were to be put in the Bible. Moreover, it was the Catholic Church that definitively declared the Bible to be the inspired word of God.\nA Protestant Circular Argument # Hence to deny the authority of the Catholic Church makes our reason for trusting the inspiration of Scripture weaker…in fact, our main argument would become circular!\nWithout believing in the authority of Christ’s Church we are forced to mainly argue that the Bible is inspired because the Bible itself says so…although anything can claim special status by its own authority.\nThe holy book of Muslims—the Quran—claims to be inspired, and so we must see that the more effective arguments for the Bible’s inspiration are those arguments that extend beyond its very own pages.\nFor that reason, since Jesus Christ promised to lead His Church into all truth when this Church—back in the earliest years of Christianity—declared the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, we are reasonably able to trust that declaration because God does not break His promises! And the Catholic Church has consistently reaffirmed this truth from generation to generation. It is this Church that, according to Jesus, cannot fall into error and additionally was blessed with Jesus’ High Priestly prayer that it would remain one and whole.\nReading “With The Holy Spirit” # Reading the Scriptures “with the Holy Spirit” means reading it through the eyes of the Catholic Church and in spiritual communion with Christ.\nOn the other hand, this is not to say that Catholics are discouraged from reading the Bible “with the Holy Spirit”. Personal reading of Scripture is encouraged (ever heard of “Lectio Divina”?!) and there is still lots up for grabs in regards to interpreting other portions of Scripture.\nBut at least within the Catholic Church the essentials of the Christian faith are safeguarded and the Christian truth is preserved from error, from generation to generation, because the Holy Spirit is leading His Church into all truth.\nThe Proof # And where is the proof in the pudding? One such proof is that the early Christians—the disciples of Jesus, the disciples of the disciples of Jesus, and the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of Jesus, and the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of Jesus, and so on—committed to writing their interpretations of Scripture which testify to the validity of Catholic interpretation \u0026amp; teaching up to the present day.\nAll these early Christian writings outside the Bible, some as early as the 1st Century, sound extraordinarily—and suspiciously—Catholic!\nYou can read the Church Fathers here.\nAnother proof I was astonished to discover, from a careful study of history, was that the Catholic Church has never changed its teachings in regards to doctrine or morality. Some modern-day controversial examples, which the Catholic Church has not budged on, include its doctrine regarding the impossibility of ordaining women priests, or it’s moral teaching on abortion or contraception.\nThe Catholic Church will not—and indeed cannot—change or contradict its dogma or moral teachings. Teachings may indeed develop over time and disciplinarily, liturgical or governmental practices may change, and superficial changes may seem evident as the Church relates to the modern-day, but in spite of that, the Catholic Church cannot change the substance of it’s teaching since that would contradict the promise of Jesus to lead His Church into all truth.\nDuring those rare moments where it solemnly defines dogma, it is not just teaching the opinions of intelligent men but has Jesus’ promised inspiration to be the very truth of God.\nConclusion # “The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior” — Pope Damasus I, 382AD.\nTherefore, on a personal note, I am only able to conclude that becoming a Catholic makes a lot of sense due to the fact that the Catholic Church has a God-given authority to teach and safeguard the truths of the Christian faith.\nAlthough I would point out that good has come from the 9,000 Protestant denominations and counting (some quote 33,000), I for one do not see a similar strong claim to authority in safeguarding and teaching the Christian faith contained within it, evidenced in the fact that new denominations seem to appear on quite a frequent basis.\nI have even noticed that some non-Catholic Christians try to resolve this problem by aiming to devalue the importance of doctrine, despite many Bible verses that appear to emphasise the importance of correct teaching working alongside acts of charity, humility and love.\nIf you’ve ever heard someone insist that “Christianity is a relationship and not a religion”, used in a way that appears to undermine the relevance or importance of theology, then I would suggest that there is a good chance you have subtly encountered this attitude yourself.\nOf course, bearing spiritual fruit in love of God \u0026amp; neighbour is what matters more, however, as paragraph 89 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states so beautifully, doctrines are: “The lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure”. In other words, doctrine helps us draw closer in our relationship to Jesus. Hence, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater just as much as we shouldn’t seek quick fixes that skirt the issue.\nParting Words # And so there you have it. I appreciate this reason may not be convincing for everyone—and I have not even begun to address the controversial and misunderstood aspects of a few specific Catholic teachings—but this point was nonetheless significant in my journey in becoming a Catholic.\nLots of love, Chris\nDisagree? Need clarification? Think I’m speaking out of line? Do not hesitate to message me on Facebook or by email here.\nWant to read some more Catholic conversion stories? You can check more out here!\nSuggested next reading: “What Is The Difference Between Catholics And Christians?”\n","date":"21 May 2017","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/article/catholic-convert/","section":"Articles","summary":"","title":"From Evangelical to Catholic: A Conversion Testimony","type":"articles"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1847","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/jules-quicherat/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Jules Quicherat","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":" Translated from Jules Quicherat (ed.), Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc, dite La Pucelle, tome IV — Témoignages des chroniqueurs et historiens du XVe siècle (Paris: Jules Renouard, Société de l’Histoire de France, 1847).\nExtract from the Regulations # Art. 14. The Council designates the works to be published, and chooses the persons most capable of preparing and of seeing through their publication.\nIt appoints, for each work to be published, a responsible Commissioner charged with supervising its execution.\nThe name of the Editor will be placed at the head of each volume.\nNo volume may appear under the name of the Society without the authorisation of the Council, and unless it is accompanied by a declaration of the responsible Commissioner, stating that the work has seemed to him to merit being published.\nThe undersigned responsible Commissioner declares that the work of M. Jules Quicherat, containing the sequel to the Trials of Joan of Arc, has seemed to him worthy of being published by the Society of the History of France.\nDone at Paris, 31 January 1847.\nSigned Ch. Lenormant.\nCertified,\nThe Secretary of the Society of the History of France,\nJ. Desnoyers.\nTestimonies of the Chroniclers and Historians of the Fifteenth Century # Perceval de Cagny # I have no hesitation in placing Perceval de Cagny at the head of the chroniclers who wrote of the Maid. This honour belongs to him as the best informed, the most complete, the most sincere, and as the one who, first in date, bore witness for her, and in a manner worthy of her, in a work destined for posterity. This testimony, which none of the depositions recorded in the second trial can replace, was recently produced by me in the Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes (vol. I, 2nd series, p. 143). I drew it from an unpublished chronicle of the Dukes of Alençon, of which a modern copy exists in the XLVIIIth volume of the Duchesne manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Royale. No one appears to have known this chronicle, except the advocate Bry de la Clergerie, who used it for his history of the duchy of Alençon, and André Duchesne, the owner of the manuscript in question, who took from it the substance of several of his notes on Alain Chartier.\nHere is what the author says of himself in his prologue:\nPerceval de Cagny, a native of the country of Beauvaisis, has served and dwelt in the household of Alençon for the space of forty-six years continuously, that is to say: the late Count Pierre, in the rank and office of pantler; Jean, his son, first Duke of Alençon, as squire of the stables; and my lord who now is, as squire and master of the household (all of whom, and each of them, have done him far more good, honour and profit than he could ever have deserved of them); and he will serve them still as long as he can and knows how, and as it may please them. And although he has not the wit, the memory or the ability to know how to have this, or any other thing half as small, set down in writing: for the burning desire he has that in every land most honourable and good words should be spoken in praise and commendation of their said house, and also that his successors may see, know and understand how, and beside which lords, he has lived the greater part of his days: he has had this present memoir made; and with it he has wished to have set down in writing something of the troubles, wars and pestilences that came upon this kingdom of France before his time, and of what he had knowledge in the year 1436.\nThus it is at the side of the Duke of Alençon — that is to say, of the captain who kept himself most constantly with the Maid, of the one who best observed and knew her — that Perceval de Cagny gathered the things he tells us of this marvellous girl; and it was in 1436 that he set about having them put into writing, that is to say only five years after the execution at Rouen. I add, to give the measure of his good faith, that despite his quite frankly expressed purpose of writing for the greater glory of his master, he does not hesitate, when the case arises, to recount that master’s faults — which he does in three or four notable places where the other chroniclers had kept silent — nor to place him in the second rank when a personage more worthy of attention comes forward: which happens throughout the length of the account that is about to be read.\nThe points on which this account most deserves to be consulted are the preliminaries of the journey to Reims, the siege of Paris and the departure of the Maid for the Île-de-France in 1430. Thanks to the information — one may say the revelations — supplied by our author on these various facts, the so controversial problem of Charles VII’s attachment to Joan of Arc may be regarded as definitively settled.\nThe coming of the Maid to the King # In that year [1428], on the [sixth] day of the said month of March, a maiden about eighteen years of age, from the marches of Lorraine and Barrois, came to the King at Chinon. She was of folk of simple estate and of the plough; she said most marvellous things, always speaking of God and of His Saints, and she said that God had sent her to the aid of the gentle King Charles in the matter of his war. At which the King and all those of his household, and others of whatever estate they were, marvelled greatly that she spoke and discoursed of the ordering and the conduct of the war as much, and in as good a manner, as knights and squires continually employed in warfare could and knew how to do. And upon the words she spoke of God and of the conduct of the said war, she was most thoroughly examined by clerks and theologians and others, and by knights and squires; and always she held and was found constant in one purpose. She took and put on the dress of a man, and asked the King to have armour made for her to arm herself, such as she would describe, and to give her horses for herself and her people; and so it was done for her. And the King kept her with him until the month of May, without her going anywhere. And before her coming, neither the King nor the lords of his blood knew what counsel to take. And thereafter, by her aid and counsel, matters went ever from good to better.\nHow the Maid began to make war on the English # In the year 1429, the Maid undertook to show why she had come to the King.\nAfter the day of the Herrings, the English of the bastilles before Orléans took care that no provisions could reach those within, so much so that they were in very great want of bread; and to provide for it, they sent several times to the King, who assembled his captains to advise by what means wheat and other provisions might be brought to them. None of them dared undertake the task, for fear of the said English, who were on either side in very great number in their bastilles, and who moreover held the towns and places above the river and below. The said Maid, seeing that none undertook to succour this noble place of Orléans, and knowing the very great loss and damage it would be to the King and to his kingdom to lose the said place, asked the King to give her some of his men-at-arms, and said: By my staff (1) — this was her oath — I will have provisions brought to them. The King granted it to her. At which she was most joyful. She had made a standard on which was the image of Our Lady, and appointed a day to be at Blois, and said that those who were to be in her company should be there; and that on that day the wheat and other provisions should be ready to set out in carts, on horses and otherwise. And she did not ask for a great company of men, and said: By my staff, they shall be well led; have no fear of it.\n(1) Perceval de Cagny is the only author who attributes this affirmative expression to the Maid. When I first published this excerpt, I conjectured that the word martin applied to the staff that must have formed part of Joan of Arc’s equipment. Learned persons have taken me up on this, supposing that there was a fault in the copy and that one should read Mons. Martin, that is to say Monsieur Saint Martin. Among several answers I could make to this objection, I choose this one, which dispenses me from any other. In a passage to be found below, p. 27, the author, reporting a speech of Joan of Arc in indirect form, says that she swore by her staff. Now it is no gratuitous supposition on my part to have put a staff in the hand of Joan of Arc. The Bourgeois of Paris says that when any of her men did wrong, she struck at them great blows with her staff. Lastly, one will not forget that circumstance reported in the rehabilitation trial, that she had led La Hire to swear by his staff, Negaret suum baculum, dum vellet negare Deum (III, 206). Thus my interpretation rests on something other than a more or less happy reminiscence of the expression Martin of the staff still in use today.\nThe provisions brought to Orléans # The Marshal de Rais, La Hire, Gaucourt, Poton de Xaintrailles and other captains were at Blois on the said day for the convoy, and set out from the said town a great plenty of provisions. The Maid made them pass before the places of Beaugency, of Meung and other places garrisoned by the English, without any hindrance to what she was leading; and when she came near Orléans, she had boats of the said town brought down (1), and had the said provisions loaded, she and her people, into the boats, and went to the town, without hindrance from the bastilles of the bridge and of the other side of the river. At which those of the said town rejoiced most greatly, for the great need they had of provisions and for the coming of the Maid and of the people of her company. The lord of Gaucourt and certain others of the captains remained with her. The Bastard of Orléans and the other captains named above returned to the said place of Blois, and brought back those who had carried the said provisions. She had told and assured them that they would have no hindrance on their return, and so it was. And besides this, she ordered them to take other provisions at the said place of Blois, and to come to the said place of Orléans by the other side of the river, towards Paris, and to have no fear of the English. And so they undertook it as she had ordered them, and passed near the fortresses of the said English and near the town, between the bastilles, within sight of them, without a single man stirring from his quarters, like people who knew not nor could help themselves.\n(1) Error: she had them brought up; but our author, who was following the Duke of Alençon, was not a witness of the arrival at Orléans.\nHow the Maid took and raised the bastilles of Orléans # In that year 1429, on the fourth day of the month of May after dinner, the Maid called the captains and ordered them that they and their people should be armed and ready at the hour she appointed: at which she was ready and on horseback sooner than any of the other captains, and had her trumpet sounded; her standard behind her, she went through the town telling everyone to mount, and came and had the gate of Burgundy opened, and took the field. The people of the town, who were in good order of war, had firm hope that the English could do them no harm in her company; they sallied out in very great number. And after them took the field the Marshals de Rais and de Boussac, the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Graville (1) and the other captains. The Maid ordered them to take care that the English who were within their bastilles in very great number could not come after her and her foot soldiers of the town. She took few men-at-arms with her, and went before the bastille of the abbey of the Ladies, called Saint Loup, in which were about three hundred English. As soon as the people of the town of Orléans had arrived there, they went at once to the assault. The Maid took her standard and went and placed herself on the edge of the ditches. Soon after, those of the place wished to surrender to her. She would not receive them to ransom, and said that she would take them in spite of themselves, and had her assault pressed harder. And forthwith the place was taken and nearly all put to death. This done, she returned into the town of Orléans, and the lords with her, who had waited for her, and who all marvelled at her deeds and her words. Nor did any of the other English put themselves in any order, or make show of sallying out of their places, any more than if they had neither seen nor heard anything that should displease them.\n(1) Jean Malet, the last defender of Normandy, whence he exiled himself in 1418, after losing Pont-de-l’Arche. He had been Grand Master of the Crossbowmen since 1425.\nAll the next day, which was Thursday, neither the Maid nor any of the captains stirred from the said town. On the Friday, at the hour of vespers, she said that everyone should be armed and ready, and in boats came across the river towards La Sologne. They did not all follow her as she expected. As soon as she had landed, and few people with her, she went and placed herself before the bastille of the Augustins, her standard in her hand, and had the trumpets sound for the assault forthwith; and after that it was not long before the place was taken. And this done, those of her company thought she should return to lodge in the town. She lodged herself in the said bastille, which was very well supplied with provisions, and said: By my staff, tomorrow I shall have the towers of the bastille of the bridge, and I shall not enter Orléans until they are in the hand of the good King Charles. And she sent word to those who had remained in the town to be with her early the next morning.\nGlasdale remained captain of the towers and of the bastille of the bridges after the death of the Earl of Salisbury, who was killed within it by a cannon stone, and it was never known who threw it or whence it came. The place seemed impregnable by assault to all men of war, and was supplied with all the equipment that belongs to the defence of an assailed place. And the said Glasdale had with him in the place from five hundred to eight hundred English, such as had seemed good to him for his security. And there was none of the captains to whom it did not seem impossible that the said place could be taken in a month by twice as many men as they were. The Maid said to those who were with her: By my staff, I shall take it tomorrow and shall return into the town over the bridges.\nOn the Saturday at seven o’clock in the morning, she had her trumpets sounded and made known that everyone should be ready to go and give the assault. And about eight o’clock she took her standard and went and placed herself on the edge of the ditches. And at once they began to cast a great number of cannonballs and culverin shot from the side without. And those within did all that was possible for them for the defence. They entered into their ditches in spite of them. The assault was hard and long; and several of those within were slain and wounded, and few of the others. That day the assault was given to them three or four times, and always the Maid heartened her people, saying to them: Have no fear, the place is ours. And about the hour of vespers she placed herself at the far end of the ditches, and forthwith several ladders were brought, and she strengthened the assault with culverins and men of the bow. And it was not long before our people entered into the place.\nThe said Glasdale and others of the greatest of the place, when they saw that they were taken, thought to save themselves by regaining one of the towers; but for the press, which was very great upon their bridge, the bridge broke, and the said Glasdale and several others were drowned, and nearly all the rest put to death. Thus was the place won. At which all those who saw it were utterly amazed; and there died on the other side no more than from sixteen to twenty persons. The bridges, which were so broken that it was a marvel and seemed impossible that in a week any way could be found to pass men over them, were, in less than three hours after, put in such order that the Maid and those who wished to cross came over the bridges to lie in the town. God knows with what joy she and her people were received there.\nThe departure of the English from before Orléans # On the Sunday, the eighth day of May, the lords of Fastolf, of Willoughby (1), of Scales, and other captains who were in very great number in several other bastilles on the side towards France, had seen from afar the assault the Maid had given on the Wednesday to the bastille of Saint Loup, and had seen her take it by assault and put those of the place to death; and from their places they had also seen the assaults she had given on the Saturday to the towers and bastille of the bridge, and the place taken by assault. On that said Sunday in the morning, they set fire to their quarters, and most of them went off on foot to the towns and places of Meung and Beaugency-sur-Loire. And so was the noble city of Orléans succoured and set free by the Maid, messenger of God, in aid of the King of France. And eight or ten days after these good fortunes, she returned to the King at Chinon.\n(1) Robert Willoughby, Lord Willoughby.\nIn the preceding month of March, after she had arrived at the King at Chinon, among the other matters she said she had from Jesus, she said that the good Duke of Orléans was part of her charge, and that if he did not come back hither, she would take much trouble to go and fetch him in England. And she had very great joy in employing herself in the recovery of his places. And by reason of the friendship and goodwill she had for the Duke of Orléans, and also because this was part of her charge, she made herself most intimate with the Duke of Alençon, who had married his daughter. And it was not long after her coming to Chinon before she went to see the Duchess of Alençon in the abbey of Saint Florent near Saumur, where she was lodged (1). God knows the joy the mother of the said Alençon, he himself, and the said daughter of Orléans his wife, showed her for the three or four days she was in the said place. And after that, ever since, she kept herself closer and more intimate with the Duke of Alençon than with any other, and always, speaking of him, called him my fair duke, and not otherwise.\n(1) This meeting of the Maid with the Duchess of Alençon is recorded in the rehabilitation trial in the deposition of the Duke himself; but the prince does not say where it took place. See vol. III, p. 96.\nThe undertaking of the King’s coronation # After the taking of the bastilles before the town of Orléans, the Maid said to the King, to the lords and to all his council, that it was time he should be ready to set out on the road to his coronation at Reims. Her counsel seemed very hard (1) to execute to all those who heard it spoken of, and they said that, seeing the power of the English and Burgundians, the King’s enemies, and considering that the King had not great finances to pay his army, it was impossible for him to accomplish the journey. The Maid said: By my staff, I will conduct the gentle King Charles and his company as far as the said place of Reims, surely and without hindrance, and there I will see him crowned. After these words, and what she had done in victualling the town of Orléans and raising the bastilles before it, no one dared contradict her. And the King appointed a day on which he would be at Gien-sur-Loire; and so the King did. The Maid, who always had her eye and her thoughts on the affairs of the Duke of Orléans, spoke to her fair Duke of Alençon and told him that, while the King was making ready and setting about making his way to the said place of Gien, she wished to go and deliver the place of Jargeau, which caused and laid great charges upon the town of Orléans. Forthwith the Duke of Alençon made known to the Marshals de Boussac and de Rais, to the Bastard of Orléans, to La Hire and other captains, that they and their people should be on a certain day at a village near Romorantin in Sologne; and so they did.\n(1) That is to say, very harsh, very difficult.\nThe assault on Jargeau # In that year 1429, on Saturday the eleventh day of the month of June, about two hours after dinner, the Duke of Alençon, the Maid, the Count of Vendôme and the other captains, with their company of two to three thousand fighting men and as many of the commons or more, came to besiege the town of Jargeau, in which were the Earl of Suffolk, two of his brothers and from seven to eight hundred English. On arriving, the commons, to whom it seemed that nothing could withstand the enterprise of the Maid, leapt into the ditches without her presence and without the men-at-arms, who were attending to their lodging. Some of them were well beaten, and came back. The matter rested for that day in this state. That night the Maid spoke to those within and said to them: Surrender the place to the King of Heaven and to the gentle King Charles, and go your way, or otherwise it will go ill with you. They took no account of the things she said to them. During the night the bombards and cannon were set in place, and when Sunday came, about nine o’clock in the morning, the Maid and the Duke of Alençon had the trumpets sounded to come to the assault. The Maid took her standard, on which was painted God in His majesty, and on the other side (1) and a shield of France held by two angels. She came\n(1) Gap in the copy. Supply: the image of Our Lady, as above, p. 5.\ninto the ditches, and forthwith a very great number of men-at-arms and of commons leapt in, and the assault began, very hard, which lasted from three to four hours. And in the end the place was taken, which had seemed an impossible thing to take by one assault, seeing the men of defence who were within. And there died on our side only sixteen or twenty persons. The Earl of Suffolk was taken prisoner, one of his brothers and forty or fifty others; his other brother and the rest of the English were put to death.\nOn the Monday following, the Maid and the Duke of Alençon, after they had ordained what seemed good to them of men for the guard of the place of Jargeau, came with the rest of their company to dine in the town of Orléans and in the villages on either side of the river, and there they stayed that day and the morrow, which was Tuesday. That day the Maid was most greatly feasted by those of the town. The Duke of Alençon, all the other captains, knights and squires, men of war, burgesses and all the common people who had seen her were as content with her as could be, saying that God had sent her to restore the King to his lordship. At vespers she called her fair Duke of Alençon and said to him: I wish to go tomorrow after dinner to see those of Meung. Let the company be ready to set out at that hour. On the Wednesday following, the Maid, the Duke of Alençon, their company and a very great number of commons who had joined the Maid’s company set out after dinner and went to lodge near Meung. And on arriving a skirmish was given to those of the place, and no more was done.\nOf the siege of Beaugency # On the Thursday following, the sixteenth day of June, the Maid, the Duke of Alençon and all the company, at the hour of noon, came to lay the siege before the place of Beaugency, and were lodged in the town and round about. And for all the rest of the day there was skirmishing before the place. And during the night the bombards and cannon were set in place. Messire Richard Gethin (1) and Matthew Gough, accompanied by four hundred English, had the guard of the place. On the Friday, the Count of Richemont, Constable of France, came to the company, as the Duke of Alençon had let him know as soon as he went before Jargeau; although the King did not wish him to meddle in his war, at the urging of the lord of La Trémoille, who held him as his enemy (and he had the whole voice in the King’s government). The Constable having arrived, with five or six hundred fighting men in his company, all that Friday bombards and cannon were cast at those of the place, and by them likewise at those without, and there was skirmishing, each doing the best they could. Those of the place had good knowledge of the undertakings the Maid had made in victualling the town of Orléans, of the taking of the bastilles, which was a great marvel, and of the taking of Jargeau; and they saw that nothing could withstand the Maid, and that she disposed all the ordering of her company in such conduct as she wished, just as the Constable and the marshals of a host ought and could do. They surrendered to the Maid and to the Duke of Alençon, saving their bodies, horses and harness. During the night between the Friday and the Saturday, news came to the Maid and to the Duke of Alençon that the lords Talbot and Fastolf had arrived with a great company of English at Janville in Beauce, who were coming to fight them.\n(1) Bailiff of Évreux for the King of England. In the old English documents his name is written Guethyn, and that of Matago, Mathe Goghe or Goge (Bréquigny Collection, vol. III, Ms. B.R.); Matthew Gough in the modern ones.\nThe battle of Patay # On the Saturday, the eighteenth day of the said month of June 1429, while putting out of the place of Beaugency the said English who had surrendered, news came to the Maid and to the Duke of Alençon that the night before the said Talbot and Fastolf had come to fetch from Meung the lord of Scales and those of the garrison of Meung, who abandoned the place, and all went together straight to Janville. About eight o’clock in the morning the Maid, the Duke of Alençon and all the company had come out into the fields, thinking to have battle; and when they learned that the English were going away, they ordained their vanguard and their main battle, and in order drew after the English, and overtook them near the village of Patay, about five leagues from the said place of Beaugency. When the English perceived the company following them, they took a field and there put themselves in order and in battle, almost all on foot. The vanguard of our people struck into them, and forthwith the battle joined with them; and, without much resistance, the English turned to rout and to flight. At which battle there were put to death from two to three thousand English, and taken prisoners the lords Talbot, Scales, the son of the Earl of (1),\n(1) Supply Warwick, from the deposition of the Count of Alençon (vol. III, p. 97), who names the child Warwick among the prisoners of Patay.\nand from four to five hundred other English. The Maid, the Duke of Alençon, the Constable of France, the Count of Vendôme and all the company lay at the said village of Patay and round about.\nOn the Sunday, the nineteenth day of the said month of June, the Maid, the Duke of Alençon and all the company dined at the said place of Patay. The Duke of Alençon dared not bring the Constable before the King because of the disgrace in which he stood, as has been said. He returned to his house of Parthenay, glad and joyful for the day that God had given for the King, and very sorry that the King would not take his service in good part. The Maid, the Duke of Alençon and all the rest of the company went to lodge at Orléans and round about the town, and there they were received most greatly. They went through the churches thanking God, the Virgin Mary and the blessed saints of Paradise, for the grace and the honour that Our Lord had done to the King and to them all, saying that it was by the means of the Maid, and that without her such great marvels could not have been done; and the Maid, the Duke of Alençon and all the company were at the said place of Orléans and in the country round about from the said Sunday until the Friday following, the twenty-fourth day of the said month.\nThe beginning of the King’s anointing # On that Friday, early in the morning, the Maid said to the Duke of Alençon: Have the trumpets sounded and mount to horse. It is time to go to the gentle King Charles to set him on the road of his anointing at Reims. So it was done. All mounted to horse in the town, and those from the fields too. And that day they lodged near the King in the town of Gien-sur-Loire. The King made great feast and great joy at the coming of the Maid, of the Duke of Alençon and of their company. And that day there was much talk among all the lords, the knights, the squires, the men of war and all people of whatever estate they were, who all held as a very great marvel the great fortunes of war which had befallen on the Saturday before, through the undertaking of the Maid, for her and her company. And I believe no one has seen the like: to bring into the King’s obedience, and in one day, three notable places, that is to say the town and castle of Meung-sur-Loire, the town and castle of Beaugency and the town and castle of Janville in Beauce, and to win near the village of Patay a day’s battle upon the English, who were in number … thousand, and our people about … (1).\n(1) These two gaps in the manuscript concern two figures which must be sought in the subsequent authors. Jean Chartier speaks of five thousand English present at Patay. Jean de Wavrin, whose testimony is given below, supplies matter to raise this figure to at least eight thousand. By the same author’s account the French would have numbered twelve to thirteen thousand; but he is a Burgundian, and therefore suspect of exaggeration.\nThe King was at the said place of Gien until the Wednesday, the twenty-ninth day of June. And the Maid was much grieved at the long stay he had made at the said place, because of certain of the people of his household who counselled him against undertaking the journey to Reims, saying that there were several cities, other walled towns, castles and strong places well furnished with English and Burgundians between the said place of Gien and Reims. The Maid said that she knew it well and that she took no account of all that; and in despite she struck her lodging and went to lodge in the fields two days before the King’s departure. And although the King had no money to pay his army, all the knights, squires, men of war and commons did not refuse to go and serve the King for this journey in the Maid’s company, saying that they would go wherever she would go. And she said: By my staff, I will lead the gentle King Charles and his company surely, and he shall be anointed at the said place of Reims.\nOn that day, after many words, the King departed and took his road to go straight to the city of Troyes in Champagne. And as he made his way, all the fortresses on either side of his road put themselves into his obedience. The King arrived before the said place of Troyes after dinner, on Friday the eighth day of July. And those of the garrison and the burgesses of the town were disobedient to him. That day and the morrow great skirmishes were made, and on the Sunday, the tenth day, they put themselves into the King’s obedience. And after dinner he was most honourably received into the said town, and stayed there until the Tuesday following. And wherever the Maid came, she said to those of the places: Surrender [yourselves] to the King of Heaven and to the gentle King Charles. And she was always foremost in coming to speak at the barriers.\nOn that Tuesday the King departed from the said place of Troyes, and on the Thursday following he was most honourably received in the city of Châlons. And as he made his way, all the fortresses of the country put themselves into his obedience, because the Maid always sent some of those who were under her standard to say at each of the fortresses to those within: Surrender yourselves to the King of Heaven and to the gentle King Charles. And they, having knowledge of the great marvels that had happened and been done in the Maid’s presence, put themselves frankly into the King’s obedience, some of them. And those who refused, she went there in person, and all obeyed her. Sometimes she kept herself in the main battle with the King as he went on his way; other times in the vanguard, and others in the rearguard, as she saw it serve (1) her purpose. And on the Friday following the King departed from the said place of Châlons.\n(1) We here correct the manuscript, which gives ainssi quelle bon convenir.\nThe day the King arrived at Reims and was anointed # In the year 1429, on Saturday the sixteenth day of the said month of July, after dinner, the King arrived in the city of Reims, and there came to meet him at his coming the Archbishop and all the colleges of the city, the burgesses and others in very great number, all making great joy and crying Noël! at his coming. And all that day and the following night, by the King’s officers and those of his council, very great diligence was made for each of the offices in what belonged to it, for the deed and estate of the anointing and coronation of the King, which was done on the morrow.\nOn the Sunday, the seventeenth day of the said month, the King was anointed and crowned at the said place of Reims by [Regnault] de Chartres, Archbishop of the place, accompanied by several bishops, abbots and other churchmen, as the case required. That day the Duke of Alençon made the King a knight and served him as a peer of France in the place of the Duke of Burgundy, who at that time was the King’s enemy and allied with the English. That day the Counts of Clermont, of Vendôme and of Laval — who that day was made a count — served the King in the place of the other peers of France who were not there. The King was at the said place of Reims until the Thursday following, and that day he went to dine, sup and lodge in the abbey of Saint Marcoul, at which place the keys of the city of Laon were brought to the King.\nHow the King, after his anointing, took his road to come before Paris # The Maid had the intention of restoring the King to his lordship, and his kingdom to his obedience. And to this end she made him undertake, after the deliverance of the county of Champagne, the journey to come before Paris; and in coming there he made very great conquests. And on the Saturday, the twenty-third day of the said month, the King came to dine, sup and lodge in the city of Soissons. And there he was received and obeyed as honourably as the churchmen, burgesses and other people of the town could and knew how to do; for all of it was very poor, by reason of the destruction of the town, which had been taken from the Burgundians in disobedience to the King.\nOn the Friday [the twenty-ninth day of the said month] the King and his company were all day before Château-Thierry, his people in battle order nearly all day, expecting the Duke of Bedford to come and fight them. At vespers the place surrendered, and the King was lodged there until the Monday, the first day of August following. That day the King lodged at Montmirail in Brie.\nOn the Tuesday, the second day of the said month of August, he came to lodge in the town of Provins, and was received there the best that could be done. And he stayed there until the Friday, the fifth day following. On the Sunday, the seventh day, the King was at dinner, supper and lodging in the town of Coulommiers in Brie. On the Wednesday, the tenth day of the said month, the King and his company lodged in the town of La Ferté-Milon. On the Thursday following, the King lodged in the town of Crépy-en-Valois. On the Friday following they lodged at Lagny-le-Sec. On the Saturday following the King held the field all day near Dammartin-en-Goële, thinking the English would come and fight them; but they did not come.\nIn the time the King took to make his way from the said place of Reims to the said place of Dammartin-en-Goële, the Maid made much diligence to reduce and place several towns into the King’s obedience. And so it was; for several were made French by her.\n[How] the King and the Duke of Bedford were face to face near Senlis # On the Sunday, the fourteenth day of the following month of August, the Maid, the Duke of Alençon, the Count of Vendôme, the marshals and other captains, accompanied by six to seven thousand fighting men, were at the hour of vespers lodged near a hedge in the fields near Montépilloy (1), about two leagues from the city of Senlis. The Duke of Bedford and the English captains, accompanied by eight to nine thousand English, were lodged half a league from Senlis, between our people and the said town, upon a\n(1) Montépilloy.\nlittle river (1), in a village named [Notre-Dame] de la Victoire. That evening our people went to skirmish with the English near their quarters, and in that skirmish men were taken on either side, and there was slain on the English side the captain of Orbec and ten or twelve others, and men wounded on either side. Night came; each one withdrew to his quarters.\n(1) The Nonette.\nOn the Monday, the fifteenth day of the said month of August 1429, the Maid, the Duke of Alençon and the company, thinking to have battle that day, all those of the company, each for himself, put himself in the best state of his conscience that he could; and they heard Mass as early as could be done, and after that took horse. And they came and placed their battle near the battle of the English, who had not stirred from their quarters where they had lain. And all night they had fortified themselves with stakes, with ditches and with their wagons in front of them; and the river fortified them behind. Continually there were great skirmishes between the one side and the other. The English never made any show of wishing to sally out of their place, except by skirmishing. And when the Maid saw that they would not come out, her standard in her hand, she came and placed herself in the vanguard, and they struck up to the fortification of the English. And in that enterprise men were slain on the one side and the other; and because the English would not make a show of sallying in great force, the Maid had all withdraw back to the battle, and it was sent to the English by the Maid, the Duke of Alençon and the captains, that if they wished to sally out of their place to give battle, our people would draw back and let them put themselves in their order. At which they would do nothing, and all day they kept themselves without sallying except to skirmish. Night having come, our people returned to their quarters. And the King was all that day at Montépilloy. The Duke of Bar, who had come to the King at Provins (1), was in his company, the Count of Clermont and others of the captains with them. And when the King saw that the English could not be made to sally out of their place, and that night was approaching, he returned to lodge at the said place of Crépy.\n(1) At Reims, according to the other chroniclers. This Duke of Bar was René of Anjou, who afterwards became King of Sicily.\nThe Maid, the Duke of Alençon and their company kept themselves all night in their quarters. And to know whether the English might put themselves after them, on the Tuesday early in the morning they drew back as far as Montépilloy, and there they stayed until about the hour of noon, when news came to them that the English were returning to Senlis and straight to Paris. And our people came back to the King at the said place of Crépy.\nOn the Wednesday, the seventeenth day of the said month, the keys of the town of Compiègne were brought to the King, and on the Thursday following the King and his company went to lodge at the said place of Compiègne.\nHow the King came to Compiègne when he had left the Duke of Bedford # Before the King departed from the said place of Crépy, there were ordained by the King, to go before the city of Senlis, the Count of Vendôme, the Marshals de Boussac and de Rais and other captains in their company. They having come before the place, those within, considering the great conquest the King had made in a short time by the aid of God and the means of the Maid, and that they had seen the power of the Duke of Bedford, who near their place had not dared fight the King and his company and had withdrawn to Paris and elsewhere to the other places, surrendered to the King and to the Maid. The Count of Vendôme remained governor and guard of the place, and there acquired honour and estate.\nWhen the King found himself at the said place of Compiègne, the Maid was much grieved at the stay he wished to make there; and it seemed to her way of thinking that he was content at that hour with the grace God had done him, without undertaking anything else. She called the Duke of Alençon and said to him: My fair duke, have your people made ready, and those of the other captains. And she said: By my staff, I wish to go and see Paris from closer than I have seen it (1).\n(1) She may have seen it, or at least made out Montmartre, from the heights of Dammartin.\nAnd on the Tuesday, the twenty-third day of the said month of August, the Maid and the Duke of Alençon departed from the said place of Compiègne, from the King’s side, with a very fine company of men. And on their way they recovered part of the men who had been at the recovery of the said city of Senlis. And on the Friday following, the twenty-sixth day of the said month, the Maid, the Duke of Alençon and their company were lodged in the town of Saint-Denis.\nAnd when the King learned that they were lodged thus in the town of Saint-Denis, he came most reluctantly as far as the town of Senlis; and it seemed that he was being counselled against the will of the Maid, of the Duke of Alençon and of those of their company.\nHow the Duke of Bedford abandoned Paris # When the Duke of Bedford saw that the city of Senlis had turned French, he left Paris in the government of the burgesses, of the lord of L’Isle-Adam and of the Burgundians of his company, and scarcely any English remained there. He went off to Rouen, most sorry and in great fear that the Maid would restore the King to his lordship. After she had arrived at the said place of Saint-Denis, every day, two or three times, our people were skirmishing at the gates of Paris, once in one place and then in another; and sometimes at the windmill (1) towards the Porte Saint-Denis and La Chapelle. And no day passed without the Maid seeing the skirmishes made; and most willingly she surveyed the situation of the city of Paris, and besides this, which spot would seem to her most suitable for giving an assault. The Duke of Alençon was most often with her. But because the King had not come to the said place of Saint-Denis, for any message the Maid or the Duke of Alençon had sent him, the said Alençon went to him on the first day of September following. And he was told that on the second day of the said month the King would depart. And the said Alençon\n(1) This mill is shown in a fifteenth-century miniature of which Montfaucon gave the engraving (Monuments de la Monarchie française, vol. III, pl. 16, p. 10). Instead of the word devers which follows, d’entre would be better.\nreturned to the company; and because the King still did not come, the Duke of Alençon went back to him on the Monday, the fifth day following, and brought it about that the King set out on the road, and on the Wednesday he was at dinner at the said place of Saint-Denis; at which the Maid and all the company rejoiced greatly. And there was no one, of whatever estate he was, who did not say: She will put the King inside Paris, if it rests with her.\nHow the Maid gave the assault on the city of Paris # On the Thursday, 1429, the day of Our Lady, the eighth day of the month of September, the Maid, the Duke of Alençon, the Marshals de Boussac and de Rais, and other captains, with a great number of men-at-arms and of the bow, departed about eight o’clock from La Chapelle near Paris, in fine order; some to be in the battle, others to guard from surprise those who would give the assault. The Maid, the Marshal de Rais and the lord of Gaucourt, called by her ordinance whatever seemed good to him, went to give the assault at the Porte Saint-Honoré. The Maid took her standard in her hand and with the first entered into the ditches, opposite the Marché aux Pourceaux. The assault was hard and long, and it was a marvel to hear the noise and din of the cannon and culverins which those within cast at those without, and of every manner of shot in such great plenty as to be numberless. And although the Maid and a great number of knights and squires and other men of war had gone down into the ditches, and others were on the edge and round about, very few of them were wounded; and there were many, on foot and on horse, who were struck and borne to the ground by blows of cannon stone; but by the grace of God and the fortune of the Maid, not one man died of it, nor was any wounded who could not return at his ease to his quarters without other aid.\nThe assault lasted from about the hour of noon until about the hour when daylight failed. And after sunset the Maid was struck by a bolt of a stirrup crossbow (1) through one thigh. And after she was struck, she strove the harder to say that everyone should draw near the walls, and that the place would be taken. But because it was night, and because she was wounded, and because the men-at-arms were wearied by the long assault they had made, the lord of Gaucourt and others came to take the Maid, and against her will carried her out of the ditches. And so the assault failed. And she had very great regret at departing thus, saying: By my staff, the place would have been taken. They put her on horseback and brought her back to her quarters at the said place of La Chapelle, and all the others of the company — the King, the Duke of Bar, the Count of Clermont, who that day had come from Saint-Denis.\n(1) That is to say, of a stirrup-spanned crossbow.\nHow the Maid departed from before Paris against her will # On the Friday, the ninth day of the said month, although the Maid had been wounded the day before at the assault before Paris, she rose early in the morning and had her fair Duke of Alençon, by whom she was guided, come to her, and begged him to have the trumpets sounded and to mount to horse to return before Paris; and she said, by her staff, that she would never leave it until she had the town.\nThe said Alençon and others of the captains were well of this will, in her enterprise of returning there, and some not. And while they were in these words, the Baron de Montmorency (1), who had always held the party contrary to the King, came from within the town, accompanied by fifty or sixty gentlemen, to surrender himself into the Maid’s company. At which the heart and courage of those of goodwill to return before the town was the more stirred. And while they were drawing near, there came the Duke of Bar and the Count of Clermont on behalf of the King, who was at Saint-Denis, and begged the Maid that, without going further, she should return to the King at the said place of Saint-Denis. And likewise on the King’s behalf they begged the said Alençon, and commanded all the other captains, that they should come away and bring the Maid to him. The Maid and most of those of the company were very sorry at it, and nevertheless obeyed the King’s will, hoping to find their entry to take Paris from the other side, and to cross the Seine by a bridge which the Duke of Alençon had had made across the river opposite Saint-Denis; and so they came back to the King.\n(1) According to Monstrelet, the lord of Montmorency made his submission during Charles VII’s stay at Compiègne. Jean Chartier names him among those who distinguished themselves beside Joan of Arc on the day of the assault on Paris; but Perceval de Cagny deserves more credence than these two historians.\nOn the Saturday following, part of those who had been before Paris thought to go early in the morning to cross the river Seine at the said bridge; but they could not, because the King, who had learned the intention of the Maid, of the Duke of Alençon and of the others of goodwill, had the said bridge broken up during the whole night. And so they remained unable to cross. That day the King held his council, in which several opinions were spoken; and he remained at the said place until the Tuesday, the thirteenth day, ever intending to return to the river Loire, to the great displeasure of the Maid.\nHow the King departed from Saint-Denis # On the said Tuesday, the thirteenth day of the said month of September, the King, counselled by certain of those of his council and of his blood who were inclined to accomplish his will, departed after dinner from the said place of Saint-Denis; and when the Maid saw that at his departure she could find no remedy, she gave and left all her complete harness before the image of Our Lady and the relics of the abbey of Saint-Denis, and with very great regret put herself in the King’s company; who came away as fast as he could, sometimes making his way in a disorderly fashion, and without cause. He was on the Wednesday, the twenty-first day of the said month, at dinner at Gien-sur-Loire. And thus was the will of the Maid and the King’s army broken.\nHow the Duke of Alençon parted from the King # The Duke of Alençon, who had been in company with the Maid and had always guided her in making the journey of the King’s coronation to the city of Reims, and from the said place in coming before Paris: when the King had come to the said place of Gien, the said Alençon went to his wife and into his viscounty of Beaumont; and the other captains, each to his own border, and the Maid remained with the King, much wearied by the departure — and especially of the Duke of Alençon, whom she loved very dearly, and did for him what she would not have done for another. A short time after, the said Alençon assembled men to enter the country of Normandy, towards the marches of Brittany and Maine, and to this end asked, and had the King asked, that it might please him to give him the Maid, and that through her many would put themselves into his company who would not stir unless she made the journey. Messire [Regnault] de Chartres, the lord of La Trémoille and the lord of Gaucourt, who then governed the King’s person and the conduct of his war, would never consent, nor do, nor suffer that the Maid and the Duke of Alençon should be together; nor afterwards could he recover her.\nHow the King remained to pursue his war # When the King found himself at the said place of Gien, he and those who governed him made a show of being content with the journey the King had made; and for a long time after, the King undertook nothing to be done upon his enemies at which he wished to be in person. One might well say that this was by his council (1), if he and they had been willing to regard the very great grace God had done to him and to his kingdom through the undertaking of the Maid, God’s messenger in this matter, as could be perceived by her deeds. She did things incredible to those who had not seen her; and it may be said she would have done still more, had the King and his council borne and kept themselves well towards her; and it well appears so, for in less than three months she delivered and put into the King’s obedience seven cities, that is to say\n(1) Sic; the sense would seem to require par fol conseil or par sot conseil — by foolish counsel.\nOrléans, Troyes in Champagne, Châlons, Reims, Laon, Soissons and Senlis, and several towns and castles, and won the battle of Patay; and by her means the King was anointed and crowned at the said place of Reims, and all the knights and squires and other men of war were very well content to serve the King in her company, although they were but poorly paid.\nAfter what is written above, the King passed the time in the countries of Touraine, of Poitou and of Berry. The Maid was most of the time with him, much grieved that he did not undertake to conquer any of his places upon his enemies. And the King being in his town of Bourges, she took certain of the captains, and upon the river Loire, around the town of La Charité, which was held by the Burgundians, she conquered three or four places; and after this, the Marshal de Boussac and other captains joined with her; and soon after that she laid siege before the said place of La Charité. And when she had been there a space of time, because the King made no provision to send her provisions or money to maintain her company, she was forced to raise her siege and depart in great displeasure.\nIn the year 1430, at the end of the month of April, the Maid, most ill content with the people of the King’s council in the matter of the war, departed from the King’s side and went to the town of Compiègne on the river\nOise (1).\n(1) This paragraph has the air of being an interpolation, for the event is related much more exactly and with all its details in the chapter which follows.\nHow the Maid departed from the King # In the year 1429, the … day of March, the King being in the town of Sully-sur-Loire, the Maid, who had seen and heard all the conduct and the manner which the King and his council held for the recovery of his kingdom, she, most ill content with this, found means to depart from them; and without the King’s knowledge or taking leave of him, she made a show of going to some pastime, and without returning went away to the town of Lagny-sur-Marne, because those of the place were making good war on the English of Paris and elsewhere. And it was not long there before some English assembled to come and make a raid before the said place of Lagny. She learned of their coming, had her people mount to horse, and went to meet the said English, who were in greater number than she had, between the said place and …; and she had her people strike into the others. They found little resistance, and there were put to death from three to four hundred English. And at her coming there was great talk and great stir in Paris and in the other places contrary to the King. After this, the Maid passed the time at Senlis, at Crépy-en-Valois, at Compiègne and Soissons, until the month of May following.\nHow she came to Compiègne and was taken there # In the year 1430, on the twenty-third day of the said month of May, the Maid, being at the said place of Crépy, learned that the Duke of Burgundy, in 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 Crépy, with her company of three to four hundred fighting men. And although her people told her that she had few men to pass through the army of the Burgundians and English, she said: By my staff, we are enough; I will go and see my good friends of Compiègne. She arrived at the said place about sunrise, and without loss or hindrance to her or her people, entered into the said town. On that day the Burgundians and English came to skirmish in the meadow before the said town. Great feats of arms were done there on either side. The said Burgundians and English, knowing that the Maid was within the town, thought indeed that those within would sally out in great force, and for this the Burgundians placed a strong ambush of their men in the cover of a great hill near there named the Mont de Clairoy. And about nine o’clock in the morning, the Maid heard it said that the skirmish was great and strong in the meadow before the said town. She armed herself, and had her people arm and mount to horse, and came and put herself in the mêlée. And forthwith, she having come, the enemies were driven back and put to chase. The Maid charged hard upon the Burgundians’ side. Those of the ambush saw their men returning in great disorder; then they uncovered their ambush, and with the prick of spurs came and put themselves between the bridge of the town, the Maid and her company. And a part of them turned straight upon the Maid in such great number that those of her company could not well withstand them; and they said to the Maid: Take pains to regain the town, or you and we are lost!\nThe capture of the Maid # When the Maid heard them speak thus, most sorry, she said to them: Be silent, all of you! It will rest only with you that they are not routed. Think only of striking at them. For all that she said, her people would not believe her, and by force they made her return straight to the bridge. And when the Burgundians and English perceived that she was returning to regain the town, they came in great force to the end of the bridge. And there great feats of arms were done. The captain of the place, seeing the great multitude of Burgundians and English ready to enter upon his bridge, for the fear he had of the loss of his place, had the town bridge raised and the gate shut. And so the Maid remained shut out, and few of her people with her. When the enemies saw this, they all strove to take her. She resisted them most strongly, and in the end was taken by five or six together, some laying hands on her, others on her horse, each of them saying: Surrender to me and give your faith. She answered: I have sworn and given my faith to another than you, and to him I will keep my oath. And speaking these words she was led to the quarters of Messire Jean de Luxembourg.\nHow the Maid was put in prison # Messire Jean de Luxembourg had her kept in his quarters three or four days, and after that he remained at the siege before the said town, and had the Maid taken to a castle named Beaulieu in Vermandois. And there she was held prisoner for the space of three months or thereabouts.\nAfter this, the said Luxembourg, through the means of the Bishop of Thérouanne, 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 paid to the said Luxembourg. And so the Maid was put into the hands of the English and taken to the castle of Rouen, in which the said Bedford then kept his dwelling. While she was in prison in the said castle of Beaulieu, the one who had been her master of the household before her capture, and who served her in her prison (1), said to her: This poor town of Compiègne, which you have so loved, this time will be delivered into the hands and the subjection of the enemies of France. And she answered him: It shall not be, for all the places that the King of Heaven has reduced and restored to the hand and obedience of the gentle King Charles by my means shall not be retaken by his enemies, so long as he takes diligence to keep them.\n(1) Jean d’Aulon.\nHow the Maid was judged to death # In the year 1431, on the twenty-fourth day of the month of May (2), the Duke of Bedford, the Bishop of Thérouanne and several others of the council of the King of England, who had seen and known the very great marvels which had happened to the honour and profit of the King by the coming and the undertakings of the Maid (as I have declared above, her words and her deeds seemed miraculous to all those who had been in her\n(2) This date is that of the day on which Joan was definitively condemned as a relapsed.\ncompany); after the said Bedford and those named above had held her in their prisons at the said place of Rouen: as men most envious of her life and her estate, they questioned her and had her questioned in all the ways they could and knew, desiring with all their powers and knowledge to find in and upon her some manner of heresy, as much in that they said she called herself a messenger of God and kept herself in disorderly dress, clothed in man’s dress, and rode armed, and indeed meddled in the deeds and words of all feats of arms that a constable or marshals could and should do in time of war; and upon these matters they presented her, and in the presence of several bishops, abbots and other clerks, had several articles read against her; and in the end they cast their sentences, and by them she was condemned and judged to be burned.\nWhen the Maid was burned # It may be known that to make the execution of so great a case, the people of the King of England’s justice in the said town of Rouen had a suitable place made ready, and the equipment to execute justice in a place that could be seen by a very great crowd; and on the said twenty-fourth day of May, about the hour of noon, she was brought from the castle, her face bowed down, to the said place where the fire was ready; and after certain things were read in the said place, she was bound to the stake and burned, by the report of those who said they had seen it.\nHow the King wished to treat with the English and the Duke of Burgundy # After the King came away from the town of Saint-Denis, he showed such small will to put himself forward to conquer his kingdom that all his subjects, knights and squires and the good towns of his obedience, marvelled greatly at it. And it seemed to most that his nearest counsellors were well enough of his will, and that it sufficed them to pass the time and live; and especially after the taking of the Maid, through whom the King had received and had the very great honours and good things declared above, solely by her means and good enterprise. The King and his said counsellors, after the said taking, found themselves more abased in goodwill than before, so much so that none among them knew how to advise or find any other way in which the King could live and remain in his kingdom, except by means of finding an agreement with the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy, in order to remain in peace. The King showed well that he had a very great desire for it, and preferred to give away his heritages of the crown and of his goods most largely, rather than to arm himself and sustain the burdens of the war.\nAnother Chronicler of Alençon # This author, like Perceval de Cagny, was attached to the person of Duke Jean II; but he did not write until 1473. His work, very succinct, has never been printed. De Thou had a manuscript of it, which he communicated to Bry de La Clergerie, who made much use of it for his Histoire du duché d’Alençon. The extract given here has been taken from the copy in the Bibliothèque Royale, which is a transcription made in the sixteenth century (no. 9574-3, Fonds français). The only interest this testimony presents is that we learn that the Maid made predictions to the Duke of Alençon which were fulfilled later.\nIt is true that the said King Charles the Seventh, being thus despoiled of his said kingdom and his subjects in very great and marvellous perplexity and tribulation, the good God, who succours His servants in their need, wishing to give remedy and end to the affliction of the good and loyal French, and to repress and annihilate the pride of the said English, raised up the spirit of a young maiden aged eighteen to twenty years, a native of the town of Domrémy, duchy of Bar, three little leagues from Vaucouleurs, who all her life had done no other work than keeping the beasts in the fields. She came to King Charles, King of France, and told him that she was sent to him by God to help him conquer his kingdom possessed by the said English, and that if he would give her charge of men-at-arms, she would lead him to be anointed at Reims: at which the said King and the learned and understanding persons about his person were at first astonished; and nevertheless, after she had been questioned at various times by several notable and wise persons, faith was placed in her words, and it was found that she was divinely sent. Thus she was joined with the King’s army, of which the said Duke of Alençon had the charge as lieutenant-general; which duke was by her designated and called the fair duke, and she told and declared to him several things which have befallen him since.\nThe Herald Berry # The chronicle of Berry long passed as being by Alain Chartier; Denys Godefroy restored it to its true author on the peremptory authority of a manuscript in which the prologue, conceived in the form of letters patent, begins with a greeting from Jacques Le Bouvier, herald of the King of France and King of Arms of the country of Berry, to his readers present and to come. From what this chronicler tells us of himself, he was sixteen years old in 1402. He conceived, at that age, the design of following the great assemblies that would take place in the kingdom, in order to be a witness of the high deeds of his contemporaries and to set them down, or have them set down, in writing later. His work appeared only in his old age, and in several parts. First he published only the account of the conquest of Normandy by Charles VII. Then he fused this episode into his annals, beginning in the year 1402, and continued the whole to 1455, which formed the object of a second publication. Finally, in certain manuscripts the account of events is carried to 1458; in others, to the death of Charles VII: either because the author made these two successive additions to his work, or because others continued it thus after him.\nThe chronicler Berry is full of interest, though succinct. He allowed himself a rather large number of errors, especially in what concerns chronology; but these errors are those of a man who has seen. As a witness on the Maid, he is considerable for the events accomplished between the anointing and the unfortunate sally at Compiègne. He gives on this period information found nowhere else, except in the subsequent chroniclers, who borrowed it from him.\nThe text of Berry having been altered by Godefroy, I have used, to restore it, the manuscripts 137 of Notre-Dame and 435 of the Sorbonne, in the Bibliothèque Royale.\nIn that year, in that same season of Lent, there arrived a young girl of the age of eighteen or twenty years before the King, at the castle of Chinon, named Joan the Maid; who was born and raised near Vaucouleurs, in a village above the river Meuse, and had been all her youth until that hour keeping the sheep. And she came before the King and, greeting him, said these words to him: that Our Lord was sending her to him to lead him to be crowned at Reims, and to raise the siege which the English were holding before the good city of Orléans; and that God, at the prayer of the Saints, did not wish the said city to be taken or to perish. And at these words the King had her examined by several wise doctors of his kingdom, to whom she answered wisely and in good manner, and in such a way that all the doctors were of the opinion that her deeds, her sayings and her words were done and spoken by the miracle of God. And for this, it was said and ordained in great deliberation of the council that, to do and accomplish the things she had said, with the intention of beginning and completing them at God’s pleasure, she should be given horses, harness and men to accompany her to see her deed and what it would be. And all was done, counselled and ordained at the said castle of Chinon during the said season of Lent, when everyone was in devotion. And she was conducted by the Marshal de Rieux (1) and the lord of Culant, the one Marshal and the other Admiral.\n(1) Read de Rais. The same correction is to be made in all the rest of the piece.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine the siege of Orléans was raised on the twelfth day of May. And at that time the said Maid departed from the castle of Chinon and took leave of the King, and rode so far by her days’ journeys that she arrived inside the good city of Orléans in spite of the English; and she sent them letters by a herald, publicly before all the world, that they should go away, for God willed it, or else it would go ill with them, and God would be angered with them if they did the contrary. The said English took the said herald and judged that he should be burned, and had the stake made to burn him. And nonetheless, before they could have the opinion and counsel of the University of Paris and of those bound to decide this, they were raised, slain and routed, and departed so hastily that they left the said herald in their quarters, all in irons, and fled.\nThe said Maid visited the bastilles which they had occupied; and with her were the lord of Rieux, Marshal of France, the Bastard of Orléans and Messire Louis de Culant, Admiral, and several other knights and squires named above. And on the morrow the said Maid departed from Orléans and came to Blois (1) to obtain men and provisions. And this done, she came to the said place of Orléans with a great power of men-at-arms. And as soon as she had entered the said town, the people of Orléans set out, from the great desire they had to be out of the servitude of the said English. And they assailed the bastille of Saint Loup, which the French (2) had taken.\n(1) Error. She went out to meet the convoy on its arrival, but did not go to fetch it at Blois.\n(2) The manuscripts and the edition agree on this passage, which is unintelligible. Godefroy supposes that Anglois should be substituted for François, but this produces a nonsense. Plainly a sentence has dropped out of the text. The author must have meant that the English of the other bastilles had sallied out to come to the aid of their compatriots besieged in Saint-Loup.\nBut when they were midway, they perceived that the fire was within it, and that it was lost to them. And my lord the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Rieux and several others had gone there when they learned that the people had risen to go there. And this was the beginning of the raising of the siege; and there sixty English were slain and burned, and eighteen prisoners, who belonged to my lord the Bastard of Orléans. And that said bastille was held by an English captain named Thomas Gerrard, who was at Montereau, of which he was captain for the said English. And that evening the French crossed the river Loire in boats and went to assail the bastilles on the side of Beauce (1) and that of the Augustins before the bridge gate, and took them. And that evening the said French withdrew into the said town, and the said Maid with them (2); and a part of the men-at-arms remained in the field all night.\n(1) Read Sologne.\n(2) Error. She remained in the field.\nAnd on the morrow in the morning, which was a Saturday, the said French crossed the said river again to assail the bastille of the bridge. And there were the lord of Rieux, the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Gaucourt, the lord of Graville, the lord of Guitry (3), the lord of Coarraze (4), the lord of Villars (5), Messire Denis\n(3) Guillaume de Chaumont, lord of Guitry.\n(4) Ramon Arnaut, lord of Coarraze in Béarn.\n(5) Archambaud de Villars, very old, knight, formerly a favourite of Duke Louis of Orléans and captain of Montargis. He had made himself famous in the combat of seven English against seven French which took place at Montendre in 1402.\nde Chailly, the Admiral Messire Louis de Culant, La Hire, Poton, the Commander of Giresme, Messire Florent d’Illiers, Le Bourg de Masqueran, Thibault de Termes and several others; who gave the assault on all sides to the said bastille of the bridge, from noon until sunset, so much so that by force of arms the said bastille was taken. And there died the lords of Poynings and of Molyns (1) and a captain named Glasdale, an Englishman, who was captain of that bastille; and as he thought to withdraw into the tower of the boulevard, the bridge collapsed, and he and all those who were on the said bridge sank into the river Loire; and there within were, some slain, some taken, some drowned, from four to five hundred English.\n(1) The Lords Poynings and Molyns (Calendarium Inquisitionum post mortem, Henry VI, seventh year).\nAnd on the morrow in the morning, which was Sunday, the English rose from before Orléans and went to Meung-sur-Loire, most of them on foot, and left their bastilles, provisions and artillery. At which those of the said town of Orléans were much refreshed and had very great comfort from the provisions they found in the said bastilles.\nThen the Earl of Suffolk took charge of five hundred English to lead to Jargeau by the ordinance of the lord of Talbot, lieutenant for the King of England. And the lord of Talbot remained at Meung and at Beaugency until they should have news of the Duke of Bedford and great succour. Which duke sent them Messire John Fastolf with all the men he could gather. And then the chiefs of war who had been inside the town of Orléans during the siege, and my lord the Constable of France, Count of Richemont, my lord of Alençon and my lord of Albret, came and laid the siege at Jargeau and took it by assault. And there were, some taken and some slain, from four to five hundred English; and there was taken on the bridge of the town, beneath which the river Loire passes, the Earl of Suffolk, who had withdrawn onto the said bridge after the taking of the said town; and he surrendered to a squire of Auvergne named Guillaume Regnault; which earl made the said Guillaume Regnault a knight, so that it might be said he had been taken by a knight. And at the taking which was made on the said bridge, of French and English, Alexandre de la Pole, brother of the said earl, was drowned.\nAnd from there the French and the Maid came to lay the siege at Beaugency; and seeing the fear the English had of the fortune they saw upon them, they surrendered and delivered Beaugency by composition. And within there were from six to seven hundred English, and its captain was Messire Guischart Guetin. And when the lord of Talbot and Messire John Fastolf learned that the said Beaugency was surrendered and that the English had gone away into Normandy, a staff in their fist, the said lord of Talbot and Messire John Fastolf departed to draw towards Janville. And then the said lords of France learned of it and pursued them a good six leagues, and overtook them at a strong church named Patay. And there the said English were fought and routed; and there the lord of Talbot was taken, and others, up to the number of three hundred English prisoners, and twenty-two hundred slain; and Messire John Fastolf and several others fled. And by that day’s work Meung, Janville, La Ferté-Hubert and several other fortresses in the country of Beauce were abandoned.\nAnd then the King learned the news, and went to Gien and from there to Auxerre with all his host, and came before the city of Troyes. And he sent back the Constable, and likewise countermanded the Count of Pardiac (1), because the lord of La Trémoille feared they might undertake to seize the King’s government or do displeasure to his person and cast him out. The said city of Troyes made obedience to the King, who departed from there and came to Châlons, which likewise made obedience to him, and from there to Reims, where he was grandly accompanied by the lords of his blood and the barons of his kingdom, such as the Duke of Alençon, the Count of Vendôme, the lord of Albret, the Bastard of Orléans, the Count of Clermont, the Marshals, the Admiral, the Master of the Crossbowmen, the lord of Laval and many other barons. And the King was anointed and crowned at Reims in very great solemnity.\n(1) Bernard d’Armagnac, younger son of the one who was assassinated in Paris in 1418.\nAnd after that the King departed from Reims and came to Soissons, and from there to Château-Thierry and to Provins, which he put into his obedience. And from there he came to Crépy-en-Valois. And the Duke of Bedford made known to the King that if he wished battle, he would receive him. And then, as soon as the letters were received from the heralds, the King departed and came to Lagny-le-Sec, and left his vanguard at Dammartin. And the Duke of Bedford was with all his host at Mitry in France. And the French and English runners skirmished all day upon a little stream at a village called Thieux (2). And on\n(2) The little river on which Thieux stands is called the Biberonne.\nthe evening of that day the Duke of Bedford departed with all his host and went to Louvres. And the King of France and his host were at Crépy, and the vanguard at Baron.\nAnd on the morrow at daybreak, the host of the said Bedford came near Senlis, to a place named La Victoire. And in the villages near there the said French were lodged. And when they learned of the coming of the English, they gathered together into battle order. And the King of France came from Crépy to Montépilloy, and there lay that night. And on the morrow all day they were face to face without hedge and without bush, near one another within a culverin’s shot, and did not fight. And in the evening the King departed and went with his host to the said Crépy, and the Duke of Bedford went to the said Senlis.\nAnd on the morrow the King went to Compiègne, which made obedience to him, and was there eight days; and there came Messire Jean de Luxembourg, who made many promises to make peace between the King and the Duke of Burgundy: of which he did nothing but deceive him. And the King departed from there and came to Senlis; which town had sent to fetch him. And his vanguard passed beyond and came to Saint-Denis. And there my lord of Alençon and the Maid and the Marshals led the King’s army. And the Duke of Bar named René came to the King’s aid, and the young lord of La Marche (1) and he of Rougemont.\n(1) Read Comarchis or Commercy instead of La Marche. This lord’s own name was Robert de Sarrebruck.\nAnd from there the King came to Saint-Denis, and the King’s host was before Paris to assail it; but the lord of La\nTrémoille had the men-at-arms turned back to Saint-Denis. And for this cause the Duke of Bedford and his host were at La Chapelle-Saint-Denis before Paris; and from there he went to Rouen for fear that the country of Normandy might rebel, because of Beauvais and Aumale which had returned to the King.\nAnd after, the King departed from Saint-Denis to come into Berry. And he came to Lagny, which had returned to him; and from there went to Provins and to Bray, which returned to him. And he and his host crossed the river Yonne by a ford near Sens, and came to Courtenay and to Château-Renard, and from there to Gien, thinking to have agreement with the Duke of Burgundy; which duke had sent him word that he would procure him Paris, by the lord of Charny who had brought the news of it, and that he would come to Paris to speak to those who held his party. And for this cause the King sent him his safe-conduct to come to Paris; but when he was at Paris, the Duke of Bedford and he made their alliances stronger than before against the King. And the said duke returned with his safe-conduct through the countries of the King’s obedience into his countries of Picardy and Flanders (1).\n(1) There follows the account of the battle of Anthon, of the submission of Sens and of that of Melun.\nThe King was at Gien on his return from his anointing, and the Duke of Alençon with him; who desired to take with him the Maid and the King’s men-at-arms into Normandy. But the lord of La Trémoille did not wish it, but sent him with his brother, the lord of Albret, in the hardest part of winter, and the Marshal de Boussac with very few men, before the town of La Charité; and there they were about a month and raised the siege shamefully, without succour coming to those within; and they lost bombards and artillery there; and there died at an assault a baron of the country of Dauphiné named Ramon de Montremur (1), which was a loss.\n(1) Godefroy, in his edition, corrected Mommor.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and thirty, the siege was laid at Soisi (2) near Compiègne by the Duke of Burgundy, the Earls of Suffolk and of Arundel and Messire Jean de Luxembourg; and in the end they took it by composition. And while they were at the said siege, a Gascon squire named Poton de Xaintrailles and the men-at-arms of his company crossed the river Aisne between Soissons and the bridge (3), and struck upon the said siege, and took and slew several men; and among the others was taken one named Jean de Brimeu, of the country of Picardy.\n(2) Read Pont-à-Soissy, as it is written further on; the place in question is Choisy-au-Bac, situated almost at the confluence of the Aisne and the Oise.\n(3) Or, the said bridge.\nAt this time the Maid departed from Compiègne, accompanied by the Archbishop of Reims, the Count of Vendôme and several other captains and men of war. And they rode until they came before the town of Soissons, thinking to pass through the said town to go and fight the Duke of Burgundy, who was before the said Pont-à-Soissy between the two rivers Oise and Aisne. And when the aforesaid had arrived before the town of Soissons, a squire of Picardy named Guiscard Bournel, whom the Count of\nClermont, son of the Duke of Bourbon, had made captain of the said place, refused entry into the said town to the said lords and men-at-arms, and suborned the people of the said town by giving them to understand that the said lords and men-at-arms were coming to be in garrison there, so that the people of the said town should be of the opinion of not letting them inside that town. The men-at-arms lay that night in the fields, and in the end the said captain thrust the said Archbishop, Maid and Count of Vendôme into a small company. And on the morrow the said men-at-arms went beyond the river Marne and Seine, because they found nothing to live on in the country, and also because they were great lords in great number with several men of war accompanying them; and they could not live inside the said town of Compiègne, for those of the said place expected the siege upon them from day to day. And the said lords went to Senlis, and the said Maid to Compiègne; and as soon as they had departed from Soissons, the said Guiscard sold the said city to the Duke of Burgundy and put it into the hand of Messire Jean de Luxembourg: in which he did basely, against his honour; and this done, he went away with the said duke, who by this means obtained the obedience of the said Pont-à-Soissy, and came to lay the siege before Compiègne. And there came to his aid the Earls of Stafford and of Arundel, Englishmen, with one thousand five hundred fighting men at the siege before the said town of Compiègne; and there the said Maid was taken by a Picard; and afterwards Messire Jean de Luxembourg sold her to the English.\nJean Chartier # Jean Chartier, cantor of Saint-Denis, passes for having been the brother of Alain Chartier the poet, as well as of Guillaume Chartier, Bishop of Paris, who was a judge in the revision of the trial of Joan of Arc. Jean Chartier, by this account, would be a Norman, a native of Bayeux. Charles VII restored in his favour the privilege which the abbey of Saint-Denis had anciently enjoyed of providing the titular chronicler of the kings of France. He exercised this office in 1449, during the conquest of Normandy, since on the occasion of the siege of Harfleur he says that he was present at it, enduring great cold and vexations; although, he adds, I was salaried and defrayed for the expenses both of myself and of my horses, by the ordinance and will of the King, as has always been and is still the custom. Louis XI, on his accession, having taken the writing of the chronicles from him to give it to a monk of Cluny, it was presumably after his dismissal that he published the history of the reign of Charles VII, which appears to have been written in part during that prince’s lifetime.\nJean Chartier is a poor writer, an injudicious appraiser of events, an inexact and incomplete annalist. Nonetheless, he has instructive parts, and what he wrote on the appearance of Joan of Arc is of this kind. His account of it is among the most circumstantial that we have. As no reminiscence of the rehabilitation trial is to be found in it, there is reason to believe that the chronicler gathered its elements at the time when he entered office, that is to say between 1440 and 1450. It will be seen later that it is this account which engendered almost all the others, at least those conceived in the French spirit.\nThe work of Jean Chartier, having been merged very early into the body of the Chronicles of Saint-Denis, was thereby deprived of the advantage of having many separate editions. Only one is known, that given by Godefroy in his Recueil des historiens de Charles VII. It is far from good. Godefroy has modernised the chronicler’s language, palliated by continual corrections the rusticity of his style, and made the chapter divisions he had adopted disappear. The extracts which follow have been restored to the primitive physiognomy of the work. They have been copied from the fine manuscript 8350 of the Bibliothèque Royale, which was executed about the year 1470 for the lord of Gruuthuse.\nThe coming of the Maid # At that time, news came that there was a maiden from near Vaucouleurs in the marches of Barrois, who was about twenty years of age. And she said several times to one named Messire Robert de Baudricourt, captain of the said Vaucouleurs, and to several others, that it was necessary they should bring her to the King of France, and that she would do him great service in his wars; and several times she asked it of them. And of this they did nothing but laugh and mock, and reputed the said Joan to be a simple person, and took no account of her words. And finally the said Joan brought it about that she was taken to the King of France by one named Ville-Robert and others in her company.\nThen she, having come before the King, made the inclinations and reverences customarily made to kings, as if she had been brought up in his court; and the salutation made, she said, addressing her word to the King: God give you good life, gentle King; although she did not know him, nor had ever seen him. And there were several lords pompously dressed, and more richly than the King. For which he answered the said Joan: It is not I who am King, Joan. And showing her one of his lords, he said: There is the King. To which she answered: In God’s name, gentle prince, it is you and no other. And then she was examined and questioned diligently by several wise clerks and other people of several estates, to know who moved her to come to the King. And she answered that she came to put the King into his lordship, and that God so willed it, and that she would raise the siege which the English held before the town of Orléans, and, after that, that she would lead the King to be crowned at Reims, and that she wished to fight the English wherever she could find them, and that the King must give her such power as he could gather, for of raising that siege, of leading the King to be crowned at Reims, of routing and repelling the English, she had no doubt at all. And she said several other marvellous things and answered marvellously the questions put to her. And as regards the war, it seemed that she was very strongly experienced in it, and several doctors and war captains and others marvelled at her deeds and at the answers she gave, as much concerning divine matters as concerning the war.\nAnd to provide for the said necessity of the said town of Orléans, it was advised by the King and his council that the said Joan the Maid should go and victual and work what she could upon the said siege, as she asked it every day. And the King issued a certain summons of men-at-arms to accompany the said Joan the Maid; among whom were summoned on the King’s behalf the lord of Rais, Messire Ambroise, lord of Loré, and several others, who conducted and led the said Joan the Maid into the town of Blois. In which place they found Messire Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims and Chancellor of France, the Bastard of Orléans, La Hire and others. And there were loaded in the town of Blois several carts and wains of wheat, and likewise a great force of oxen, sheep, cows, pigs and other provisions; and the said Joan the Maid and the captains named above took their road to draw straight to Orléans, by way of Sologne. And they lay one night outside, and on the morrow the said Joan the Maid and the aforesaid captains arrived with those provisions before the said town of Orléans. And from that hour the English abandoned a bastille which they held, named Saint-Jean-le-Blanc; and the English who were in it withdrew to the Augustins with the others who were there near the end of the bridge. And the said Joan the Maid, the Bastard of Orléans, La Hire and several other captains entered the said town with all those provisions; and the said lords of Rais and of Loré returned to Blois with the greater part of the company, for it was held difficult to put so many men into the said town of Orléans, because there were too few provisions there.\nThis said Maid, after she had been examined, asked the King that it might please him to give her one of his armourers to go to Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois to fetch a sword which was in a certain place in the church, sent by the grace of God, and which bore for its mark on each side five little swords. Which thing was granted her, while asking her on the King’s behalf whether she had ever been in the said place, how she knew the said sword to be such, and how it had been brought there. To which she answered that she had never been there nor entered the church of the said Sainte Catherine (1); but she well knew that the said sword was there among several old iron things, as she knew it by divine revelation; and that by means of that sword she must expel from the kingdom of France (2) and lead the King to be anointed and crowned in the city of Reims. These words thus set forth by the said Joan, by the King’s leave and mission, one of the said armourers went with her (3) to the said place, where he found the said sword, and brought it to the said Joan: which was a thing most marvellous; with which she warred and waged war upon the said enemies of the King most valiantly, and by her enterprise and new beginning, victualled the said town with those named above, as has been said.\n(1) The contrary is established by the condemnation trial, vol. I, p. 75, where the Maid positively says that she stopped at Sainte-Catherine on her way to Charles VII, and that she heard three Masses there on the same day.\n(2) Godefroy, in his edition, corrected: chasser du royaume de France les Anglois — drive the English from the kingdom of France.\n(3) Another inexactitude. The Maid did not go to fetch the sword: it was brought to her.\nAnd when the said lords of Rais and of Loré had arrived at Blois, they found the said Chancellor of France there; and then they held council anew to know what was to be done. And nearly all of them were of the will to return to the said place of Orléans to do and work, each what he could, for the good of the King and of that town. Speaking of this matter, the Bastard of Orléans arrived, who spoke to the said Chancellor and captains, asking and praying them that aid and succour be made to the said town in the best way they could, and that if that company departed, that town was on the way to perdition. And forthwith it was concluded by all to return and to lead again provisions in strength; and that they would go by way of Beauce, where the power of the English was, in the great bastille of which mention has been made above (1). And they had hesitated to go there on the other occasion when they went by Sologne with Joan the Maid, although that time when they went by Sologne with the said Joan the Maid they were three times as many men as they were to go by Beauce.\n(1) The bastille called Londres, which intercepted the entry to Orléans on the western side. The historian speaks of it in a previous chapter.\nHow Orléans was victualled by the French # On the eve of the Ascension, there departed again from the town of Blois the said Bastard of Orléans, the said lords of Rais and of Loré and several others, with a great quantity of wheat and cattle and other provisions, and came to lie almost halfway from Blois; and on the morrow took their road straight to Orléans. And when they were about a league from the said town of Orléans, there came to meet them the said Joan the Maid, her standard in her hand, La Hire, Messire Florent d’Illiers and several others. And they all came together to pass before the great bastille of the English named Londres with all their provisions, and entered the said town of Orléans.\nAbout two or three hours after they had thus entered the said town of Orléans, the said Joan the Maid departed from that town, armed in all harness, and several other men of war in her company; and they drew towards the bastille of Saint Loup, in which there was a great number of English, and it was assaulted hard. Then those within, seeing themselves so rudely assailed, knew well enough that it was time to take or yield. Wherefore all with one will put themselves to the defence of the said place and bore themselves most valiantly there; but whatever resistance they made, it was taken by assault in the sight of the other English of the great bastille; and all those English were slain or taken. And those of the great bastille set out on the road thinking to give succour, but they did not go far before returning to their bastille.\nThis done, the said Joan and the others who were in her company returned into the said town of Orléans. And on the morrow a council was held to know what was to be done to damage and press the said English holding the siege on either side of the said town of Orléans. And the said council was held at the house of the Chancellor of Orléans (1); in which place were the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Rais, the lord of Graville, La Hire, Messire Ambroise de Loré, the lord of Gaucourt and several others. At which council it was concluded and deliberated that certain devices should be made, such as mantlets and wooden hoardings, to go and assail the great bastille and others on the Beauce side, in order to bring the English who were on the other side towards Sologne to come to help and succour those of the said great bastille and others on the Beauce side. And notwithstanding,\n(1) At the house of Jacques Boucher.\nit was all a thing feigned (1), for they had no intention of assailing that bastille; but the conclusion of that council was that, as soon as the English of the Sologne side had crossed the river, which they would surely cross some time or other, they would at once cross that river on the Sologne side to go and assail those who remained on the said Sologne side. And everyone was of this opinion. And the said Joan was not at this council, but she was in the house of the said Chancellor with his wife. And it was said, after the conclusion was taken, by some, that it would be good to send for Joan the Maid to tell her the conclusion that had been taken for working upon the enemies the following day. And there were some who said it was not needful to tell her of the passage they intended to make on the other side of the river towards Sologne, because it had to be kept secret — fearing that it might be revealed by the said Joan; they told her only that it had been concluded at this council to attempt to assail and take the great bastille. And she was sent for on this counsel by Messire Ambroise lord of Loré; and when she had come, they told her and recited the council which had been held as to attempting to take the said great bastille, in which were the Earl of Suffolk, the lord of Talbot, the lord of Scales, Messire John Fastolf and several others in great number. And they did not tell her that they intended to cross to the other side towards Sologne, as is said above; which words were spoken by the Chancellor of Orléans.\n(1) That is to say, a feint.\nThen, after she had heard and understood the said Chancellor, she answered these words or like ones, as a person angered: Tell me what you have concluded and decided. I could keep secret a much greater thing than this. And she went back and forth across the place, without seating herself. And forthwith the Bastard of Orléans said to her these words or like ones in substance: Joan, do not be angered. We cannot tell you everything at once. What the Chancellor has told you has been concluded and decided; but if those of the other side of the river of Sologne depart to come and aid the great bastille and those on this side, we have decided to cross the river to the other side to work what we can upon those over there. And it seems to us this conclusion is good and profitable. Then Joan the Maid answered that she was content, and that it seemed to her this conclusion was good, provided it were executed thus. And nevertheless, of this conclusion nothing was done or executed.\nAnd very often the said Bastard and other captains were together to counsel what was to be done; and whatever conclusion they took, when the said Joan the Maid came, she concluded some other thing to the contrary; and against the opinion of all the captains, chiefs of war and others, she often made fine enterprises upon her enemies, which always turned out well for her. And hardly anything worth speaking of was done there except at the undertaking of the said Joan the Maid. And although the captains and other men of war executed what she said, the said Joan always went to the skirmish in her harness, although it was against the will and opinion of most of those men of war; and she mounted on her charger, armed as soon as any knight who was in the army or in the King’s court. At which the men of war were angered (1) and much astonished.\n(1) This important word is missing in Godefroy’s edition.\nThe taking of the boulevards and bastille of the bridge end # It befell one day, after several great skirmishes and takings of several bastilles of the said siege, that the said Joan the Maid wished to cross the river Loire in force towards Sologne, to work upon the English who held the siege at the end of the bridge of Orléans, who were lodged at the Augustins and at the boulevard and bastille of the bridge. And in boats she had a great number of men cross, and nearly all the captains named above. And they, having disembarked on the land, came to the end of that bridge where about seven to eight hundred English were lodged, who did not sally out at all to make a skirmish, until the said Joan the Maid, the captains and other men wished to withdraw, because it was near sunset. And because the said English saw that the boats were being brought back up to recross the river, they sallied from the house of the Augustins and from the [boulevard of the] bridge end, and came to charge very hard upon the French, so that the said Joan the Maid and the captains who were there were constrained to defend themselves, and came to charge upon the said English; who were separated from their fortresses by a good two shots’ flight of crossbow bolts, and in such wise that several of them were slain and taken, and they were thrust back by the French into the house of the Augustins, which they had fortified. And from that hour it was taken by assault upon the said English; and all those who could escape withdrew into the boulevard and into the bastille of the bridge end. Before which boulevard and bastille the said Joan the Maid, the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Rais, the lord of Loré and several other captains remained all night.\nAnd on the morrow in the morning the assault began upon the boulevard of the said bridge; in which boulevard and in the bastille were two barons of England, one named the lord of Molyns and the other the lord of Bumus (1), and a squire well renowned for valour named William Glasdale, who was said to be the conductor and governor of all that siege. And in the said boulevard and bastille were about five to six hundred English, who were assaulted all that day, the standards ever on the edge of the ditch. And several times some standards and men of war went down into the ditch and climbed up against the said English to fight hand to hand, and then were thrust back by the said English into the said ditch. And the said Joan the Maid kept saying that everyone should have good heart and good hope in God, and that the hour was approaching when the said English would be taken.\n(1) Ponnis in Godefroy’s edition; Pommiers, Ponnains in other chroniclers. It is Poynings; see above, p. 44.\nAbout one hour after noon the said Joan the Maid was wounded by a bolt in that assault through the shoulder; and notwithstanding this, she would never withdraw or be thrust out of that ditch. And about sunset, all in one moment, the French entered on every side and climbed up onto the boulevard and took it by assault; and there were slain the said lords of Molyns and Bumus, the said William Glasdale, and several others, up to the number of four hundred or thereabouts; and the others taken prisoner. And that night the said Joan the Maid and the captains named above lodged with their people on the Sologne side; for they could not return into the said town of Orléans except by boats, because the bridges were broken.\nHow the siege of Orléans was raised by the French # This taking thus made of the said boulevards and bastille, all the bells of the said town began to ring, and the inhabitants to praise and thank God. Which taking the English on the other side of the river towards Beauce, in a bastille named Saint Laurens, could well see: wherefore the lord of Talbot, the Earl of Suffolk, the lord of Scales, Messire John Fastolf and several others, who were in the great bastille named Londres, of which mention has been made above, were counselled to abandon it with all their company and to raise the said siege.\nTo this counsel they all agreed, and departed on the Sunday morning after the said boulevards and bastille had been taken on the Saturday evening; and they decamped from that bastille in very great disarray, so much so that the few men who sallied from the town made them leave the greater part of their wagons, artillery and other provisions; and all the same it was not possible for the other company, which was on the other side, to cross soon enough to do anything upon the said English, who were four thousand fighting men or thereabouts. And they joined together and went in fine order to Meung-sur-Loire, which Meung was held for the said English. And they were ridden after and skirmished with for two or three leagues by Étienne de Vignolles, called La Hire, and Messire Ambroise lord of Loré, with one hundred or six score lances, who had crossed back into the said town after the taking of the said boulevards and bastille, from that evening.\nNow there was a prisoner of the English in the great bastille, a French captain named Le Bourg du Bar (1), who was fettered by the feet with a pair of irons so heavy that he could not walk. And while he was in prison, he was often visited by an English Augustinian who was confessor to the said lord of Talbot, master of this prisoner. And this Augustinian had the custom of delivering provisions to him and administering to his subsistence, and the said lord of Talbot trusted the said Augustinian wholly to keep this prisoner well. When the said lord of Talbot and the others departed hastily from the bastille, as has been said, this Augustinian remained with his prisoner to lead him after the lord of Talbot his master, and conducted him a good half bowshot, under the arms, after the lord of Talbot and the other English, who ever advanced on their way. Then\n(1) He had been taken in a sortie in the month of February, as will be seen in the Journal of the Siege. His first name of Bourg announces that he was a bastard. His father Gui de Bar, otherwise called Le Veau de Bar, served with the Burgundians, and passed for having commanded the massacres of Paris in 1418.\nLe Bourg du Bar, as a courageous and well-advised man, although he was a prisoner and in irons, seeing that the English were in great trouble, took this Augustinian and told him he would go no further; but constrained him, fettered as he was, to carry him on his shoulders as far as the town of Orléans, although all around that place were French and English skirmishing with one another.\nAn army raised by the King of France # At this same following time, the King Charles of France, of whom mention has been made above, raised a great army through the means and admonishment of Joan the Maid, of whom it is spoken above. And the Duke of Alençon summoned men from all parts to come to the King’s service, more to accompany the said Joan the Maid than otherwise, in the hope that she came from God, more than for wages or other profits she had from the King. There assembled a great company of men-at-arms and archers with the said Duke of Alençon and the said Joan the Maid, in whom all these men-at-arms had great hope: the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Boussac, Marshal of France, the lord of Graville, Master of the Crossbowmen, the lord of Culant, Admiral of France, Messire Ambroise lord of Loré, Étienne de Vignolles called La Hire, Gaultier de Brussac and several other captains. Which Duke of Alençon and the others named above went before the town of Jargeau to lay siege. And after several assaults and skirmishes, they had their bombards set in place and made several approaches to win and conquer the said town of Jargeau, which held the party of the English, and of which the captain and guard for the King of England was the Earl of Suffolk, an Englishman; and in his company from six to seven hundred English. And about eight days after the said siege was laid, it was assailed on every side and in the end was taken by assault. In which the Earl of Suffolk was made prisoner by one named Guillaume Regnault (which earl made the said Regnault a knight), and the lord of La Pole his brother. And there was slain Messire Alexandre de la Pole, his other brother, and a good three to four hundred English, and the others prisoners. Which prisoners were for the most part slain for certain outrages they committed upon certain French between Jargeau and Orléans. And the said army withdrew to the said place of Orléans.\nThis having come to the knowledge of the King of France, that the said town of Jargeau had been taken by assault, as has been said, he summoned men-at-arms from all parts to come and join with the said Duke of Alençon, Joan the Maid and other lords and captains, at the said place of Orléans (1). And they came and lodged in the fields before the town of Meung on the river Loire, and won the bridge near the said place upon the English; and this done, they established a good garrison there to obviate ever the enterprises of the said English and to fall upon them, in conquering upon them what (2) they had unjustly occupied of the kingdom of France for a long time and without reason.\n(1) So in all the manuscripts. Read: at the said place of Orléans.\n(2) This defective passage has been corrected by Godefroy: en conquestant sur eulx ce qu’avoient occupé sur le royaume, etc.\nHow the English of Beaugency surrendered to the French # On the morrow in the morning, the said host struck camp and went to lodge before the town of Beaugency-sur-Loire, in which were the English. And forthwith the said English withdrew into the castle and onto the bridge of the said Beaugency and abandoned the town.\nThis done, Jean d’Alençon, Joan the Maid, the Bastard of Orléans and others entered into the town and lodged there, and promptly had the bombards emplaced before the said castle, in which there were a good seven to eight hundred English. And during the time that the said bombards were being emplaced in the company, making great diligence of firing — while approaches were also being made — the said English made but little resistance, seeing the business going to decline and ill for them. And soon after they asked to have composition and to surrender. To which siege arrived Arthur de Richemont, Constable of France, and the lord of Beaumanoir in his company. And it was said that he had a good thousand to twelve hundred fighting men, which was a great succour and aid; and the said Constable is well to be commended for it, for here and in several other places he has done great services to the King.\nWith all this there came every day into the host men from all parts, and the French had taken in themselves very great courage and boldness at the coming of the said Joan the Maid; whom several held to have come from God, for her works and government showed it well enough. And the English, who heard tell of it every day, were all terrified at it; and the said English asked to parley to surrender the said castle and bridge. And in the end composition was given them, and a safe-conduct to go away and carry all their goods. And on the morrow in the morning they departed and surrendered the said castle and bridge of Beaugency. And Messire Ambroise, lord of Loré, convoyed them and put them out of the host, by the ordinance of the lords aforesaid.\nThe battle of Patay, won by the French # And about one hour after the said English had departed under safe-conduct to go their way, certain news came into the host of the French that the lord of Talbot, an Englishman, the lord of Scales, Messire John Fastolf and several other lords and captains of England, up to the number of four to five thousand, had passed through Janville in Beauce to come straight to Meung-sur-Loire. And forthwith riders were set on the way for this, to know the truth of it more fully; and all the while the said Duke of Alençon, the Count of Richemont, Constable of France, the Count of Vendôme and the said Joan the Maid had the said host drawn out into the fields, out of the said town of Beaugency, and put in battle order. And soon after the said riders returned, who reported that they had seen the said English near Meung-sur-Loire, and that those of Meung had departed and had left and abandoned the said town of Meung and were going away with the others; which English were drawing straight to Janville in Beauce.\nThis having come to the knowledge of the Duke of Alençon, the Count of Richemont, Constable of France, the Count of Vendôme, the Bastard of Orléans, Joan the Maid and other chiefs of war and captains: it was concluded to draw hastily towards that part where the said English were said to be, and to fight them wherever they could find them. And forthwith they struck camp, the battles, and rode diligently, drawing towards a strong church named Patay in Beauce, and there the said English were found and overtaken (1), who were going away on foot and on horse. And ever marching on their way, they were found by the runners and the vanguard, so that the battle in which were the said Duke of Alençon, the Constable of France, the said Count of Vendôme, the Bastard of Orléans, Joan the Maid and several others, was approaching very near. And the English could well see it; which English deployed to take position at the edge of a wood, near a village. And at that hour the said runners and vanguard of the French, in which were the lord of Beaumanoir, Messire Ambroise de Loré, La Hire, Poton de Xaintrailles and other captains, struck upon the said English in such wise that those who were on horse, or the greater part of them, took to flight, and those on foot (who were in great number) thrust themselves into the said wood and village. And at that hour the battle of the French arrived, and in the end the said English were routed; and of them there were from two to three thousand slain, and several prisoners. And there were taken the lord of Talbot, the lord of Scales, Messire Walter de Hungerford and several other great lords of England. And the chase lasted as far as Janville in Beauce, which\n(1) It should read aconsuis, that is to say, rejoined.\nwas held by the English. And from that hour it was surrendered and put into the obedience of the King of France, with several other fortresses of the said country of Beauce; and Messire John Fastolf and several English who could escape from the business withdrew to Corbeil; and the aforesaid French lay the following night at the said place of Patay.\nAn army of men of war by the King of France # In the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, at the beginning of the month of June, the King Charles of France raised a great army by the admonishment of the said Maid, who said that it was the will of God that King Charles should go to Reims to be there anointed and crowned. And whatever difficulties or doubts the said King or his council made, it was concluded, by the admonishment of the said Joan the Maid, that the said King would summon all the men he could gather to go and make the journey of his coronation at Reims, although the said town of Reims was held in the obedience of the English, as were all the towns and fortresses of Picardy, of Champagne, of Île-de-France, Brie, Gâtinais, Auxerrois, Burgundy, and generally the whole country of the Loire. And in the company of the King of France were the Duke of Alençon, the Duke of Bourbon, the Count of Vendôme, Joan the Maid, the lord of Laval, the lord of La Trémoille, the lord of Rais, the lord of Albret, the lord of Loheac, brother of the lord of Laval, and several other great lords and captains; and men-at-arms came from all parts to the King’s service. And everyone had great expectation that by the means of the said Joan the Maid much good would be had in the kingdom of France: whom they coveted and desired to know in her deeds, as a thing come from God. And she rode always armed in the gear of war, like the other men of war of the company; and she spoke as prudently of the war as a captain knows how to do. And when it befell that there was in the host some cry or alarm of men-at-arms, she came, on foot or on horse, as valiantly as a captain of the company could have done, giving heart and boldness to all the others, admonishing them to keep good watch and guard in the host, as by reason should be done. And in all other things she was a very simple person, and was of fair and honest life; and she confessed very often and received the body of Our Lord almost every week once. And she was always, armed or otherwise, in the dress of a man; and it was said that it was too strange a thing to see a woman ride in such company; and so many other remarks were made that there was no doctor, clerk or other person who was not amazed at her deeds.\nAnd at this time the lord of La Trémoille was with the King of France, and it was said that he had strongly undertaken the government of the King and of the kingdom of France; and for this cause great question and debate arose between the said lord of La Trémoille and the Count of Richemont, Constable of France; wherefore the said Constable of France, who had well twelve hundred fighting men in his company, had to go back. And likewise did several other lords and captains, of whom the said lord of La Trémoille was in doubt.\nAt which it was very great damage for the King and his kingdom. And by the means of the said Joan the Maid, so many men came from all parts to the King to serve him at their own expense that it was said the said La Trémoille and others of the King’s council were much angered that so many came, for doubt of their persons. And several said that if the said lord of La Trémoille and the others of the King’s council had been willing to receive all those who came to the service of the King, they could easily have recovered all that the English held in the kingdom of France. And no one dared speak at that time against the said lord of La Trémoille, although everyone saw clearly that the fault came from him.\nPayment of the men-at-arms by the King of France # This aforesaid assembly took place at Gien-sur-Loire; at which place a payment was made to the men-at-arms such as did not amount to more than two or three francs per man-at-arms. From which place the said Joan the Maid departed, and several other captains and several men in her company, and went to lodge about four leagues from the said Gien, taking the road to Reims towards Auxerre. And the King of France departed on the morrow following, drawing that way; and that day he assembled all the host together.\nAnd there were in the said host several defamed women who hindered some men-at-arms from making diligence to follow the King; and the said Joan, seeing this, after the cry was made that everyone should advance, drew her sword and beat two or three of them, so that she broke her said sword. At which the King was much displeased and told her she should have taken a good stick and struck them with it, without thus abandoning the said sword, which had come to her divinely, as she said.\nAnd the said King rode on until he came before the city of Auxerre, which city did not make him full obedience; but certain burgesses of that city came to him; and it was said that they had given money to the said lord of Trémoille so that they might remain in truce for that time. At which thing certain lords and captains of the said host were much displeased, and spoke of it loudly, murmuring against the said lord of La Trémoille and others who were of the King’s council. And the said Joan still wished the said city to be assaulted; and in the end it remained in truce, although those of the town gave several provisions to those of the host for their money, of which they had great need in the said host.\nSiege laid before Troyes in Champagne # After the King of France had been three days before the said city of Auxerre, he departed with his host, drawing towards Saint-Florentin; which town of Saint-Florentin made him obedience; and from there he took his road straight to Troyes in Champagne, and rode so far that he came to lodge before the city of Troyes, in which there were a good five to six hundred Burgundians. And on arrival the said English and Burgundians sallied upon the King’s host. And it lodged on one side and the other of the said city for the space of six to seven days, parleying and ever thinking that city would make him obedience; but no agreement could be found; and there was in the host so very great a dearth of bread and of other provisions, for in that host there were from six to seven thousand men who had eaten no bread for eight days, and most of those people lived on beans and wheat roasted in the ear.\nAnd the said King summoned to him the Duke of Alençon, the Duke of Bourbon, the Count of Vendôme and several other lords and captains, with others of his council in great number, to have advice of what he should do. And there it was put forward and deliberated in the said council by the Archbishop of Reims, Chancellor of France, that the said host could no longer properly remain before the said city of Troyes, for several reasons: first, because of the great famine which was in the said host, and because provisions came into it from nowhere; and also because there was no longer a man who had money; and moreover that it was a marvellous thing to take the city of Troyes, which was strong, well furnished with provisions, men-at-arms and people; and according to what could be seen, those within had no will to surrender and put the said city into the obedience of the King of France; and also that there were no bombards, nor artillery, nor a sufficient number of men to win and fight the said city; and on the other hand there was no French town or fortress whence aid or succour could be had nearer than Gien-sur-Loire, from which they were more than thirty leagues to the host. And he alleged and said several other reasons and inconveniences which might well be seen to be able to befall the said host. And the King commanded the said Chancellor to ask the opinion of those who were present at this council, as to what was to be done for the best. And then the said Chancellor began to ask several of them, charging them that each should acquit himself loyally towards the King in counselling him what he should do upon what has been said. And nearly all those of this council were of the opinion that, seeing and considering the things declared above, and that the King had been refused at the said city of Auxerre, in which there were hardly any men-at-arms, and which was not so strong as that of Troyes, and several other things which each alleged according to his understanding: they were of the opinion that the said King and his host should turn back.\nAnd the said Chancellor came to ask an aged counsellor named Messire Robert Le Maçon, lord of Trêves, who answered by his opinion that they should send for the said Joan the Maid, of whom mention is made above, who was in the host and not at the council, and that it might well be that she would say some thing which could be profitable for the King in his situation. And he said further that when the King departed and undertook this journey, he had not done it for the great power of men-at-arms that he had, nor for the great sum of money with which he was furnished to pay his host, nor either because the said journey seemed to him truly possible; but he had undertaken the said journey solely by the admonishment of Joan the Maid, who said that he should ever draw on to go to his coronation at Reims, and that he would find but little resistance, and that it was the will of God; and that if the said Joan counselled nothing which had not been said in that council, he was of the great and common opinion: that is to say, that the said King and his host should turn back whence they had come; but that the said Joan might say something upon which the King could take another conclusion.\nAnd by the opinion of the said Messire Robert Le Maçon, the said Joan the Maid was sent for; and she, having come into the said council, made her reverence to the King, as she was accustomed. And it was told her by the said Chancellor that the King had summoned her to have her say and declare, for a conclusion upon the great necessities of the host, how the said city of Troyes was strong and furnished with provisions and men-at-arms; and he set before her and told her all the great inconveniences and doubts which had been debated in the said council, and that upon this she should give the King her opinion and what thing it seemed to her should be done for the rest. She turned her speech to the King and asked him whether he would believe what she told him. To which he answered that if she said something profitable and reasonable, they would willingly believe it. Then she took up her word again and asked him whether she would be believed; and the King answered yes, according to what she would say. And then she said to him: Gentle King of France, if you will remain here before your city of Troyes, it will be in your obedience within two days, whether by force or by love; and have no doubt of it at all. Then the Chancellor answered her: Joan, whoever could be certain of having it within six days would wait for it well enough; but do you tell true? And again she said that she had no doubt of it at all. At the opinion of which Joan the Maid the King and his council stopped, and it was concluded to remain there.\nThe said Joan the Maid, on a charger, a staff in her hand, came along the ranks and set to work knights and squires and other men of every estate, to carry faggots, doors, tables, shutters and other things necessary to make hoardings and approaches against the said city, to emplace certain bombards and cannon that were in the host; and she made marvellous diligences, as a captain could have done who had been bred all his days in the war. And a short time after, those of the said city parleyed; and the Bishop of the said city and several others came to the King, both men of war and burgesses; and in the end they made composition and treaty: that is to say, that the men of war would go away, they and their goods, and those of the said city would remain in the King’s obedience. And they surrendered the said city to him, which he received, and he entered it on the morrow, he and his people, about nine o’clock: from which the English as well as the Burgundians went away where it seemed good to them. And they were to take their prisoners with them; but the said Joan took them from them at the gate; and the King had to content the said men-at-arms out of his own finances. And the King left in the said city of Troyes a bailiff, captains and other officers on his behalf; and on the said day when the King of France entered the said city of Troyes, Messire Ambroise de Loré remained as guard of his said host, who remained in the fields; which host passed through the said city on the morrow.\nHow the King was anointed and crowned in the city of Reims # On the morrow following, the said King of France decamped from the said city of Troyes and took his road with his host straight to Châlons. And he rode so far that he arrived before the said city of Châlons, and there came to him to meet him the Bishop with a great number of burgesses of the said city, and they made him obedience; and he lodged with his host that night in the said city, in which he established a captain and officers on his behalf.\nFrom which city of Châlons the said King and his host departed and took their road straight to Reims; and they rode so far that he and his said host arrived before the said city of Reims, which was held on behalf of the King of England, like the other towns of which mention has been made above. Which city of Reims made him full obedience. And he entered into it with his host; in which he was received with great joy, and they came before the King bearing the keys, as the other towns had done; and there came before the said King to be at his service the Duke of Bar and of Lorraine, and the lord of Commercy, with a great company of men-at-arms, to employ themselves in the King’s service. And on the morrow, which was Sunday, the King was anointed and crowned in the church of Our Lady of Reims by Messire Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of the said place and Chancellor of France. And the said King was made a knight by the Duke of Alençon; and after this the said King made the lord of Laval a count; and there the Duke of Alençon, the Duke of Bourbon and other princes who were there made several knights on the King’s behalf. And the said Joan the Maid was there, holding her standard in her hand, she who was the cause of the said coronation of the King and of all that assembly, as is said above. And there was brought from the abbey of Saint-Remi the said (1) ampulla into the church of Our Lady by the lord of Rais, Marshal of France.\n(1) It has not been spoken of before. Godefroy, in his edition, replaced the word dite (said) by sainte (holy).\nAnd after this the King stayed in the said city of Reims three days, and then departed with his said host to go to an abbey named Saint-Marcoul, to which place the kings of France are accustomed to go after their coronation; and there a certain service and mystery is done for them, whereby it is said that the King of France cures the scrofula.\nHow Laon and Soissons turned French, with several other towns # From the said abbey of Saint-Marcoul the said King went with his host to a town named Vailly, belonging to the Archbishop of Reims; which made him obedience. And he lodged there for the day, and sent his messengers to Laon, which town put itself into the King’s obedience. From there he went to Soissons, which put itself into the King’s obedience, and he stayed there two or three days with his host. And there was surrendered to him Château-Thierry, Provins, Coulommiers, Crécy in Brie and several other fortresses.\nHow the English thought to fight the King of France # After the said King of France had stayed at Soissons, as is said above, he decamped and took to the road with his host straight to Château-Thierry; and from there he went straight to Provins, where he stayed two or three days. And this having come to the knowledge of the Duke of Bedford, an Englishman, who called himself at that time Regent of the kingdom of France and kept himself at Paris: he came in great power to Corbeil and to Melun, saying that he wished to take the field and fight the said King of France; which King, when he learned that the said Bedford wished to fight him, decamped from Provins and came to lodge in the fields with his host, near a castle named La Motte de Nangis (1) in Brie. And the battles of the said King of France were ordained, and they kept the field almost a whole day, because news kept continually coming that the Duke was coming to fight them; and nevertheless he did not come, and returned to Paris with his host, which was said to be a good ten to twelve thousand fighting men. And the King of France had well as many, or more.\n(1) Or, La Motte Maugis; la Motte de Nangis. This last reading is preferable.\nHow the King wished to leave the Île-de-France # The said King of France, by the counsel of certain persons and of his own will, deliberated to cross the river Seine to go to a town named Bray-sur-Seine, quite near Provins, to go with his army into his obedient country beyond the river Loire. And passage and obedience were promised him in the said town by the inhabitants; but in the night before he was to cross on the morrow morning, a certain quantity of English arrived there, and those who advanced first to cross were, some slain and others routed. Whereby the passage was hindered; at which the Duke of Bar, the Duke of Alençon, the Duke of Bourbon, the Count of Vendôme, the Count of Laval, Joan the Maid and several other lords and captains were very joyful and well content, because that conclusion of crossing was against their liking and will.\nAn enterprise of the English upon the French # In that year, on the vigil of Our Lady of August, by the counsel of the French lords named above, the said King of France with all his host returned straight to Château-Thierry, and passed straight on to Crépy-en-Valois, and came to lodge in the fields quite near Dammartin.\nThis having come to the knowledge of the Duke of Bedford, who was at Paris, he drew out into the fields with a great host of English and came and put himself in battle and order in a place of advantage, as it was said, at Mitry in France, below the said place of Dammartin. And La Hire and several other captains were sent by way of raids upon the host of the Duke of Bedford; and the skirmishes lasted nearly all day. And it was reported to the said King of France that the said Duke of Bedford was in a place of advantage; and the said King of France was not counselled to pass further to assail the said English. And on the morrow the said Duke of Bedford returned to Paris; and the said King of France drew towards Crépy-en-Valois. And the said King had sent certain messages to the cities of Beauvais and Compiègne, which towns let it be known that they wished to put themselves into his obedience.\nHow the English came near Senlis to fight the King of France # Soon after, the said King departed to go to the said place of Compiègne, and came to lodge in a village named Baron, about two leagues from Senlis, which Senlis was in the obedience of the English. And one morning, news came from Paris to the King of France that the Duke of Bedford and his host had struck camp at Paris to take the road straight to Senlis, and that a great company of English had come to him as reinforcement, as many as from three to four thousand fighting men, whom the Cardinal of England, uncle of the late King of England, had brought; and it was said that the said English were paid with the Pope’s money, and that the said Cardinal was to lead them against a manner of people who believed against the faith, called Bohemians, in the parts of Germany; and nevertheless the said English were employed, by the ordinance of the said Cardinal, against the King of France.\nNow then, this having come to the King’s knowledge that the Duke of Bedford was drawing that way, he charged Messire Ambroise lord of Loré and the lord of Xaintrailles (1) to mount to horse at once and draw towards Paris to observe and know truly the doings of the said Duke of Bedford and of his host. Who, most diligently, mounted to horse and took of their people about fifteen or sixteen only, and rode and approached the said host until they saw and perceived, upon the highway of the said Senlis, great clouds of dust from the host of the said Duke of Bedford. Who diligently sent a rider to the King to let him know; and they approached the said host still nearer, which was drawing straight to Senlis, and forthwith sent again another rider to the King to signify it to him. And most diligently the King with his host drew into the fields, and the battles were ordained,\n(1) Jean de Xaintrailles, elder brother of the famous Poton.\nand they began to ride between the river which passes at Baron and a place named Mont-Épilloy (1), drawing straight to Senlis. And the said Duke of Bedford and his host, about the hour of vespers, arrived near the said town of Senlis, and set about crossing a little river which comes from the said Senlis to the said Baron (2). And the passage was so narrow that they could cross only one horse or two at a time.\n(1) Montépilloy.\n(2) This is the Nonette, which, on the contrary, runs from Baron to Senlis.\nAnd as soon as the said lords of Loré and of Xaintrailles saw that the said English were beginning to cross, they returned hastily to the King and certified to him that the said Duke of Bedford and his said host were at the passage and crossing. And at that hour the King had the battles ride and draw forward straight to the said passage, thinking to fight them at that pass; but the said English had for the most part already crossed, and the host of the English and the host of the French sighted one another at about a little league apart; and there were great skirmishes between the said two companies. And at that hour it was near sunset, wherefore the said English lodged on the bank of that river, and the French lodged face to face with them near a place named Mont-Épilloy.\nHow the French disposed themselves to fight the English # On the morrow following in the morning, the King of France and his host took the field and had his battles ordained; of the greatest of which the Duke of Alençon and the Count of Vendôme had the government.\nOf another battle the Duke of Bar had the charge. Of the third, which was in the manner of a wing, the lords of Rais and of Boussac, Marshals of France, had the charge. Of another battle, which often moved about to skirmish and war upon the said English, the lord of Albret, Joan the Maid, the Bastard of Orléans, La Hire and several other captains had the government; and the conduct and government of the archers belonged to the lord of Graville, Master of the Crossbowmen, and a Limousin knight named Messire Jean Foucault. And the King kept himself quite near his battles, and had for the guard of his person the Duke of Bourbon and the lord of La Trémoille and several others. And several times the King rode before his battles in the sight of the English; likewise did the Duke of Bourbon and the lord of La Trémoille.\nAnd the Duke of Bedford, the Earl of Suffolk, the lord of Talbot, the Bastard of Saint-Pol, a Burgundian, and several others who were in the battle near a village (1), and had at their backs a pond and the said river, fortified themselves all night and day most diligently with ditches, stakes and other hoardings. And although a conclusion was taken by the King of France and his council to fight the said Duke of Bedford and his host, when several captains and others had seen the place the said English held and the fortification, the said King was counselled not to fight them at all in the said place thus fortified. But the battles of the French approached within two crossbow shots or thereabouts of the said\n(1) Notre-Dame de la Victoire.\nEnglish, saying to them every hour that they should sally out of their park, and that they would fight them; which English would not sally from their said park. And all that day there were marvellous and great skirmishes, so that the French came to fight hand to hand, on foot and on horse, at the fortification of the English, and nevertheless the said English sallied on foot and on horse into the fields, thrusting back the said French; and there were often slain and taken on one side and the other. And all that day passed, until about sunset, in skirmishing; and, as at the hour of sunset, a great number of French approached until they came to fight and skirmish with the said English hand to hand. And then a great number of the said English sallied on foot and on horse, and the French strove anew, and there was that hour a greater skirmish than there had been all day. And there was such great dust that neither French nor English could be told apart, and so it was until dark night; and the said English withdrew into their park, and the French likewise to the battles. And the said English remained lodged where they were, and the French lodged where they had lodged the night before, about two leagues from the said English, near Mont-Épilloy.\nHow the French and English parted # On the morrow in the morning, about ten o’clock, the host of the said French struck camp and went towards Crépy-en-Valois; and the said English returned at once to Paris.\nHow Compiègne, Beauvais and Senlis turned French # On the morrow following, the King of France with his host took his road straight to Compiègne, which made him obedience; and there he established as captain on his behalf one named Guillaume de Flavy, a native of the country; and there came to him those of Beauvais, who put the said town of Beauvais into his obedience. And the Bishop and burgesses of Senlis assembled and came to the King, and likewise put the town of Senlis into his obedience; and from there the King of France departed and went into the said town of Senlis.\nEnglish garrisons placed in the places obedient to them # In that year, at the end of the month of August, the aforesaid Duke of Bedford and his host struck camp from Paris across Normandy; and he divided his said host and sent it into several places, both in the country of Normandy and elsewhere, to guard the places of which he had the government and which were in his obedience; and he left at Paris Messire Louis de Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne, calling himself Chancellor of France, an English knight named Messire Radley (1), and another knight, a native of France, named Simon Morhier, who was then provost of Paris. And they had in their company two thousand English for the guard and defence of the said city of Paris, as was said.\n(1) Correct: Radley.\nSkirmish of English and French between Paris and Saint-Denis # At the end of the said month of August, the said King of France with his host struck camp from Senlis and came straight to Saint-Denis in France. And those of the town made him obedience: into which he entered, he and his host, into the said town. And then great frays and skirmishes began between the people of the said King, lodged at Saint-Denis, who often sallied out and went to meet those of Paris.\nHow the Maid gave an assault on Paris # About three or four days after, the Duke of Alençon, the Duke of Bourbon, the Count of Vendôme, the Count of Laval, the lord of Albret, Joan the Maid, the lords of Rais and of Boussac, Marshals of France, and others in their company came to lodge midway between Saint-Denis and Paris, in a village on the highway named La Chapelle-Saint-Denis; and on the morrow great skirmishes began between the French and the English and others of Paris.\nOn the morrow the dukes and other French lords came in great company to the fields near the Porte Saint-Honoré upon a great mound called the Marché aux Pourceaux (1): and had brought there several cannon and culverins to fire into the said city of Paris. And the English were jousting with their lords; among whom they bore a white banner with a great red cross along the wall of Paris, inside\n(1) This is what is today called the Butte des Moulins.\nthe said town. And at full speed the boulevard of the said Porte Saint-Honoré was taken by assault. And at that assault was a French knight called the lord of Saint-Valier and his people, who did their duty very well there. And the French thought that the English and other people of Paris would sally through the Porte Saint-Denis, or another, to strike upon them: wherefore the Duke of Alençon, the Duke of Bourbon, the lord of Montmorency and others, with great power, still held in battle behind the said great mound (and there the lord of Montmorency was made a knight), for they could not keep closer for the cannon and culverins which those fired without ceasing.\nAnd the said Joan the Maid said that she wished to assail the city of Paris, which Joan was not well informed of the great water there was in the ditches; and nevertheless she came with very great power of men-at-arms, among whom was the lord of Rais, Marshal of France; and they went down into the first ditch, where she kept herself with the said Marshal of France and a great company of men-at-arms all that day; and there the said Joan the Maid was wounded by a bolt through the leg: nevertheless she would not leave the said ditch; and she did what she could to have faggots and other wood cast into the other ditch, thinking to cross: which thing, seeing the great water that was there, it was not possible to enter. And after it was night, she was sent for several times by the said Dukes of Alençon and of Bourbon; but for nothing would she depart or withdraw, so that the Duke of Alençon had to go and fetch her, and he brought her back. And all the company withdrew to the said place of La Chapelle where they had lodged the night before, and on the morrow the said Dukes of Alençon and of Bourbon, the said Joan the Maid and the others returned to Saint-Denis, where the said King of France and his host were. And there, before the precious body of my lord Saint Denis and his companions, the armours of the said Joan were hung and left, which she offered in great devotion (1).\n(1) See in the condemnation trial what Joan herself said of this offering (vol. I, p. 179).\nHow those of Lagny put themselves into the King’s obedience # On the twenty-ninth day of the said month of August, in the year aforesaid, the Prior of Lagny and Arthur de Saint-Mard, with certain of the said town, came to Saint-Denis to the King of France to put the said town of Lagny into his obedience. And the King charged the Duke of Alençon to send there; who sent Messire Ambroise lord of Loré, to whom the said town was delivered by the burgesses and inhabitants thereof. Which lord of Loré had them swear to the King as in such case belongs.\nHow the King departed from the Île-de-France # On the twelfth day of the month of September, in the year aforesaid, the King of France ordained that the Duke of Bourbon, the Count of Vendôme, Messire Louis de Culant and several other captains should remain in the countries which on this journey had returned to his obedience, and he left the Duke of Bourbon as his lieutenant. And at the said place of Saint-Denis he left the Count of Vendôme and the lord of Culant, Admiral of France, with a great company of men-at-arms; and he departed with his host: at which departure Joan the Maid left all her complete armours, in which she had been wounded before Paris; and the said King went to lie at Lagny-sur-Marne, at which place he ordained Messire Ambroise, lord of Loré, to remain, who took and accepted the said charge; and there remained with him a knight named Messire Jean Foucault. And on the morrow following, the King departed from the said town of Lagny and went to cross the river Seine (1), and the river Yonne at the ford near Sens. And from there he went to Montargis and on beyond the river Loire.\n(1) At Bray, which this time was indeed willing to give him passage.\nHow the English pillaged Saint-Denis # Soon after, a great number of English and Burgundians assembled at Paris: wherefore, this having come to the knowledge of the French whom the King had left inside Saint-Denis in France at his departure, as is said above, they left and abandoned the said town of Saint-Denis and went to Senlis.\nThis having come to the knowledge of the English who were inside Paris, they assembled and came into the town of Saint-Denis, which they pillaged and robbed. And they found the said armours of Joan the Maid, which were taken and carried off by the ordinance of the Bishop of Thérouanne, Chancellor, into the parts obedient to the King of England (2), without for this\n(2) Only the sword remained, with its belt of buff leather, of which the little rings, fittings and buckles of the hangers were of gold, which I have seen many times. (Doublet, Histoire des Antiquités de l’abbaye de Sainct-Denys, p. 1313.) But the authenticity of this weapon is far from established.\nmaking any recompense to the said church: which is pure and manifest sacrilege.\nA great pillage in France # At this time very great pillages and robberies began on every side in the country which the King had newly conquered from the English, of which mention has been made above, without its having cost him much; for without striking a blow they came from every side to make him obedience. And the said countries were rich, well peopled and well tilled; nevertheless soon after the labourers were destroyed, and several towns well oppressed and impoverished, so much so that several districts remained uninhabited and untilled. And everyone wished to do what he did more from undue will than from reason. And when the Duke of Bourbon learned of the aforesaid desolation and pillage, he went into his own country. In which countries the Count of Vendôme remained, who had principally the charge of the city of Senlis; and he had from the King of France the government of all that country. And the lord of Boussac, Marshal of France, was sent on the said King’s behalf with eight hundred or a thousand fighting men, to aid and succour the said country; and of this there was great need, for the English who held Normandy and several other countries in France warred on one side, and the Duke of Burgundy on the other.\nHow Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier was taken by assault # About this time an army was made by the ordinance of the King of France, in which was Joan the Maid with several other captains and chiefs of war; and they went before a town named Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier, which they took by assault; and after that they came before La Charité-sur-Loire, of which the captain was one named Perrenet Grasset, and laid siege before the said town of La Charité, having certain bombards, cannon and other artillery set in place there. Before which they remained for a certain time, and in the end rose up and went away from before the said town, and lost, as is said, the greater part of their artillery.\nAn encounter upon the English # In the year one thousand four hundred and thirty, Joan the Maid departed from the country of Berry, accompanied by several men of war, and came to Lagny-sur-Marne. And quite soon after, news came that from three to four hundred English were crossing into the Île-de-France, and forthwith the said Joan the Maid drew into the fields with Messire Jean Foucault, Geoffroi de Saint-Aubin, a captain named Barée (1), Kennedy, a Scot (2), and certain of the garrison of Lagny; and they came and found the said English, who all set themselves on foot against a hedge. And then the said Joan the Maid, Messire Jean Foucault and the others resolved to fight them, and in very good order came on foot and on horse to strike upon the said English. And there was a very hard and bitter business, for the French were hardly more numerous than the English. And in the end all the said English were slain or taken, and there were several\n(1) Barrée in Godefroy’s edition. The preceding name should be corrected: Geoffroi de Saint-Belin.\n(2) Sir Hugh Kennedy, captain of the Scots.\nFrench slain and wounded. And the said Joan the Maid, Messire Jean Foucault and the others returned to the said Lagny with their prisoners.\nSiege laid at Compiègne by the English and Burgundians # And in that same year, Messire Jean de Luxembourg, the Earl of Huntingdon, the Earl of Arundel and several other English and Burgundians came in great host to lay the siege before the town of Compiègne, on one side and the other of the river Oise, and made several bastilles in which they kept themselves. Now then, this deed having come to the knowledge of Joan the Maid, of whom mention is made, she departed from the said place of Lagny to aid and succour the besieged of the said town. Into which the said Joan the Maid entered, and afterwards great skirmishes began every day between the English and Burgundians holding the said siege, on one side, and the captains and people of the said town on the other. And it befell that the said Joan the Maid had sallied upon the said siege most valiantly and boldly; but the English and Burgundians charged hard upon her and her company, so that it was of necessity for the said Joan and the others to withdraw. Some said that the barrier was closed against them on their return, and others said that there was too great a press at the entrance; and in the end the said Joan the Maid was taken and carried off by the said English and Burgundians: at which taking several of the party of the King of France were much grieved.\nAnd she was long held in prison by the companions of the said Luxembourg, which Luxembourg sold her to the English, who led her to Rouen, where she was harshly treated; so much so that after a great lapse of time, without process, but of their undue will, they had her publicly burned in the said city of Rouen: which was very inhumanly done, seeing the life and government by which she lived, for she confessed and received the body of Our Lord every week, like a good Catholic.\nAnd there is no doubt that the sword which she sent to fetch in the chapel of Saint Catherine of Fierbois, of which mention has been made above, was found by miracle, as everyone held; especially seeing that by means of that sword, and before it was broken, she made the fair conquests declared here above. And it is to be known that after the day of Patay the said Joan the Maid had a cry made that no man of her company should keep any defamed woman or concubine. Nevertheless she found certain men transgressing her commandment: wherefore she struck them with the said sword so that it was broken. And forthwith this having come to the King’s knowledge, it was given to workmen to reforge: which they could not do, nor could they ever put it together again: which is a great proof that it had come divinely. And it was a notorious thing that from the time the said sword was broken, the said Joan no longer prospered in arms to the King’s profit or otherwise, as she had done before.\nJOURNAL OF THE SIEGE OF ORLÉANS AND OF THE JOURNEY TO REIMS # This account, which forms a book apart, was printed for the first time at Orléans in 1576, under the title of Histoire et discours au vrai du siège qui fut devant la ville d’Orléans par les Anglais, etc., taken word for word without any change of language from an old copy written by hand on parchment and found in the house of the city of Orléans, etc. The printing was ordered by the aldermen of Orléans, who paid for that purpose thirty livres tournois to the printer Saturnin Hotot, on condition that he supply the lords of the city with thirty copies, of which two on parchment, to put in their treasury. In 1621 Robert Hotot, likewise subsidised by the city, gave another edition of the same work, which was shortly afterwards reproduced at Troyes and at Lyon. I do not speak of a translation into Latin, made by a professor of Orléans named Micqueau, printed in 1560, which thus preceded the publication of the original, but without revealing its existence to the public.\nGoing back to the origin of this book, we find that in 1467 the city of Orléans paid eleven sous parisis to a clerk named Master Pierre Soubsdan or Soudan, for having written on parchment the manner of the siege of Orléans, held by the English before the said city. A learned Orléanais, M. Jousse, whose papers have been deposited in the library of his native city (manuscript 451), gives this information as an extract from a register which can no longer be found today. Most probably the manuscript executed by Pierre Soudan was the one which served for Saturnin Hotot’s edition; but was that manuscript itself the transcription of an older copy, or only the fair copy of a work finished in 1467? Against the opinion hitherto accredited, I must say that the last of these two hypotheses is the only admissible one. The Journal of the Siege cannot, indeed, have been written, or at least put into the state in which we have it, in 1429, since the Bastard of Orléans is there styled Count of Dunois, a title he was not granted until 1439. What is more, the whole part of the book which concerns the journey of Charles VII to Reims is made from the two accounts of Berry and of Jean Chartier, combined together. Now, the chronicle of Jean Chartier was not published until after the death of Charles VII, that is to say, in the last months of 1461 at the earliest. Finally, under the date of 3 April 1429 there is interpolated an anecdote relating to Aymar de Poisieu, a Dauphiné gentleman who is most highly praised, who was then a page but who afterwards, it is said, distinguished himself and became a great personage. Now this Aymar de Poisieu only began to figure under the reign of Louis XI; we even know that by the favour of that king he was called in 1466 to the general command of the franc-archers of a division comprising the Orléanais. Was it not to this dignity that he owed the praises given him in a book written for the city of Orléans? Thus, by all appearances, the redaction of the Journal of the Siege preceded by very little the work of copying executed by the clerk Soudan.\nAs for the sources from which the matter of the account was taken, Chartier and Berry have already been pointed out. To them must be added the rehabilitation trial, and notably the deposition of Dunois. The author seems to have helped himself also, either with verbal information or with his own recollections. Finally, that which constitutes the Journal of the Siege, properly so called, is evidently copied from a register kept in the presence of the events. But this register had gaps: we catch a glimpse of them through certain errors which the chronicler of 1467 committed in trying to supplement them; we gain certainty of it by going through what remains in the library of Orléans of documents on the state of the city in 1429. Mention will be found in my notes of certain facts recovered from that source, facts which certainly would not be missing from the Journal if it had received its definitive redaction at a time nearer to the siege.\nThis work, having been reprinted neither separately since the reign of Louis XIII nor in the collections of Chronicles and Memoirs, has become extremely rare. This consideration determined me to reproduce it here in full, after having checked the text on the Durfé and Saint-Victor manuscripts, no. 285, of the Royal Library. The title has been restored after these two copies.\nA little treatise in the manner of chronicles, containing in brief the siege laid by the English before the city of Orléans, and the sallies, assaults and skirmishes which during the siege were made there day by day; the coming and the valiant deeds of Joan the Maid, and how she made the English depart and raised the siege by divine grace and force of arms. 1428. # The Earl of Salisbury (1), who was a very great lord and the most renowned in deeds of arms of all the English, and who for Henry King of England, to whom he was kin, and as his lieutenant and head of his army in this kingdom, had been present in several battles and various encounters and conquests against the French, where he had always borne himself valiantly, thinking to take by force the city of Orléans, which held the party of the King his sovereign lord Charles, seventh of that name, came to besiege it on Tuesday the twelfth day of October one thousand four hundred and twenty-eight, with a very great host and army, which he had lodge on the side of Sologne, near one of the suburbs called Le Portereau (2). In which host and army there were with him Messire William de la Pole,\n(1) Salisbury.\n(2) Today Le Portereau du Coq.\nEarl of Suffolk, and Messire John de la Pole his brother; the lord of Scales, the lord of Falconbridge (1), the Bailiff of Évreux, the lord of Gray (2), the lord of Molyns, the lord of Poynings (3), Glasdale, much renowned, Messire Lancelot de Lisle (4), Marshal of the host, and several other lords and men of war, both English and other false French holding their party. But the men of war who were there in garrison had, that same day before the coming of the English, by the counsel and aid of the citizens of Orléans, had the church and convent of the Augustins of Orléans beaten down, and all the houses which were then at the said Portereau, so that their enemies could neither be lodged there nor make fortifications there against the city. On the Sunday following, the English cast into the city one hundred and twenty-four stones from bombards and great cannon: of which stones there were some that weighed one hundred and sixteen pounds. And among the others they had set, near the vineyard of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc, between the wine-press of La Favière and the Portereau, a great cannon which they called Passe-Volant. Which cast stones weighing eighty pounds, and did much damage to the houses and buildings of Orléans, although it neither slew nor wounded anyone except a woman named Belles, dwelling near the postern of Chesneau (5).\n(1) A transformation of the name of Lord Falconbridge, doubtless brought about by the analogy of the seigniory of Fauquembergue in Artois.\n(2) Sir Richard Guethin, Bailiff of Évreux, and Lord Gray, slain at the siege on 3 March 1429.\n(3) See above, p. 44, note.\n(4) Slain at the siege on the following 30 January, in the same manner as the Earl of Salisbury, whose lieutenant he had been in all his campaigns.\n(5) A small gate which opened onto the bank of the Loire.\nThat same week the cannon of the English also broke and beat down twelve mills which were on the river Loire, between the city and the Tour Neuve (1). Wherefore those of Orléans had eleven horse-mills made inside the town, which comforted them much. And notwithstanding the cannon and engines of the English, the French who were inside Orléans made upon them several sallies and skirmishes between the Tourelles of the bridge (2) and Saint-Jean-le-Blanc, from that Sunday until Thursday the twenty-first day of the same month.\n(1) Situated at the eastern point of the city on the bank of the Loire.\n(2) A fortification established of old at the head of the bridge on the Sologne side. They are called Tourelles in the accounts of the town hall of Orléans.\nOn which Thursday the English assaulted a boulevard which was made of faggots and earth, set before the Tourelles; the assault lasted four hours without ceasing, for they began at ten o’clock in the morning and did not leave off until two hours after noon, and there many fair feats of arms were done on one side and the other. Among the principal French who guarded the boulevard were the lord of Villars, captain of Montargis, Messire Mathias, an Aragonese, the lord of Guitry, the lord of Courras, a Gascon (3), the lord of Xaintrailles and his brother Poton de Xaintrailles, also Gascons, Pierre de la Chapelle (4), a gentleman of the country of Beauce, and several other knights and squires, not counting the citizens of Orléans, all of whom bore themselves most valiantly.\n(3) Or rather, Béarnais.\n(4) He was slain the same week at the Tourelles. Lottin, Recherches historiques sur Orléans, part I, vol. I, p. 210.\nLikewise the women of Orléans gave great aid there; for they never ceased carrying most diligently to those who defended the boulevard several necessary things, such as waters, oils and boiling greases, lime, ashes and caltrops. At the end of the assault several were wounded on one side and the other, but many more of the English, of whom more than two hundred and forty died. Then it befell that during the assault the lord of Gaucourt was riding through Orléans, for he was governor of it; but in passing before Saint-Pierre-Empont he fell from his horse by chance, so that he put his arm out of joint; whereupon he was straightway taken to the hot baths to be dressed.\nOn the Friday following, the twenty-second day of the said month of October, the bell of the belfry rang, because the French thought that the English would assail the boulevard of the Tourelles at the end of the bridge through the mine with which they had mined it; but they refrained for that time. And that same day those of Orléans broke one arch of the bridge, and made a boulevard opposite the Belle Croix, which is on the bridge (1).\n(1) A bronze monument erected in 1427 on the great arch of the old bridge.\nOn the Saturday following, the twenty-third day of the said month, those of Orléans burned and beat down the boulevard of the Tourelles and abandoned it, because it was all undermined and was not tenable, according to the men of war.\nOn the Sunday following, the twenty-fourth day of this same month of October, the English assailed and took the Tourelles of the bridge end, because they were all demolished and broken by the cannon and great artillery which they had cast against them. And also there was no defence, because no one dared keep beneath them.\nThat Sunday in the evening the Earl of Salisbury, having with him the captain Glasdale and several others, wished to go inside the Tourelles, after they had been taken, to look better at the situation of Orléans; but as soon as he was there, looking at the town through the windows of the Tourelles, he was struck by a cannon which was said to have been fired from a tower called the Tower of Our Lady (1), although it was never known properly from which side it had been cast; wherefore it was said from then on, and afterwards also by several, that it was a work divine. The shot of that cannon struck him in the head so that it beat away half his cheek and put out one of his eyes: which was a very great boon for this kingdom, for he was head of the army, the most feared and renowned in arms of all the English.\n(1) The last but one on the water’s edge, to the west of the city.\nThat same Sunday when the Tourelles had been lost, the French who were inside the city broke another very strong boulevard. And on the other side the English broke two arches of the bridge (2) before the Tourelles, after they had taken them, and made there a very great boulevard of earth and great faggots.\n(2) The old bridge had nineteen.\nOn the Monday following, the twenty-fifth day of the said month of October, there arrived inside Orléans, to comfort, succour and aid it, several noble lords, knights, captains and squires much renowned in war, of whom the principals were Jean Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Sainte-Sévère, Marshal of France, the lord of Bueil, Messire Jacques de Chabannes, Seneschal of Bourbonnais, the lord of Chaumont-sur-Loire, Messire Théaulde de Valpergue, a Lombard knight, and a valiant Gascon captain called Étienne de Vignolles, said La Hire, who was of very great renown, and valiant men of war in his company. And at that time the captain of Vendôme was Messire Cernay (1), an Aragonese, and several others, accompanied by eight hundred fighting men, both men-at-arms and archers, crossbowmen, with other infantry of Italy, who bore targes (2).\n(1) Further on, Ternay. On the slips recording the city’s expenses, kept in the library of Orléans, he is called Messire Guillaume de Sarnay. At the end of Lent he conducted an embassy of Orléans men to the Count of Clermont, who was then in Auvergne.\n(2) Manuscripts read: qui portèrent tergons. By tergons (in Italian targone) are meant great broad shields or bucklers.\nOn the Wednesday following, the twenty-seventh day of the said month, the Earl of Salisbury died by night in the town of Meung-sur-Loire, whither he had been carried from the siege after he had received the cannon shot of which he died. At whose death the English holding the siege were much dismayed and sorrowful, and made great mourning for him, although they did it as secretly as they could, for fear that those of Orléans should perceive it. So they had the entrails removed and the body sent to England. The death of which Earl did great damage to the English and, contrariwise, great profit to the French. Several said afterwards that the Earl of Salisbury met such an end by divine judgement of God, and they believe it, both because he had failed of his promise to the Duke of Orléans, prisoner in England, to whom he had promised that he would do no harm in any of his lands, and also because he spared neither monasteries nor churches, but pillaged them and had them pillaged as soon as he could enter them: which are things well fitted to make one believe that his days were shortened by the just vengeance of God. And in especial the church of Our Lady of Cléry was pillaged, and the town likewise (1).\n(1) See below the testimony of Robert Blondel relating to this pillage.\nOn Tuesday the eighth day of November the host of the English was divided and parted, who went away, part to Meung-sur-Loire and part to Jargeau, and they left great garrisons in the Tourelles and the boulevard of the bridge, of which the captain Glasdale remained in charge, and with him five hundred fighting men to guard them.\nThat same Tuesday the English burned and fired several houses, wine-presses and other buildings in the vale of the Loire. And on the other side the men of war and citizens of Orléans made such diligence that before the end of the same month of November they burned and beat down several churches which were in the suburbs round their city, such as the church of Saint-Aignan, patron of Orléans, and also the cloister of that church, which was very fair to see, the church of Saint-Michel, the church of Saint-Avit, the chapel of Martroi, the church of Saint-Victor, set in the suburbs of the Porte de Bourgogne, the church of Saint-Michel above the ditches, the Jacobins, the Cordeliers, the Carmelites, Saint-Maturin, the Aumône Saint-Pouair (1), and Saint-Laurens (2). And moreover they burned and demolished all the suburbs round their city, which was a very fair and rich thing to see before they were beaten down; for there were very great and rich buildings, so much so that they were held to be the fairest suburbs of this kingdom. But notwithstanding, the French of the garrison beat them down and burned them, and that by the will and aid of the citizens of Orléans, so that the English could not lodge there, because they would have been very prejudicial to the city (3).\n(1) The Aumône Saint-Pouair or Saint-Paterne was a hospital founded by the writers of Orléans, not far from the western site of today’s church of Saint-Paterne.\n(2) All these churches were rebuilt after the deliverance of the city.\n(3) Nothing more on the month of November. It is recorded in the municipal registers of Tours that on 9 November 1428 La Hire was present at the assembly of the municipal body of that city, whither he had come with letters from the King to pray the citizens to contribute to the succour of Orléans. The sum of six hundred livres which he asked was granted him.\nOn the first day of December following, there arrived at the Tourelles of the bridge several English lords, among whom the most renowned were Messire John Talbot, first baron of England, and the lord of Scales, accompanied by three hundred fighting men, who brought thither provisions, cannon, bombards and other equipment of war; with which they cast against the walls and into Orléans more continually and more strongly than they had done before in the lifetime of the Earl of Salisbury; for they cast such stones as weighed one hundred and sixty-four pounds, which did many ills and hurts against the city, in several houses and fair buildings of it, without slaying or wounding a person: which was held a great marvel, for among others, in the street Aux-Petiz-Souliers, one fell into the lodging and upon the table of a man who was dining, the fifth in the company, without slaying or wounding any: which was said to have been a miracle done by Our Lord at the prayer of my lord Saint Aignan, patron of Orléans.\nOn the Tuesday following, at three o’clock in the morning, the bell of the belfry rang, because the French thought the English wished to assail the boulevard of the Belle Croix on the bridge. And indeed there were two of them who had already scaled it with ladders up to one of the loopholes; but they soon returned to their Tourelles and hoardings, seeing that they perceived the French were keeping watch and had made ready all things, such as cannon, crossbows, staff-slings, culverins, stones and other equipment of war necessary for their defence, if they were assailed.\nOn Thursday the twenty-third day of this month of December the bombard began to fire, casting stones weighing one hundred and twenty pounds, which those of Orléans had just had made all new by one named Guillaume Duisy, a very subtle workman, and it was set at the spur (1) of the mills of the postern of Chesneau, to fire against the Tourelles (2); near which were set two cannon, one called Montargis and\n(1) Croche, croiche, which has become crèche, is a spur, an advanced work in a river to protect the foot of a construction.\n(2) It appears from the fortress accounts of the city of Orléans that twenty-two horses were needed to transport this piece with its carriage from the port to the town hall. Jollois, Histoire du siège d’Orléans, p. 12.\nthe other Rifflard, which during the siege fired against the English and did them great damages.\nOn the Christmas Day following, truces were given and granted on one side and the other, lasting from nine o’clock in the morning until three o’clock after noon. And during that time Glasdale and other lords of the country of England required of the Bastard of Orléans and the lord of Sainte-Sévère, Marshal of France, that they should have a band of high minstrels, trumpets and clarions: which was granted them; and the instruments played for a good while, making great melody. But as soon as the truces were broken, each took heed to himself.\nDuring the feasts and holidays of Christmas they fired on one side and the other very strongly and horribly with bombards and cannon; but above all a culverineer, a native of Lorraine, then of the garrison of Orléans, named Master Jean (1), did much harm, who was said to be the best master then living of that craft. And he showed it well, for he had a great culverin with which he often fired, standing inside the pillar of the bridge near the boulevard of the Belle Croix, so that he slew and wounded many of the English with it. And to mock them, he sometimes let himself fall to the ground, feigning to be dead or wounded, and had himself carried into the town; but he returned forthwith to the skirmish, and so contrived that the English knew him to be alive, to their great damage and displeasure.\nOn Wednesday the twenty-ninth day of the said month of\n(1) He had previously dwelt at Angers and had been called from that city to serve the King with his skill at Orléans. He received twelve livres of pay per month. He followed the Maid to Beaugency and later to Compiègne.\nDecember, several other churches and houses which still remained near Orléans were burned and beaten down, such as Saint-Loup, Saint-Marc, Saint-Gervais, Saint-Euverte, the chapel of Saint-Aignan, Saint-Vincent-des-Vignes, Saint-Lazare, Saint-Pouair, and also the Madeleine, so that the English could not lodge, withdraw and fortify themselves there against the city.\nOn the second last day of the said month, about two thousand five hundred English fighting men arrived at Saint-Laurens-des-Orgerils near Orléans, to establish a siege there; of whom the captains were the Earl of Suffolk and Talbot, Messire John de la Pole, the lord of Scales, Messire Lancelot de Lisle and several others. But on their coming great skirmishes were made that day, for the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Sainte-Sévère, Messire Jacques de Chabannes and several other knights, squires and citizens of Orléans, who bore themselves most valiantly, went to meet them and received them as their enemies. And there several fair feats of arms were done on one side and the other. In those skirmishes Messire Jacques de Chabannes was wounded in the foot by an English arrow and his horse slain by the like chance.\nThat same day also several fair feats of arms were done, on one side and the other, around the Croix Boissée near Saint-Laurens (1). And all that day Master Jean did his duty greatly with his culverin.\n(1) To the west of the city, on the road to Blois.\nOn Friday, the last day of the year, at four o’clock after noon, there were two French who defied two English to make two lance-strokes, and the English accepted the gage. One of the French was named Jean le Gasquet and the other Vedille, both Gascons, of the company of La Hire; the said Gasquet came first against his adversary and threw him to the ground with a lance-stroke; but Vedille and the other English could not overcome one another. To watch whom there were quite near them several lords, both of France and of England.\nOn the Saturday following, the first day of the year, there was a great skirmish, about three o’clock after noon, between the river Flambert, the Porte Regnart (1) and the Grève: where several were slain, wounded and taken prisoners on one side and the other, and more of the French than of the English. The Abbot of Cerquenceaux, who was said to be a religious, and was most valiant for the French, was wounded there (2). There also the carriage of the culverin was lost and taken by the English: whereby the French were constrained to draw back hastily, because the English sallied in great power.\n(1) The Porte Regnart was that by which one entered Orléans coming from Blois and Le Mans. What the author calls the river Flambert has not been determined by the historians of Orléans.\n(2) He was a partisan from the Gâtinais. The Chronique de la Pucelle speaks of him.\nOn the Sunday following, at two o’clock after midnight, the bell of the city rang the alarm, because the English thought to scale the boulevard of the Porte Regnart: but they found those of the city keeping good watch, and the English were constrained to return in great haste into their host and bastille of Saint-Laurens-des-Orgerils. So they gained nothing but a wetting, for during that hour it was raining very hard.\nOn the Monday following, the third day of January, there arrived inside Orléans towards morning nine hundred and fifty-four swine, fat and large, and four hundred sheep. And that cattle passed at the port of Saint-Loup: at which the people of Orléans were very joyful, for they came in the hour of need.\nOn the Tuesday following, the fourth day of the said month, about three o’clock after midnight, the bell of the belfry rang, because the English came and presented themselves before the boulevard of the Porte Regnart, where with all loud cries they sounded their trumpets and clarions: and those of the Tourelles did likewise, as if they wished to assail the boulevard. But those of Orléans bore themselves so greatly, and defended themselves so wisely with cannon and other equipment of war, that the English withdrew into their bastilles of Saint-Laurens.\nOn the Wednesday following, Messire Louis de Culant, Admiral of France, came with two hundred fighting men, to run a course at the Portereau before the Tourelles, where the garrisons of the English were, and in their despite crossed the Loire at the port of Saint-Loup; and he and his people entered into the city to learn the news and the government of it and of the French who were there. To whom and to his people great cheer was made, and they were much praised. For they had also borne themselves valiantly against the English in the skirmish of the Portereau.\nOn the Thursday following, the feast of Epiphany (that is, of the Kings), the lords of Sainte-Sévère and of Culant, Messire Théaulde de Valpergue and several other men of war and citizens sallied from Orléans; and made a great skirmish, in which they bore themselves very greatly against the English, who defended themselves well and boldly. They were also many lords of England, both knights and squires; but their names are not known. At that skirmish Master Jean likewise bore himself most well with his culverin.\nDuring that time the English had laboured so much that they had made two boulevards upon the river Loire, one set on a little island on the side of and opposite Saint-Laurens (1), which was made of faggots, sand and wood; and the other in the field of Saint-Privé, opposite the other and on the bank of the river (2), which they crossed at that spot, carrying provisions from one to the other. And to guard them they had made captain Messire Lancelot de Lisle, Marshal of England.\n(1) This island, which was called Charlemagne in the sixteenth century, no longer exists today.\n(2) On the left bank.\nOn Monday, the tenth day of the same month, there arrived inside Orléans a great quantity of cannon powder, and several provisions which were being brought thither from Bourges, to comfort and succour it. On that day there was also a very great and strong skirmish, both of cannon and of other shot and culverins: of which those who fired them did their duty greatly, so much so that many English were slain and several taken prisoners.\nOn the Tuesday following, about nine o’clock at night, all the covering and roof of the Tourelles was beaten down and thrown down, and six English slain beneath it, by a shot of an iron cannon which was set in the boulevard of the Belle Croix of the bridge, and which was fired at that hour.\nOn the Wednesday following, the twelfth day of the said month of January, the bell rang the alarm because the English made a marvellous cry and sounded their trumpets and clarions before the boulevard of the Porte Regnart. And that same day there arrived inside Orléans towards six o’clock in the morning six hundred swine.\nOn the Saturday following, the fifteenth day of the same January, about eight o’clock at night, the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Sainte-Sévère and Messire Jacques de Chabannes sallied out of the city, accompanied by several knights, squires, captains and citizens of Orléans, and thought to charge upon one part of the host of Saint-Laurens-des-Orgerils; but the English perceived it and cried to arms inside their host: wherefore they armed themselves, so that there was a great and strong skirmish. At last the French withdrew to the boulevard of the Porte Regnart: for the English sallied in full power, although in their sally they were very well beaten.\nOn the Sunday following, about two o’clock after noon, there arrived in the host of the English twelve hundred fighting men, of whom the chief was Messire John Fastolf; and they brought with them provisions, bombards, cannon, powder, shot and other equipment of war, of which their people of the host had great want.\nOn the Monday following, the seventeenth of the said month, a most marvellous thing befell: for the English fired a cannon from their boulevard of the Croix Boissée, of which the stone fell before the boulevard of the Porte Bannier, in the midst of more than a hundred persons, without wounding or slaying any; but it struck only on the foot a French comrade, so that it took off his shoe, without doing him any harm: which is a marvellous thing to believe.\nThat same day there was to have been made a gage of battle of six French against six English in the field near the Porte Bannier, where the dove-cot of Turpin used to be; but it was not made, although it was not the French who were wanting, for they presented themselves against their adversaries, who neither came nor appeared, and dared not sally.\nOn Tuesday, the eighteenth of the said month of January, at nine o’clock at night, the English who were in the Tourelles fired a cannon into the boulevard of the Belle Croix, which struck one named Le Gastelier, a native of Orléans, who, in looking at them, was bending a crossbow to fire against them.\nOn the Tuesday after, there arrived inside Orléans, as it were as the gates were opening (1), forty head of great cattle (2) and two hundred swine.\nThat day, and soon after the entry of the cattle, the English of the Tourelles captured the charrière, two sentines (3) and five hundred head of cattle, which merchants thought to bring back into Orléans; they had been denounced by certain traitors of a village near by, called Sandillon, so that they might have part of the booty; and the cattle were likewise carried off as booty to Jargeau, then held by the English.\nThat same day, about three o’clock after\n(1) The edition reads ouvrons, which comes to the same thing.\n(2) Great cattle.\n(3) Charrière, the ferry-boat which put the besieged in communication with the left bank of the river. Sentine, a small boat of the Loire.\nnoon, there was a great and strong skirmish on an island before the spur of the mills of Saint-Aignan (1), because the English broke the conduit to pass the charrière which they had captured at the port of Saint-Loup. And the French, both men of war and citizens of Orléans, had themselves ferried over the water into that island, thinking to recover their charrière lost since the morning. Against whom there issued great power of English, who were ambushed behind the vineyard, a little beyond Saint-Jean-le-Blanc, and with great cries made at the French, who were going back and drawing off towards their boulevards very hastily: which they could not do so soon but that twenty-two of them remained dead there. Moreover two gentlemen were taken there, one named the little Breton, who belonged to the Bastard of Orléans, and the other, named Remonet, belonging to the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère. At that skirmish there was also lost a culverin which belonged to Master Jean, who was in great peril of being taken: for as he thought to withdraw into his sentine, others thrust themselves in with him, so that it sank in the river: wherefore he thought to withdraw into a great chaland (2); but he could not, because it had already departed. Nevertheless, seeing the perilous strait, he contrived so that he leapt upon the rudder (3), which remained in his hand as he strove to leap out of the water into the chaland, at the last. Notwithstanding all such misfortunes\n(1) This island no longer exists. It was at the place of what is today called the Duit. It was destroyed when the bridge was rebuilt.\n(2) A great boat of the Loire.\n(3) The rudder of the sentine.\n, swimming upon the rudder he came to shore and saved himself inside the city, leaving his culverin already captured by the English, who carried it off to the Tourelles.\nOn the Thursday following, the twenty-seventh of the said month of January, at three o’clock after noon, there was a very great skirmish before the boulevard of the Porte Regnart, because from four to five hundred English fighting men came thither from the bastille, making very great and marvellous cries. Against whom those of Orléans sallied through the said boulevard, and hastened so much that they fell into disarray: wherefore the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère had them turn back inside. And after he had put them in order, he had them sally again, and conducted them so well by his sense and prowess that he constrained the English to return into their host and bastille of Saint-Laurens.\nOn the morrow, Friday, there arrived inside Orléans, about eleven o’clock at night, certain ambassadors who had been sent to the King on behalf of the city to have succour.\nOn the Saturday following, the twenty-ninth day of the same January, at eight o’clock in the morning, the English made great cries in their host and bastilles, put themselves in arms in great power and, in good order, ever continuing their cries and making show of great boldness, came as far as a barrier which was on the shore before the tower of Our Lady, and as far as the boulevard of the Porte Regnart; but they were well received, for the men of war and many of the people of Orléans sallied straightway against them, well ordered, so that there was a very strong and great skirmish, both hand to hand and with cannon, culverins and shot; and many people were slain, wounded and taken prisoners on one side and the other. And in especial there died a lord of England whom the English much lamented; and they carried him to be buried at Jargeau. And that same day towards morning there also arrived inside Orléans the lord of Villars, the lord of Xaintrailles and Poton his brother, Messire Ternay (1) and other knights and squires, coming from speaking with the King.\n(1) Earlier Cernay (see p. 101, note 1) and later Cervais.\nOn the Sunday after, the Bastard of Orléans departed from Orléans during the night, accompanied by several knights and squires, to go to Blois to Charles, Count of Clermont, eldest son of the Duke of Bourbon; wherefore the English, hearing talk of it, cried to arms; and kept strong watch, fearing lest they should be assailed in their bastilles.\nOn the morrow, Monday, the twenty-fourth day of the said month of January, about four o’clock after noon, La Hire arrived inside Orléans, and with him thirty men-at-arms; against whom the English fired a cannon, of which the stone fell in the midst of them when they were at the spot of the Porte Regnart, although it neither slew nor wounded any of them: which was a great marvel. So they entered safe and sound into the town, and went to render thanks to Our Lord, who had preserved them from harm.\nOn Wednesday the twenty-sixth of the same January there was a strong skirmish before the boulevard of the Porte Bannier, because the English cunningly observed that the sun was shining in the faces of the French, who were outside the boulevard to skirmish. And they sallied from their host in great power, showing great semblance of boldness; and so wrought that they thrust the French back as far as the water of the ditches of the boulevard and of the town, to which they brought one of their standards within a lance’s length of the boulevard: although they stayed there but a little, because cannon, bombards, culverins and other shot were cast at them from Orléans and from the boulevard most thickly. And it was said that in that skirmish twenty English were slain, not counting the wounded. But of the French there died only one of the archers of the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, who was slain by a cannon of Orléans itself: at which his master and the other lords were much grieved.\nOn the morrow, which was Saturday the twenty-ninth of the same month of January (1), safe-conduct was given on one side and the other for La Hire and Messire Lancelot de Lisle to speak together: which they did about the hour of closing the gates. But after they had spoken together and the hour of the safe-conduct was past, as each of them was returning towards his people, those of Orléans fired a cannon which struck Messire Lancelot, so that it carried off his head: at which those of the host were very sorrowful, for he was their marshal and a very valiant man.\n(1) A gap of two days. It is in the manuscripts as well as in the printed editions.\nOn the day after, which was Sunday, there was a strong skirmish, because the English were pulling down vine-props (that is, stakes) from the vines around\nSaint-Ladre and Saint-Jean-de-la-Ruelle (1), near Orléans, and were carrying them into their host to warm themselves. Wherefore the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, La Hire, Poton, Messire Jacques de Chabannes, Messire Denis de Chailly, Messire Cervais, an Aragonese, and several others sallied out of Orléans and fell upon them, and assailed them valiantly, so that they slew seven of them and brought fourteen prisoners into their city. In which that day there died a valiant burgess who was a native of it, named Simon de Baugener, who had been wounded in the throat by a shot of the adversaries.\n(1) These localities are today comprised within the faubourg Bannier.\nAnd on the morrow, Monday, the thirty-first and last of the said month of January, there arrived inside Orléans eight horses laden with oils and greases.\nOn the Thursday following, the third day of February, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, Messire Jacques de Chabannes, La Hire, Couras and several other knights and squires issued from Orléans; and rode as far as the boulevard of Saint-Laurens. Wherefore the English cried to arms, unfurled twelve of their banners, and all put themselves in battle array in their hosts without issuing from their boulevards and barriers. The French in the end, seeing that their enemies did not sally, returned in fair order into their city, without doing anything else.\nOn Saturday the fifth of the said month there came in the evening, as the gates were closing, into Orléans, twenty-six fighting men, most valiant men of war and well equipped, who came from Sologne and belonged to the\nMarshal of Sainte-Sévère; who bore themselves very greatly as long as they were in the garrison.\nOn the morrow, Sunday, about vespers, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, Chabannes, La Hire, Poton and Chailly sallied from Orléans with two hundred fighting men; and rode as far as about the Madeleine (1), where they found the lord of Scales and thirty fighting men with him, who withdrew most hastily into their host and bastille of Saint-Laurens; although in the end fourteen English were there slain or taken.\n(1) A priory on the old road to Blois.\nOn Monday, the seventh of the said month, there arrived inside Orléans Messire Théaulde de Valpergue, Messire Jean de Lescot (2), a Gascon, and other ambassadors, who came from speaking with the King, to bring the news of the succour which was to come to raise the siege.\n(2) Alias Lesgot.\nOn the morrow, Tuesday, there entered into the town of Orléans several most valiant men of war and well equipped, and among others Messire William Stewart, brother of the Constable of Scotland, the lord of Gaucourt, the lord of Verduzan (3), and several other knights and squires, accompanied by a thousand fighting men, so well equipped for the work of war that it was a most fair thing to see.\n(3) Verduran in the manuscripts as in the printed editions.\nThat same day there arrived by night two hundred fighting men who belonged to Messire Guillaume Le Bret, and a little after six score others belonging to La Hire.\nAbout those days there was a young maid named Jeanne, a native of a village in the Barrois called Domrémy, near another called Greux (1), under the lordship of Vaucouleurs. To whom, as she sometimes kept a few sheep that her father and mother had around their house, and at other times sewed and spun (2), Our Lord appeared several times in vision; and commanded her that she should go to raise the siege of Orléans and have the King consecrated at Reims, for He would be with her, and by His divine aid and force of arms would make her accomplish that enterprise. Wherefore she went to Messire Robert de Baudricourt, then captain of that place of Vaucouleurs, and told him her vision, praying and requiring him that for the very great good and profit of the King and of the kingdom he would have her clad in man’s attire, mount her on a horse, and have her led to the King, as God had bidden her go. But at that time, and for several days after, he would not believe her, and indeed made nothing of her but mockery, and reputed her vision fancies and foolish imaginings, although, thinking to make his people use her in carnal sin, he kept her. To which none of them, nor any after, could ever turn her: for as soon as they looked hard upon her, they were all cooled of lust.\n(1) Greux.\n(2) Ms. Saint-Victor: courant et saillant (running and leaping).\nOn Wednesday the ninth day of the same month there departed from Orléans Messire Jacques de Chabannes, Messire Regnault de Fontaines (3) and Le Bourg de Bar,\n(3) So the manuscript and edition. Read Fontaines.\naccompanied by twenty or twenty-five fighting men, wishing to go to Blois to the Count of Clermont; but they were met on the way by certain English and Burgundians who took Le Bourg de Bar and carried him back prisoner to the tower of Marchesnoir, and the two other lords escaped. On which day there arrived inside the city of Orléans Messire Gilbert de La Fayette, a native of Bourbonnais and Marshal of France, who brought with him three hundred fighting men.\nOn the morrow, which was Thursday, the Bastard of Orléans departed from Orléans, and two hundred fighting men with him, to go to Blois to the Count of Clermont, and Messire John Stewart, Constable of Scotland (1), the lord of La Tour, baron of Auvergne, the Viscount of Thouars, lord of Amboise, and other knights and squires, accompanied, as was said, by a good four thousand fighting men, both of Auvergne, Bourbonnais, and of Scotland, to learn from them the hour and the day it should please them to appoint to assail the English and false French, who were bringing provisions and artillery from Paris to their people holding the siege.\n(1) He was returning from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. He must not be confused with John Stewart, Earl of Buchan, his kinsman, whom Charles VII had made Constable of France and who perished at Verneuil. His territorial name was Darnley.\nOn Friday the eleventh day of the said month of February there also departed from Orléans Messire William of Albret, Messire William Stewart, brother of the Constable of Scotland, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, the lord of Graville, the lord of Xaintrailles, Poton his brother, La Hire, the lord of Verduzan, and several other knights and squires, accompanied by fifteen hundred fighting men, and intending to find and join with the Count of Clermont and the others already named, to go to meet the provisions and assail them. And that same day the said Count of Clermont likewise departed, and so wrought that he came with all his company into Beauce, to a village named Rouvray-Saint-Denis, which is two leagues from Janville. And when they were all assembled, they found themselves from three to four thousand fighting men, and they did not depart thence until the morrow about three o’clock after noon.\nThat day of the morrow, which was Saturday the twelfth day of February, the vigil of the Brandons, Messire John Fastolf, the Bailiff of Évreux for the English, Messire Simon Morhier, Provost of Paris, and several other knights and squires of the country of England and of France, accompanied by fifteen hundred fighting men, both English, Picards, Normans and other people of divers countries, were bringing about three hundred waggons and carts, laden with provisions and several equipments of war, such as cannon, bows, quivers, shot and other things, leading them to the other English holding the siege of Orléans. But when they learned from their spies the bearing of the French, and knew that their intention was to assail them: they enclosed themselves and made a park of their waggons and of sharpened stakes in the manner of barriers, leaving a single (1) long and narrow issue or entrance, for the rear of their park thus enclosed with waggons was wide,\n(1) Ms. Saint-Victor reads esquelle in place of seule.\nand the inside long and narrow: at which that issue or entrance was such that by it must enter whoever wished to assail them. And this done, they put themselves in fair order of battle, waiting there to live or die; although of escaping they had hardly any hope, considering their small number against the multitude of the French, who, all assembled by common accord, concluded that none should dismount from their horses except the archers and men of shot, who on their coming should do their duty of shooting.\nAfter which conclusion La Hire, Poton, Saulton (1), Canède and several others coming from Orléans put themselves forward, who were about fifteen hundred fighting men, and who were warned that the English bringing the provisions were coming in file, not in order and without any suspicion of being surprised: wherefore they were all of one same opinion that they would assail them as they came unawares. But the Count of Clermont sent several times by divers messages to La Hire and the others, thus ready to assail their adversaries, that they would find in them so great advantage, and that they should make no assault upon them until his coming, and that he would bring them from three to four thousand fighting men much desiring to join with the English. For whose honour and love they abandoned their enterprise, to their very great displeasure, and above all of La Hire, who showed the appearance of their\n(1) Saulton de Mercadieu, a Gascon, of whom the Chronique de la Pucelle reports a most remarkable deed of courage. Struck by a lance in the mouth at the rescue of Montargis in 1427, he freed himself, although the iron came out through the back of his head, and returned to the fight.\ndamage, in that space was being given to the English to draw and close themselves together, and with that to fortify themselves with stakes and waggons. And in truth La Hire and those of his company who had set out from Orléans were halted in a field, in front of and so near the English that they had very easily seen them, as is said, coming in file and fortifying themselves; marvellously grieved that they dared not assail them, because of the prohibition and continual messages of the said Count of Clermont, who was ever approaching as fast as he could.\nOn the other side, the Constable of Scotland also bore that waiting most impatiently; who had likewise come near there with about four hundred fighting men, among whom were some very valiant men. And so it was that between two and three o’clock after noon the archers and men of shot of the French drew near their adversaries, of whom certain had already sallied from their park, whom they constrained to withdraw most hastily and thrust back inside by force of shots, with which they charged them so thickly that they slew several of them; and those who could escape went back inside their fortification with the others. Wherefore and when the Constable of Scotland saw that they kept themselves thus closed and ranked, without showing any semblance of issuing, he was by too great heat so desirous to assail them that he broke to pieces by main force the ordinance which had been made by all, that none should dismount. For he set himself forward, without waiting for the others; and at his example, and to aid him, there dismounted also the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Orval, Messire William Stewart, Messire Jean de\nNailhac (1), lord of Châteaubrun, Viscount of Bridiers, Messire Jean de Lesgot, lord of Verduzan, and Messire Louis de Rochechouart, lord of Montpipeau, and several other knights and squires, with about four hundred fighting men besides the men of shot, who had already put themselves on foot and had thrust back the English, and had wrought most valiantly; but little it availed them: for when the English saw that the great battle, which was a good way off, came on slackly and did not join with the Constable and the others on foot, they sallied hastily from their park and fell upon the French who were on foot, and put them into disarray and flight, not however without great slaughter, for from three to four hundred French fighting men died there.\n(1) Read Nailhac. This important personage had been provided six months before with the office of Grand Panetier of France.\nAnd moreover the English, not sated with the slaughter they had made on the place before their park, spread hastily through the fields, chasing those on foot, so that a good twelve of their standards could be seen far one from another, in divers places, less than a crossbow-shot from the principal place where the rout had been. Wherefore La Hire, Poton and several other valiant men, who were most loth to go away thus shamefully, and had drawn together near the place of the rout, assembled about sixty or eighty fighting men who followed them hither and thither, and struck upon the English thus scattered, so that they slew several of them. And certes, if all the other French had turned back as they did, the honour and the profit of the day would have remained theirs: although before that several great lords, knights, noble squires and valiant captains and chiefs of war had died and been slain there. And among whom there were slain Messire William of Albret, lord of Orval, Messire John Stewart, Constable of Scotland, Messire William Stewart his brother, the lord of Verduzan, the lord of Châteaubrun, Messire Louis de Rochechouart and Messire Jean Chabot, with several others, all of whom were of great nobility and most renowned valiance. The bodies of which lords were afterwards brought to Orléans and laid in sepulture inside the great church called Sainte-Croix, where fair divine service was made for them.\nFrom that battle there escaped among others the Bastard of Orléans, seeing that from the beginning he had been wounded by a shot in the foot: wherefore two of his archers drew him with very great pains out of the press, mounted him on horseback and so saved him. The Count of Clermont, who that day had been made a knight, and all the great battle, never made any semblance of succouring the companions, both because they had dismounted, against the conclusion of all, and also because they saw them almost all slain before them. But as soon as they perceived that the English were masters of it, they took to the road towards Orléans: in which they did not honestly, but shamefully; and they had space enough to go their way, for the English did not chase them, seeing that most of them were on foot, and that they knew the French to be in greater number than they were. Notwithstanding, all the honour and the profit of the victory remained to the English, of whom the chief at that time was Messire John Fastolf, with whom was also Messire Thomas Rameston, who likewise had great charge of men-at-arms.\nThat same day there arrived inside Orléans, in the evening very late, the Count of Clermont, the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of La Tour, the Viscount of Thouars, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, the lord of Graville, La Hire, Poton and several French knights and squires, who came from the battle which had been thus lost for want of order. Although La Hire, Poton and Jamet de Tilloy entered last inside; for by the ordinance of all they still remained at the tail of those returning, to guard lest those of the bastilles should sally upon them if they knew of the rout; in which they could have damaged them still more than before, if heed had not been taken of it.\nOn that very day also Joan the Maid knew, by divine grace, this rout, and said to Messire Robert de Baudricourt that the King had had great damage before Orléans, and would have still more, if she were not led to him. Wherefore Baudricourt, who had already proved her and found her very wise and as it were truthful, persevering in her first requests, had her clad in man’s attire, as she required. And for her conduct he gave her two gentlemen of Champagne, one named Jean de Metz and the other Bertrand de Poulengy, who did it most loth, because of the perilous ways. But she, assuring them that they would have no ill at all, they set out on the way with her, and two of her brothers, to go to the King, who was then at Chinon.\nOn the Monday after that rout, the fourteenth of the same month of February, a cannon was fired by the English of the garrison of the Tourelles, of which the stone fell inside Orléans into the lodging of the Tête-Noire, in the street of the Hostelries: in which lodging it did great damage and went down into that street and slew three persons of the town, one of whom was a merchant named Jean Turquoys.\nOn the Thursday following, the seventeenth day of the said month, there were brought by Messire John Fastolf and his people into the host and siege of the English the provisions and other equipment of war which they had convoyed from Paris, and those also which they had conquered in their late rout near Rouvray-Saint-Denis, which several have since named the Battle of the Herrings; against whom the French of the garrison and certain citizens sallied, thinking to fall upon them and win the provisions and artillery they were bringing. But nevertheless they did not touch one another that time.\nAbout those days Joan the Maid arrived inside Chinon (1) and those who conducted her, much wondering how they had been able to arrive safely, seeing the perilous passages they had found, the dangerous and great rivers they had crossed\n(1) The author did not know the date of this arrival, which took place on 6 March 1429. To place it among the events of February is to render inexplicable several of the circumstances reported later. See below the French Continuator of Guillaume de Nangis.\nat the ford, and the long journey they had had to make, along which they had passed through several towns and villages holding the English party, and those held by the French, in which innumerable ills and pillages were being wrought. Wherefore then they praised Our Lord for the grace He had done them, as the Maid had promised them before. And they made their deed known to the King, before whom it had already been treated several times in his council that the best thing was that he should withdraw into the Dauphiné and keep it, with the countries of Lyonnais, Languedoc and Auvergne, at least if they could be saved, should the English gain Orléans; but all was changed, for he summoned the two gentlemen and, in the presence of those of his great council, had them questioned of the deed and estate of the Maid; to which they answered the truth. And on this occasion it was debated whether she should be made to speak with the King: to which it was concluded, yes; and in fact she spoke with him, made him her reverence, and knew him among his people, although several of them feigned, thinking to deceive her, to be the King: which was great appearance of truth, for she had never seen him before. So she told him in most fair words that God sent her to aid and succour him, and that he should give her men, for by divine grace and force of arms she would raise the siege of Orléans, and then would lead him to be consecrated at Reims, as God had commanded her; that He willed that the English should return to their country and leave him his kingdom in peace, which was to remain his; or if they would not leave it, ill would befall them.\nThese words thus spoken by her, the King had her led back honourably to her lodging, and assembled his great council, in which were several prelates, knights, squires and chiefs of war, with certain doctors in theology, in laws and in decrees, who all together advised that she should be questioned by the doctors, to try whether there should be found in her evident reason to be able to accomplish what she said. But the doctors found her of so honest a bearing and so wise in her words that when their report was made, very great account was taken of it. Wherefore, and also because it was found that she had known truly the day and the hour of the day of the Herrings, as was found by the letters of Baudricourt, who had written down the hour when she told it him, she being still at Vaucouleurs; and since, she had even declared to the King in secret, in the presence of his confessor and a few of his secret counsellors, a prayer (1) which he had made, at which he was much astonished; for none could know it save God and himself: it was concluded that she should be led honestly to Poitiers, both to have her questioned anew and to know her perseverance, and also in order to find money to give her men, provisions and artillery, to essay to victual Orléans; which she knew by divine grace, for she, being in the midst of the way, said to several: In God’s name, I know well that I shall have much ado at Poitiers whither they are leading me; but Messire will aid me; now let us go, in God’s name! for that was her manner of speech.\n(1) So the manuscript and editions. Read vœu (vow).\nWhen she was at the said Poitiers, where the King’s Parliament then was, divers questionings were made of her by several doctors and other people of great estate, to which she answered most well. And in especial to a Jacobin doctor, who said to her that if God willed the English to go away, there was no need of arms. To which she answered that she wished only a few men who would fight, and God would give the victory (1). For which answer, with several others she had made, and the firmness of her first promises, it was concluded by all that the King ought to trust in her and give her provisions and men, and send her to Orléans, which he did. And moreover he had her well armed and gave her good horses. And he willed and ordained that she should have a standard, in which by her will there was painted and set as a device Jesus Maria and a Majesty. The King wishing to give her a fair sword, she prayed him that it would please him to send and fetch her one which had on the blade (2) five crosses near the cross-guard, and which was at Sainte-Catherine de Fierbois. At which the King was much astonished, and asked her whether she had ever seen it. To which she answered no; but nevertheless she knew it was there. The King sent thither, and the sword was found with others which had been given there in times past, and it was brought to the King, who had it dressed and furnished honestly. And he gave her to accompany her a most valiant and wise gentleman named Jean d’Aulon; and as page, to serve her in honour, he gave her another gentleman named Louis de Coutes. Although all the things declared in this chapter were done\n(1) See the rehabilitation trial, vol. III, p. 204.\n(2) Allumelle in the editions. Allumelle, allemelle, lemelle, equivalent of lame, lamella — the blade.\nseveral times and on divers days; but I have here laid them down thus for the sake of brevity.\nOn Friday the eighteenth day of February the Count of Clermont departed from Orléans, saying that he wished to go to Chinon to the King, who was then there; and he took with him the lord of La Tour, Messire Louis de Culant, Admiral, Messire Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims and Chancellor of France, Messire Jean de Saint-Michel, Bishop of Orléans, a native of Scotland, La Hire, and several knights and squires of Auvergne, of Bourbonnais and of Scotland, and a good two thousand fighting men. Whereat those of Orléans, seeing them depart, were not well content; but they promised them, to appease them, that they would succour them with men and with provisions. After which departure there remained inside Orléans only the Bastard of Orléans, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère and their people. And the Count of Clermont, who was afterwards Duke of Bourbon, went away, and the lords and fighting men named above with him, and put themselves inside Blois.\nAnd then, when those of Orléans saw themselves thus left in small number of men of war, and perceived the power and the siege of the English growing from day to day, they sent Poton de Xaintrailles and certain burgesses to Philip, Duke of Burgundy, and Messire Jean de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny, holding the party of England; and had them prayed and required that they would have regard to them; and for the love of their lord Charles Duke of Orléans, being prisoner in England, and for the preservation of his lands, to the keeping of which he could not attend for that time, that it would please them to procure some abstinence of war from the English, and to make the siege raised until the trouble of the kingdom should be otherwise cleared up, or to give them aid and succour in favour of their kinsman thus prisoner.\nOn the Sunday after there was a very great and strong skirmish, so that the English sallied from their host and bastilles bearing seven standards, and so wrought that they chased and thrust back the French who had gone to assail them as far as the Champ Turpin, which is a stone’s throw from Orléans. But they were well received with cannon, culverins and other shot which were cast at them from the town forthwith, so thickly that they returned in great haste into their host and bastilles of Saint-Laurens and others thereabout. On the next Tuesday following, the twenty-second of February, the Earl of Suffolk and the lords of Talbot and of Scales sent by a herald as a present to the Bastard of Orléans a dish full of figs, raisins and dates, praying him that it would please him to send to the said Earl of Suffolk some black fur to line a robe. Which he did willingly, for he sent it to him by the same herald; for which the Earl gave him very great thanks. On Friday the twenty-fifth day of the said month there arrived inside Orléans nine horses laden with wheat, herrings and other provisions.\nOn the Sunday next following, the second last of the same month of February, the river rose so much and so greatly that the French of Orléans firmly thought that the two boulevards made by the English upon that river opposite Saint-Laurens, and also that of the Tourelles, were all undermined and beaten down: for it rose up to the loopholes of the boulevards, and ran so strongly and so fiercely that it was easy to believe. But the English made such diligence, both day and night, that the boulevards remained in their state, and also the river subsided in a little time. And notwithstanding, the English cast several shots of bombards and cannon, which did very great damage to the houses and buildings of the city.\nThat day the bombard of the city, then set at the spur of the mills of the postern of Chesneau to fire against the Tourelles, fired so terribly against them that it beat down a great piece of wall.\nOn Thursday the third day of March the French sallied in the morning against the English, who were then making a ditch to go under cover from their boulevard of the Croix Boissée to Saint-Ladre of Orléans, so that the French could neither see them nor harm them with cannon and bombards. That sally did great damage to the English, for nine of them were taken prisoners. And moreover Master Jean slew with a culverin five persons in two shots. And of those five was the lord of Gray, nephew of the late Earl of Salisbury, who was captain of Janville; at which the English made great lamentations, because he was of great boldness and valiance.\nThat same day there was a very strong and great skirmish, for the French sallied from Orléans, and went as far as quite near the boulevard of the English who were at the Croix Boissée, and captured a cannon casting stones big as a ball. And moreover they carried back into their town two silver cups, a robe furred with martens, and several axes, guisarmes, bows, quivers of arrows and other equipments of war. But straightway after, the English sallied from their host and bastilles, bearing nine standards which they unfurled, and chased the French as far as quite near the boulevard of the Porte Bannier, and that done withdrew; although anew and soon they returned and charged hard and sharply upon the French, and followed them so close that several of them threw themselves into the ditches of the said gate; upon whom those of Orléans cast with great force. And among the others who fell there was one Étienne Fauveau, of Orléans itself. And this they did because they could not flee. In that skirmish the English slew, wounded and took several prisoners, and in especial they took a valiant Gascon squire named Regnault Guillaume de Vernade, who was much wounded.\nOn the morrow, Friday, about three hundred English fighting men departed and went to fetch vine-props (1) in the vines around Saint-Ladre and Saint-Jean-de-la-Ruelle: wherefore the bell of the belfry rang. But notwithstanding, they took and carried off prisoners certain poor labourers who were labouring their vines. And that same day there arrived inside Orléans twelve horses laden with wheat, herrings and other provisions.\n(1) Charniers, vine-stakes. See above, p. 115.\nOn the Saturday after, the fifth of the said month of March, a culverin of Orléans was fired; the shot of which slew a lord of England, at whom the English made very great mourning.\nOn the morrow, which was Sunday, there arrived inside\nOrléans seven horses laden with herrings and other provisions.\nOn the Monday following, the seventh of the same month of March, six horses arrived there laden with herrings. On the other side the English fired several shots of bombards and cannon, which fell in the street of the Hostelries, and did great damage in divers places. And also about forty English from England arrived in their host.\nOn the next Tuesday after, certain French sallied and met six merchants and a damsel leading into the host nine horses laden with provisions, which they took and brought into Orléans. That same day two hundred English arrived, who came from Jargeau; and likewise several others arrived in their host and bastilles, coming from the garrisons of Beauce. And thereby the French thought that they wished to assail certain of their boulevards. Wherefore they kept themselves on their guard and made ready all things necessary for their defence, should need be.\nOn the morrow, Wednesday, certain French found that nearly all the wall of the Aumône of Orléans (1) had been pierced, opposite the Porte Parisis; and a hole had been made in it for a man-at-arms to pass. And moreover a wall was found made all new, in which there were two loopholes. And no one could know why it had been made: whereof some presumed it\n(1) That is to say, the Hôtel-Dieu of Orléans, beside the cathedral. The town wall then ran along the outbuildings of this establishment, and the Porte Parisis was near by.\nin good, and the others in ill. Nevertheless, whatever it might be, the master of the said Aumône (1) fled as soon as he saw that it had been perceived; for at first sight he was in great danger of the commotion of the people, who made that day a very great noise and stir in that Aumône.\n(1) The superior of the religious attached to the infirmary.\nOn the day after, which was Thursday, the Bastard of Orléans had two French men-at-arms belonging to the Gallois de Villiers hanged on a tree in the suburbs and ruins of the Porte de Bourgogne, because they had broken his safe-conduct; but as soon as they were dead he had them taken down and buried in the same suburbs.\nOn the other side, the English went that very day to Saint-Loup of Orléans, and there began a bastille which they fortified, ever meaning to maintain their siege against Orléans. To raise which, Joan the Maid took the field, accompanied by a great number of lords, knights, squires and men of war, furnished with provisions and artillery; and she took leave of the King, who expressly commanded the lords and men of war that they should obey her as himself, and so they did (2).\n(2) An anachronism of six weeks. It was only at the end of April that Joan took the field.\nOn the Friday following, the eleventh day of the same month of March, the bell of the belfry rang, because the English who were at Saint-Loup ran as far as Saint-Euverte (3); and there, about the vines, they took several vine-dressers and carried them off prisoners.\n(3) Saint-Euverte was then outside the walls of the city.\nOn the morrow certain of the garrison of Orléans sallied, and on their return brought back six prisoners (1).\n(1) There is in the thirteenth volume of the manuscripts of Dom Housseau, in the Royal Library, the extract of a receipt given on 13 March 1428 for the sum of seventy écus, to which sum the parishes of Sainte-Maure, Sepmes, Marçay, Draché, Maillé, Lasselle, Nouâtre, Pouzay, Trogues, Mougon, Crousilles and Pansoust, all situated in Touraine, had been assessed, to make a purchase of wheat destined for the victualling of the city of Orléans.\nOn the Tuesday after, the fifteenth of the said month, the Bastard of Laange arrived by night inside the town, bringing with him six horses laden with cannon powder. And that same day thirty English departed from the bastille of Saint-Loup, being dressed in the guise of women and feigning to come to fetch wood and bundles of brushwood with certain women, who brought them into Orléans. But when they saw their advantage, they sallied hastily upon the vine-dressers who were then labouring in the vines about Saint-Marc and La Borde-aux-Mignons (2), and so wrought that they sent nine or ten prisoners into their bastille.\n(2) Saint-Marc today adjoins the bourg Chevassier. La Borde-aux-Mignons is in the open fields in the same direction.\nOn the morrow, which was Wednesday, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère departed from Orléans, both to go to the King and to go take possession of several lands which had fallen to him by the death of the lord of Châteaubrun, his wife’s brother (3); but he promised those of the town that he would return shortly, and they were well content; for they loved and esteemed him, because he had done them many kindnesses, and also for the great feats of arms\n(3) Slain on the day of the Herrings. See above, pp. 122 and 124.\nwhich he and his people had done for their defence.\nThat same day the English of the bastille of Saint-Loup brought a great convoy of waggons to their other bastille of Saint-Laurens. And when they were before Saint-Ladre they made a great cry: wherefore the bell of the belfry rang; for the French of Orléans thought they wished to assail certain of their boulevards.\nOn the Thursday following, the seventeenth day of the said month, Master Alain du Bey, Provost of Orléans (1), died, and he died a natural death. At which those of the town were much grieved, because he ever kept justice well.\n(1) Since the year 1408.\nOn the Saturday following, the nineteenth of the same month and the vigil of Palm Sunday, the English fired into Orléans several shots of bigger bombards and cannon than they had done before, with which they did much ill and damage; for a stone of one of the bombards slew or wounded seven persons at one shot; of which a pewterer named Jean Tonneau died. And moreover another cannon stone fell before the house of the late Berthault Mignon, by which five persons were wounded or slain.\nOn the Monday after, the twenty-first of the said month of March, the French had the bell of the belfry rung and sallied from Orléans in great power, both men of war and citizens and others of the country round about who had withdrawn thither; and they went to assail the\n(Here a lacuna occurs in the text; the letter of the Maid to the English begins part way through.)\nAmong you, archers, companions of arms, who are before Orléans, go away into your own country, in God’s name. And if you do not so, take heed of the Maid, and be mindful of your damages. Do not take it into your opinion that you will ever hold France from the King of Heaven, the Son of Saint Mary; but King Charles will hold it, the true heir, to whom God has given it, who will enter into Paris in fair company. If you do not believe the news of God and of the Maid, in whatever place we find you, we shall strike into it with great blows, and then you shall see which have the better right, God or you.\nWilliam de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, John lord of Talbot, Thomas lord of Scales, lieutenant of the Duke of Bedford, calling himself Regent of the kingdom of France for the King of England, make answer whether you will make peace with the city of Orléans or no. If you do not so, be mindful of your damages.\nDuke of Bedford, who call yourself Regent of France for the King of England, the Maid requires and prays that you do not have yourself destroyed. If you do not do her right, she will so wrought that the French will do the fairest deed that ever was done in Christendom.\nWritten on Tuesday in Holy Week.\nHear the news of God and of the Maid.\nTo the Duke of Bedford, who calls himself Regent of the kingdom of France for the King of England.\nWhen the English lords and captains had read and heard the letters, they were marvellously angered, and in despite of the Maid, saying many villainous words of her, in especial calling her ribald, cowherd, threatening to have her burned, they kept the herald who bore the letters, holding in mockery all that she had written to them.\nOn the next Thursday after, the twenty-fourth of the same month of March, being Maundy Thursday, the English fired a bombard into Orléans, of which the stone, falling in the rue de la Charpenterie, slew or wounded three persons. During which day a great rumour ran that certain of the city were to betray it and deliver it into the hands of the English; wherefore that same day and the morrow, the vigil of holy Easter, and the day also, the men of war who were there in garrison, and the citizens and others who had withdrawn thither likewise, were ever in arms and each on his guard, both in the town and on the walls, as in the boulevards round about (1).\n(1) Although the journal mentions nothing under the date of Good Friday, the city accounts record that on that day there was a great distribution of wine and wheat made by the Provost Jean Leprêtre to the troops of the garrison. The captains borne on the distribution list are: the lord of Graville, Madré, Denis de Chailly, Thibault de Termes, the lord of Guitry, the lord of Coarraze, Théaulde de Valpergue, Cernay the Aragonese, Poton de Xaintrailles, the lord of Villars, the men-at-arms of the Marshal of Roussac, the Scots. Jollois, Histoire du siège d’Orléans, p. 41.\nOn the day of holy Easter, which was the twenty-seventh of the said month of March, one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, truces were given and granted on one side and the other between the French of Orléans and the English holding the siege.\nOn the Tuesday following, the twenty-ninth of the same month, there arrived inside the town a certain number of cattle and other provisions.\nOn the Friday after, which was the first day of the month of April, in that year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, the French went to skirmish with the English near their boulevard, which they had newly made at the Grange Cuyveret. Wherefore they sallied against them with two standards, and remained there a great space of time one before the other, shooting at one another with cannon, culverins and other shot, so that on each side several were wounded.\nOn the morrow there arrived inside Orléans nine fat oxen and two horses laden with kids and provisions. And that same day, after noon, the French again skirmished at the boulevard of the Grange Cuyveret, where they were well received; for from the bastille of Saint-Laurens about four hundred fighting men sallied against them, bearing with them two standards, of which one was that of Saint George, being half parted white and red, and having in the midst a red cross; and they came as far as Saint-Mathurin and the Champ Turpin, charging hard upon the French, who were put in fair order by the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Graville, La Hire, Poton and Tilloy: so that they bore themselves most valiantly, and there was a very strong and great skirmish. During which they fired marvellously on each side with their cannon, bombards, culverins and other shot, so that in the end several were slain and wounded, both of the French and of the English.\nOn the Sunday following, called Quasimodo (that is, the day of Low Sunday), certain inhabitants of Orléans sallied and captured near Saint-Loup a chaland in which were nine tuns of wine, and a swine and some venison, which was being taken to the English in that bastille of Saint-Loup; but those of Orléans drank the wine and ate the swine and the venison.\nAnd that same day there was a strong skirmish between the pages of the French and those of the English, between the two islands of Saint-Laurens; and they had no shields, save little baskets; and they cast stones and pebbles at one another. At the last those of the French made those of the English withdraw: and there were many people watching them. And for that skirmish and others which the French pages afterwards made before Orléans, their captain was one of them, a gentleman of the Dauphiné named Aymar de Puiseux: who was afterwards named Capdorat by La Hire, both because he was very fair-haired and because he was very alert and of great boldness among the others; and he showed it well afterwards in several feats of arms, both in this kingdom and in Germany and elsewhere (1).\n(1) The war in Germany to which allusion is here made is probably that which Louis the Dauphin carried into Alsace in 1444. That prince, become king, made Aymar de Puiseux or Poisieu one of his maîtres d’hôtel and gave him the bailiwick of Mantes. In 1465 he sent him on an embassy to Liège during the war of the Public Weal; then the following year he called him to the general command of the franc-archers this side of the Loire, an office which had just been created and which extended over the provinces bordering the Seine, the Eure and the Loire as far as the Nivernais. Collection des documents inédits, Mélanges, vol. II, p. 313. — Daniel, Histoire de la milice française, vol. IV, ch. 4. — Ms. B. R. Gaignières, no. 772-2, fol. 396, 404, etc.\nOn the morrow, Monday, as the gates of the city were being opened, certain French arrived there, who had gone to make a raid inside Meung, of which they had slain the captain, and they were bringing back forty-three head of great cattle, although several of them were wounded.\nThat day after noon there was another battle between the pages, who were equipped as before; and there one of the English pages was slain by a stone-stroke, and several were wounded on one side and the other; although in the end the English pages captured the standard of the French pages.\nOn the Tuesday following, the fifth of the said month, there arrived at the opening of the gates inside Orléans a hundred and one swine and six fat oxen, which merchants were bringing thither from Berry; they passed opposite Saint-Aignan of Orléans. Against whom the English of the Tourelles sallied most hastily as soon as they perceived them; but it was too late, for they lost their pains.\nThat same day there arrived also two horses laden with butter and cheeses, and seventeen swine which were brought thither from Châteaudun. And news came also that the French who were in garrison in that town of Châteaudun had slain, taken or routed thirty or forty English who were bringing great sums of money to the other English of the host.\nOn the Thursday after, the seventh of the said month, there arrived to the English of the bastille of Saint-Laurens several provisions and other equipment of war, without finding any hindrance.\nOn the morrow there arrived towards morning inside the city twenty-six head of cattle, which certain French who were of the garrison had captured in Normandy.\nOn the Saturday following, the ninth of the same month, there also arrived towards morning seventeen swine and eight horses (two laden with kids and pigs, and the other six with wheat), which were brought from Châteaudun. On the other side, the English made about that time another boulevard and ditch opposite the Pressoir-Ars (1). To hinder which, the French sallied and went as far as the boulevard; but there came on a great rain and a marvellous storm, which lasted long: wherefore they could not accomplish their intention, and returned into the city without doing anything.\n(1) This entrenchment, to which the English gave the name of Rouen, was situated at the end of the Clos des Douze Pierres.\nOn the Tuesday after, the twelfth of the said month, certain French departed from Orléans by night and went to Saint-Marceau in the vale of the Loire (2), and broke and pierced the church; inside which they found twenty English, whom they took and carried off prisoners into their town, although they lost there two of their companions.\n(2) On the left bank of the river, a good way behind the English entrenchments.\nAnd on the morrow great sums of money were brought into Orléans to pay those of the garrison, who had much need of them.\nOn Friday the fifteenth day of the same April, the English made and finished a most fair and strong bastille, very well made, between Saint-Pouair and Saint-Ladre (3), in a\n(3) To this bastille the English gave the name of Paris.\nplace which comprised a great precinct; inside which they put and left several lords and gentlemen of England, with a great number of other men of war, meaning to prevent any provisions from being brought that way into Orléans, as they had seen done several times before, in despite of the people of their other bastilles.\nOn the morrow a certain number of cattle and other provisions were coming from Blois to Orléans by the way of Fleury-aux-Choux, which the English thought to capture, and they went to meet them, but too late, for the bell of the belfry rang to succour the provisions. Which was done, so that they arrived safely inside the town.\nThat same day about fifty French men-at-arms of certain garrisons of Sologne came riding before the Tourelles, and carried off a good fifteen English prisoners. And the night following that day, certain French departed from the town and slew three English who were keeping watch near l’Orbecte.\nOn the Sunday following, the seventeenth of the said month of April, there arrived inside Orléans Poton de Xaintrailles and other ambassadors, who had gone to the Duke of Burgundy and the Count of Ligny, and they brought with them the trumpeter of the said Duke of Burgundy. Who, as soon as he knew the request of those of Orléans, went with Messire Jean de Luxembourg to the Duke of Bedford, calling himself Regent of this kingdom for King Henry of England, showing him the pity that was upon the Duke of Orléans; and he had required and prayed him most dearly that it would please him to have the siege which was laid before his principal town and city of Orléans raised and lifted. To which the Duke of Bedford would not acquiesce for any of them (1), at which the Duke of Burgundy was not content; and for this reason he sent with the ambassadors his trumpeter, who on his behalf commanded all those of his lands and towns obedient to him, who were in that siege, that they should go away and depart, and do no harm in any manner to those of Orléans. To obey which commandment, several Burgundians, Picards, Champenois and many others of the countries and obedience of the said Duke of Burgundy went away and departed most hastily.\n(1) The Duke of Burgundy asked that the place should be given into his keeping as neutral. The Chronique de la Pucelle says that the Council of Regency set up in England was favourable to this request, but that it failed through the contrary disposition of the members of the Council of France, and particularly of the Parisians. Cf. vol. V. See also Monstrelet, book II, ch. 58.\nOn the morrow in the morning, about four o’clock after midnight, the French sallied upon the host of the English, and so wrought that on their entrance they slew part of their watch and captured one of their standards, and were inside a long space. During which they did great damage to their adversaries; who cried most fearfully to arms and all put themselves in order the best they could, addressing themselves against the French, who, perceiving them making ready, issued from the host in a great throng, where they had captured several silver cups, many robes of martens and a great number of bows, quivers, arrows and other equipment of war. Nevertheless the English pursued them and kept so close that there was a strong and great skirmish, in which several were slain and wounded, both on one side and the other. And in especial he who bore the standard of the English was slain there by a culverin-shot; although those of the town were not without great damage, and it well appeared on their return, by the mourning made by the women of Orléans, weeping and lamenting their fathers, husbands, brothers and kinsmen, slain and wounded in that skirmish. And that same day the bodies of each side were given up; so they were buried in holy ground.\nOn the Tuesday after, the nineteenth day of the month of April, about the hour of vespers, there arrived in the host and bastilles of the English a great quantity of provisions and other equipment of war, and with them several men-at-arms who convoyed them.\nOn the morrow, about four o’clock in the morning, a captain named Amade (1) departed from Orléans, and sixteen men-at-arms on horseback with him, who went to make a raid about Fleury-aux-Choux, where the English who had brought the latest provisions had lodged, and they so wrought that they carried off six English prisoners whom they took, and several horses, bows, quivers and other equipment of war.\n(1) Amodie in the editions. It is doubtless the same who is called Madré in the city accounts. See above, p. 141, note.\nAbout that same time the English fortified Saint-Jean-le-Blanc in the vale of the Loire, and set a watch there to guard the passage.\nOn the Thursday following there arrived inside Orléans three horses laden with cannon powder and several other things. On the other side, those of Orléans that day made ready several cannon to fire against the English, because they thought they would make some strong skirmish for their welcome, and had them fire marvellously against them as they sallied; wherefore they withdrew into their host; but several of them departed the following night to go to meet the provisions which were being brought into the town, meaning to capture them.\nOn Saturday the twenty-third of the same month of April there arrived inside Orléans four horses laden with cannon powder and provisions.\nAnd on the morrow the Bourg de Mascaran (1) entered there, accompanied by forty fighting men.\n(1) Alias Masqueran.\nAnd the next day after, which was Tuesday the twenty-sixth day of the same month, Alain de Giron also entered there, accompanied by a hundred fighting men.\nOn the Wednesday following the French sallied and went in most great haste and fair order as far as the Croix de Fleury (2), to succour certain merchants bringing provisions from the parts of Blois to victual them, because they had news that they were being hindered; but they passed no further, seeing that word came to meet them; and they were told that they would do nothing there, for the English had already routed them. Although on the other side another succour came to them of sixty fighting men coming from Beaune in the Gâtinais (3), who were bringing them other swine.\n(2) This point is at the end of the present faubourg of Saint-Vincent.\n(3) Beaune-la-Rolande.\nOn the morrow, Thursday, the twenty-eighth day of the said month of April, there arrived after noon inside Orléans a most renowned captain called Messire Florentin d’Illiers, and with him the brother of La Hire, accompanied by four hundred fighting men who came from Châteaudun. And that same day there was a strong and great skirmish, because the English came to skirmish before the boulevards of Orléans. But the men of war and several citizens of Orléans sallied against them and chased them into their boulevards, and so wrought that they slew and wounded several of them, and the others fell into the ditches of their boulevards, which were then about the Grange Cuyveret and the Pressoir-Ars, in a certain valley which was there of old (1). Nevertheless the French had to leave off their skirmish and return into the town, because of the great multitude of cannon, culverins and other shot which the English fired at them most thickly, so that several were slain on one side and the other; and on their return one of the French fell into a well, where he was slain.\n(1) The rue de la Mare aux Solognots, which joins the faubourg Saint-Jean to that of the Porte Bannier, is the only vestige that remains of this ancient valley.\nOn the other side, the Maid and the other lords and captains who were with her learned how the English despised her and, mocking her and her letters, had kept the herald who had borne them. Wherefore they concluded that they would march forward with all their men-at-arms, provisions and artillery, and would pass through Sologne, seeing that the greatest power of the English was on the side of Beauce; although of this they said nothing to the Maid, who meant to go and pass right before them by force of arms. And for this she ordained that all the men of war should confess and leave all their lewd women and all the baggage; and in this wise they went away, and so wrought that they came as far as a village named Chécy, where they lay the following night (1).\n(1) Chécy is nine kilometres upstream from Orléans. Mathieu de Goussancourt, in his Martyrologe des chevaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, asserts, on what foundation is not known, that the Maid passed that night in the house of Gui de Cailly, then lord of Chécy. (Le Brun de Charmettes, Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc, vol. II, p. 18.)\nOn the Friday following, the twenty-ninth of the same month, certain news came into Orléans how the King was sending by way of Sologne provisions, powder, cannon and other equipment of war, under the conduct of the Maid, who came on the part of Our Lord to victual and comfort the town and make the siege raised; at which those of Orléans were much comforted. And because it was said that the English would take pains to hinder the provisions, it was ordained that everyone should be armed and in good array throughout the city; which was done.\nThat day also there arrived there fifty fighting men on foot, equipped with guisarmes and other equipment of war; and they came from the country of the Gâtinais, where they had been in garrison.\nThat same day there was a most great skirmish, because the French wished to give place and hour for the provisions that were being brought them to enter. And to give the English something else to think of, they sallied in great power and went to ride and skirmish before Saint-Loup of Orléans. And they kept so close upon them that there were several dead, wounded and taken prisoners on one side and the other, although the French carried into their city one of the standards of the English. And while that skirmish was being made, the provisions and artillery which the Maid had convoyed as far as Chécy entered into the town. To meet whom the Bastard of Orléans and other knights, squires and men of war, both of Orléans and of other parts, went as far as that village, most joyful at her coming, and they all made her great reverence and fair cheer, and she did the same to them. And there they all concluded together that she would not enter Orléans until night, to avoid the tumult of the people, and that the Marshal of Rais and Messire Ambroise de Loré, who by the King’s commandment had conducted her thither, would return to Blois, where several French lords and men of war had remained: which was done; for about eight o’clock in the evening, in despite of all the English, who never set any hindrance against it, she entered armed at all points, mounted on a white horse; and she had her standard borne before her, which was likewise white, in which were two angels each holding a fleur-de-lis in their hand; and on the pennon was painted as it were an Annunciation (that is, the image of Our Lady having before her an angel presenting her a lily).\nAs she thus entered into Orléans she had at her left side the Bastard of Orléans, armed and mounted most richly. And after came several other noble and valiant lords, squires, captains and men of war, besides certain of the garrison, and also of the burgesses of Orléans, who had gone to meet her. On the other side there came to receive her the other men of war, burgesses and burgesses’ wives of Orléans, bearing a great number of torches, and making such joy as if they saw God come down among them, and not without cause, for they had had many troubles, labours and pains, and what is worse, a great fear of not being succoured and of losing all, body and goods. But they felt themselves already all comforted, and as it were unbesieged, by the divine virtue which they had been told was in this simple Maid, whom they beheld most affectionately, men, women and little children alike. And there was a most marvellous press to touch her or the horse on which she was, so much so that one of those who bore the torches came so near her standard that the fire caught the pennon. Wherefore she struck her horse with the spurs and turned it as deftly to the pennon, from which she quenched the fire, as if she had long followed the wars: which the men-at-arms held a great marvel, and the burgesses of Orléans also; who accompanied her the length of their town and city, making most great cheer, and with very great honour all conducted her as far as near the Porte Regnart, to the house of Jacquet Boucher, then treasurer of the Duke of Orléans, where she was received with very great joy, with her two brothers and the two gentlemen and their serving-man, who had come with them from the country of Barrois.\nOn the morrow, which was Saturday, the last day of the said month of April, La Hire, Messire Florentin d’Illiers and several other knights and squires of the garrison sallied, with certain citizens, and charged, standards unfurled, upon the host of the English, so that they made them withdraw, and gained the place where they had kept the watch which they then held at the place of Saint-Pouair, two bowshots from the town. Wherefore a loud cry was made all along the city at that hour that everyone should bring furs, straw and faggots to set fire to the lodgings of the English inside their host; but nothing was done, seeing that the English made terrible cries and all put themselves in order. And for this the French returned, although before their return there had been a very strong and long skirmish, during which the cannon, culverins and bombards fired marvellously, so that several were slain, wounded and taken prisoners on one side and the other. When night came the Maid sent two heralds to the English of the host, and bade them send her back the herald by whom she had sent them her letters from Blois. And likewise the Bastard of Orléans sent them word that if they did not send him back, he would put to an ill death all the English who were prisoners inside Orléans, and those also who had been sent thither by certain lords of England to treat for the ransom of the others. Wherefore the chiefs of the host sent back all the heralds and messengers of the Maid, sending her word by them that they would burn her and have her burned, and that she was naught but a ribald, and as such should go back to keep the cows. At which she was much angered; and for this cause, when it came towards evening, she went to the boulevard of the Belle Croix, on the bridge, and from there spoke to Glasdale and the other English who were in the Tourelles, and told them to yield themselves in God’s name, their lives only safe. But Glasdale and those of his band answered villainously, injuring her and calling her cowherd as before, crying most loudly that they would have her burned if they could hold her. At which she was somewhat angered, and answered them that they lied; and that said, she withdrew into the city.\nOn the Sunday after, which was the first day of May, that year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, the Bastard of Orléans departed from the town to go to Blois to the Count of Clermont, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, the lord of Rais, and several other knights, squires and men of war. That day also Joan the Maid rode through the city, accompanied by several knights and squires, because those of Orléans had so great a desire to see her that they nearly broke the doors of the house where she was lodged; to see whom there was such great folk of the city in the streets through which she passed that one could hardly pass there, for the people could not have enough of seeing her. And it seemed to all a great marvel how she could keep herself so deftly on horseback as she did. And in truth also she bore herself as loftily in all ways as a man-at-arms who had followed the war from his youth could have done.\nThat same day the Maid spoke again to the English near the Croix Morin, and told them to yield themselves, their lives only safe, and to return in God’s name to England, or she would make them rue it; but they answered her words as villainous as they had done from the Tourelles the other time: wherefore she returned into Orléans.\nOn Monday, the second day of May, the Maid departed from Orléans on horseback and went into the fields to visit the bastilles and host of the English; after whom the people ran in most great throng, taking most great pleasure in seeing her and being about her. And when she had seen and observed at her pleasure the fortifications of the English, she returned to the church of Sainte-Croix of Orléans inside the city, where she heard vespers.\nOn Wednesday, the fourth day of the said month of May, the Maid sallied into the fields, having in her company the lord of Villars and Messire Florentin d’Illiers, La Hire, Alain Giron, Jamet de Tilloy and several other squires and men of war, being in all five hundred fighting men; and she went to meet the Bastard of Orléans, the Marshal of Rais, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, the Baron of Coulonces (1) and several other knights and squires, with other men of war equipped with guisarmes and lead mauls, who were bringing provisions which those of Bourges, Angers, Tours and Blois were sending to those of Orléans, who received them in very great joy into their town, into which they entered before the bastille of the English, who\n(1) Coulouces in the manuscripts and editions. He was a Norman lord whose name was Jean de La Haye. He was the son of a knight of the same name who perished fighting for the defence of Pontorson in 1426. He himself was made a knight at the battle of Patay.\nnever dared sally, but kept themselves strongly on their guard.\nAnd that same day after noon the Maid and the Bastard of Orléans departed from the city, leading in their companies great numbers of nobles and about fifteen hundred fighting men, and went to assail the bastille of Saint-Loup, where they found very strong resistance, for the English, who had much fortified it, defended it most valiantly the space of three hours that the assault lasted very bitter, although in the end the French took it by force and slew one hundred and fourteen English, and kept and brought forty prisoners into their town; but first they beat down, burned and wholly demolished that bastille, to the very great wrath, damage and displeasure of the English. Part of whom, being in the bastille of Saint-Pouair, sallied in great power during that assault, wishing to succour their people: of which those of Orléans were warned by the bell of the belfry, which rang twice; wherefore the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, the lord of Graville, the Baron of Coulonces and several other knights and squires, men of war and citizens, being in all six hundred fighting men, sallied hastily out of Orléans and put themselves in the field in most fair order and battle against the English; who abandoned their enterprise and the succour of their companions when they saw the manner of the French thus sallying out and ordered in battle, and turned back sorrowful and angered into their bastille, from which they had issued in very great haste. But notwithstanding their return, those of the bastille defended themselves more and more; although in the end the French took it, as is said.\nOn the Thursday after, which was the Ascension of Our Lord, the Maid, the Bastard of Orléans, the Marshals (1) of Sainte-Sévère and of Rais, the lord of Graville, the Baron of Coulonces, the lord of Villars, the lord of Xaintrailles, the lord of Gaucourt, La Hire, the lord of Coarraze, Messire Denis de Chailly, Thibaut de Termes, Jamet de Tilloy and a Scottish captain called Canède, and other captains and chiefs of war, and also the burgesses of Orléans, held counsel, to advise and conclude what was to be done against the English who held them besieged. Wherefore it was concluded that the Tourelles and the boulevards of the bridge end should be assailed, although the English had marvellously fortified them with things defensible and with a great number of men well versed in war. And for this it was commanded by the captains that everyone should be ready on the morrow in the morning and furnished with all things to make the assault; to which commandment good obedience was given, for from the evening such great diligence was made that all was ready at earliest morning, and it was made known to the Maid.\n(1) Read les mareschaux — the Marshals.\nWho sallied out of Orléans, having in her company the Bastard of Orléans, the Marshals of Sainte-Sévère and of Rais, the lord of Graville, Messire Florentin d’Illiers, La Hire and several other knights and squires, and about four thousand fighting men; and she crossed the river Loire between Saint-Loup and the Tour\nNeuve (1), and forthwith they took Saint-Jean-le-Blanc, which the English had fenced and fortified. And after, they withdrew into a little island which is opposite Saint-Aignan (2). And then the English of the Tourelles sallied in great power, making great cries, and came and charged upon them most strongly and closely. But the Maid and La Hire, with part of their people, joined together and struck against the English with such great force and boldness that they constrained them to withdraw as far as their boulevards and Tourelles. And at full speed they delivered such an assault on the boulevard and bastille there fortified by the English, at the place where the church of the Augustins was, that they took them by force, delivering a great number of French who were prisoners there, and slaying several English who were inside and had defended it most bitterly; so that many fair feats of arms were done there on one side and the other. And on the following evening the siege was laid by the French before the Tourelles and the boulevards round about. Wherefore those of Orléans made great diligence of carrying all night bread, wine and other provisions to the men of war holding the siege (3).\n(1) See above, p. 98.\n(2) The same that is spoken of above, p. 112.\n(3) The bill of fare of the provisions carried to the assailants by divers purveyors is found on the slips recording the city’s expenses in 1429, in the library of Orléans.\nOn the day after, at earliest morning, which was Saturday, the sixth (4) day of May, the French assailed the Tourelles and the boulevards and hoardings which the English had made there to fortify them. And there was a most marvellous\n(4) Read seventh.\nassault, during which several fair feats of arms were done, both in assailing and in defending, because the English were there in great number, very warlike, and furnished abundantly with all things defensible. And they showed it well also, for notwithstanding that the French scaled them by divers places most thickly, and assailed full on the highest of their fortifications with such valiance and boldness that it seemed from their bold bearing that they thought themselves immortal: yet they thrust them back many times and threw them down from high to low, both by cannon and other shot, and with axes, lances, guisarmes, lead mauls, and even with their own hands, so that they slew or wounded several French. And among the others the Maid was wounded and struck by a shot between the shoulder and the throat, so far that it passed through: at which all the assailants were much grieved and angered, and in especial the Bastard of Orléans and the other captains, who came to her and told her it was better to leave the assault until the morrow; but she comforted them with most fair and bold words, exhorting them to keep up their boldness. Who, not willing to believe her, left off the assault and drew back, meaning to have their artillery carried back until the morrow. At which she was very sorrowful, and said to them: In God’s name, you will enter in there right soon, doubt it not, and the English will have no more strength against you. Wherefore rest yourselves a little, drink and eat. Which they did, for they obeyed her marvellously. And when they had drunk, she said to them: Return in God’s name to the assault again, for without fail the English will have no more strength to defend themselves, and their Tourelles and their boulevards will be taken.\nAnd that said, she left her standard and went on her horse to a retired place to make orison to Our Lord; and she said to a gentleman who was near there: Take heed when the tail of my standard shall be at or shall touch against the boulevard. Who said to her a little after: Joan, the tail touches it! And then she answered him: All is yours, and enter in! Which word was soon after known to be prophecy, for when the valiant chiefs and men-at-arms who had remained inside Orléans saw that the assault was to be renewed, certain of them sallied out of the city upon the bridge. And because several arches were broken, they brought a carpenter and carried gutters and ladders, of which they made planks. And seeing that they were not long enough to rest upon the two ends of one of the broken arches, they joined a little piece of wood to one of the largest gutters, and so wrought that it held (1). Upon which there passed first, all armed, a most valiant knight of the Order of Rhodes, called of Saint John of Jerusalem, named Brother Nicolas de Giresme, and at his example several others also: which was afterwards said to\n(1) Article 57 of the fortress account for the year 1429, kept in the library of Orléans, relates to the construction of this flying bridge: Paid 40 sous for a great piece of wood taken at Jean Bazin’s when the Tourelles were won against the English, to lay across one of the arches of the bridge which was broken. — Given to Champeaux and other carpenters 16 sous to go and drink on the day when the Tourelles were won. See Jollois, Histoire du Siège, p. 84.\nhave been more a miracle of Our Lord than anything else, seeing that the gutter was marvellously long and narrow, and high in the air, without having any support.\nWho, having passed over, thrust themselves with their other companions into the assault, which lasted but little afterwards; for as soon as they had begun again, the English lost all power of being able to resist longer, and thought to enter from the boulevard into the Tourelles: although few of them could save themselves, for the four or five hundred fighting men that they were were all slain or drowned, except a certain few who were kept prisoners, and no great lords, seeing that Glasdale, who was captain and much renowned in feats of arms, the lord of Molyns, the lord of Pommiers, the Bailiff of Mente and several other banneret knights and nobles of England were drowned, because in seeking to save themselves the bridge fell beneath them: which was a great undoing of the strength of the English, and a great loss to the valiant French, who for their ransom could have had great sums of money (1). Nevertheless they made great joy, and praised Our Lord\n(1) Our author is wrong to regard as a chance event the fall of the bridge which joined the boulevard of the Tourelles to the Tourelles themselves. The city accounts for 1429 prove that this bridge was burned by design by means of a fire-boat which the Orléans men had moored to the timber-work. Thus payment was made to Jean Poitevin, fisherman, 8 sous for having set on dry land a chaland which was put under the bridge of the Tourelles to burn them when they were taken; — to Boudon, 9 sous for two S-hooks weighing four and a half pounds, put on the chaland which was burned under the bridge of the Tourelles (Articles 9 and 19). Mention is also made in the same account of resin and grease bought to grease the flags to set fire to the Tourelles. Jollois, Histoire du Siège, p. 84.\nfor that fair victory which He had given them; and well they ought to have done so, for it is said that that assault, which lasted from morning until sunset, was so greatly assailed and defended that it was one of the fairest feats of arms that had been done for a long time before. And it was also a miracle of Our Lord, done at the prayer of Saint Aignan and Saint Euverte, of old bishops and patrons of Orléans, as appeared well enough, according to the common opinion, and even by persons who that day were brought inside the town; one of whom certified that to him and to all the other English of the Tourelles and boulevards it seemed, when they were assailed, that they saw such a marvellous number of people, and that all the world was assembled there. Wherefore all the clergy and people of Orléans devoutly sang Te Deum laudamus, and had all the bells of the city rung, thanking most humbly Our Lord and the two holy confessors for that glorious divine consolation; and they made very great joy on every side, giving marvellous praises to their valiant defenders, and in especial and above all to Joan the Maid. Who remained that night, and the lords, captains and men-at-arms with her, in the fields, both to guard the Tourelles thus valiantly conquered and to know whether the English of the side of Saint-Laurens would sally, wishing to succour or avenge their companions; but they had no will thereto.\nOn the contrary, on the morrow morning, Sunday the seventh (1) day of May, that same year one thousand four\n(1) Read eighth.\nhundred and twenty-nine, they abandoned their bastilles, and so did the English of Saint-Pouair and elsewhere, and raising their siege they put themselves in battle array. Wherefore the Maid, the Marshals of Sainte-Sévère and of Rais, the lord of Graville, the Baron of Coulonces, Messire Florentin d’Illiers, the lord of Coarraze, the lord of Xaintrailles, La Hire, Alain Giron, Jamet de Tilloy and several other valiant men of war and citizens sallied out of Orléans in great power, and set and ranged themselves before them in ordered battle. And in that wise they were very near one another for the space of a whole hour without touching. Which the French suffered most loth, obeying the will of the Maid, who commanded and forbade them from the beginning that, for the love and honour of the holy Sunday, they should not begin the battle nor assail the English; but if the English assailed them, they should defend themselves strongly and boldly, and should have no fear, and they would be the masters. The hour past, the English took to the road and went away well ranked and ordered to Meung-sur-Loire, and raised and left wholly the siege which they had kept before Orléans from the twelfth day of October one thousand four hundred and twenty-eight until that day. Nevertheless they did not go away nor carry off all their baggage in safety, for certain of the garrison of the city pursued them and struck upon the tail of their army by divers assaults, so that they captured from them great bombards and cannon, bows, crossbows and other artillery.\nAnd that same day there was an English Augustin, confessor of the lord of Talbot, who on his behalf was guarding a French prisoner of his, a most valiant man-at-arms named Le Bourg de Bar, who was fettered at the feet; and he was leading him likewise after the other English, under the arms and at a walking pace, seeing that he could not go otherwise for the irons. Who, seeing that they were lagging well behind, and knowing, as one subtle in the work of war, that the English were going away without return, constrained by force the said Augustin to carry him on his shoulders as far as Orléans, and so his ransom escaped him. And much of the covenant of the adversaries was learned through the Augustin, for he was very familiar with Talbot (1).\n(1) Cf. Jean Chartier, above, p. 63.\nOn the other side the Maid and the other lords and men-at-arms re-entered Orléans with great joy, to the very great exultation of all the clergy and people, who all together rendered humble thanks to Our Lord and most deserved praises for the very great succours and victories He had given and sent them against the English, ancient enemies of this kingdom. And when it came after noon, Messire Florentin d’Illiers took leave of the lords and captains and other men-at-arms, and also of the burgesses of the town, and with his men of war whom he had brought thither, returned into Châteaudun, of which he was captain, carrying back great prize, praise and renown for the valiant feats of arms done by him and his people in the defence and succour of Orléans.\nAnd on the morrow the Maid likewise departed, and with her the lord of Rais, the Baron of Coulonces and several other knights, squires and men of war, and went to the King to bring him the news of the noble business, and also to make him take the field, to be crowned and consecrated at Reims, as Our Lord had commanded her. But first she took leave of those of Orléans, who all wept for joy and most humbly thanked her, offering themselves and their goods to her and to her will. Whom she thanked most benignantly, and undertook to make her holy journey; for she had done and accomplished the first, which was to raise the siege of Orléans. During which several fair feats of arms, skirmishes and assaults were done there, and other innumerable engines, novelties and subtleties of war devised, more than had been done a long time before before any other city, town or castle of this kingdom, as all the people knowing of such things said, both French and English, who had been present at the making and devising of them.\nThat same day (1), and on the morrow also, the churchmen, lords, captains, men-at-arms and burgesses who were and dwelt inside Orléans made most fair and solemn processions, and visited the churches with most great devotion. And in truth, although the burgesses had not been willing at the beginning, and before the siege was laid, to suffer any men of war to enter inside the city, fearing lest they should wish to pillage or master them too strongly, nevertheless they afterwards let as many enter as wished to come, after they knew that they meant only their defence, and bore themselves so valiantly against their enemies. And they were also most united with them to defend the city; and for this they shared them among themselves in their houses, and nourished them with such goods as God gave them, as familiarly as if they had been their own children.\n(1) That same day must refer to Sunday 8 May, although the chronicler has already spoken of the departure of the Maid, which took place on the Monday.\nA little time after, the Bastard of Orléans, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, the lord of Graville, the lord of Coarraze, Poton de Xaintrailles and several other knights, squires and men of war, of whom there were part bearing guisarmes, come thither from Bourges, Tours, Angers, Blois and other good towns of this kingdom, departed from Orléans and went before Jargeau, where they made several skirmishes which lasted more than three hours, to see whether they could besiege it. Who knew that they could yet gain nothing, because of the water which was high and filled the ditches. And for this they returned in safety; but the English were much damaged there, for a valiant knight of England called Messire Henry Bisset, then captain of that town, was slain there: at which they made great mourning.\nWhile those skirmishes were being made, the Maid so wrought that she came to the King. Before whom, as soon as she saw him, she knelt most sweetly and, embracing him by the legs, said to him: Gentle Dauphin, come and take your consecration at Reims. I am much pressed that you should go, and doubt not that in that city you will receive your worthy\nconsecration. To whom the King made most great cheer, and so did all those of the court, considering the honest life of her and the great deeds and marvels of arms done by her conduct. Wherefore soon after the King summoned the lords, chiefs of war, captains and other wise men of his court; and held several councils at Tours, to know what was to be done touching the request of the Maid, who required so affectionately and instantly that he should draw to Reims and there be consecrated. Upon which there were divers opinions, for some counselled that they should first go into Normandy, and the others that they should rather aim to take certain principal places situated upon the river Loire. In the end the King and three or four of his most privy (1) drew apart, discoursing among themselves in great secret, that it would be good, to be the surer, to learn from the Maid what the voice said to her, and how she assured them thus firmly. But they feared to enquire the truth of her, for dread lest she should be ill content: which she knew by divine grace; wherefore she came to them and said to the King: In God’s name, I know what you are thinking and wish to say of the voice I have heard touching your consecration; and I will tell you: I had put myself in orison in my accustomed manner. I was complaining that they would not believe me in what I was saying; and then the voice said to me: Daughter (2), go, go, go; I\n(1) This scene, which took place at Loches, happened in the presence of Christophe de Harcourt, Gérard Machet and Robert Le Maçon. See the deposition of Dunois, vol. III, p. 11.\n(2) These words are taken from the rehabilitation trial; but the author of the chronicle refrained from writing fille de Dieu (daughter of God), which is the true reading.\nwill be in thy aid; go. And when this voice comes to me, I am so rejoiced it is a marvel. And in saying these words she lifted her eyes towards heaven, showing sign of great exultation.\nThese things thus heard, the King was again well joyful, and thereby concluded that he would believe her and would go to Reims; but nevertheless he would first have certain places upon the Loire taken; and during the time spent in taking them, he would assemble a great power of the princes and lords, men of war and others obedient to him. Wherefore he made his lieutenant general Jean, Duke of Alençon, newly delivered from England, where he had been prisoner since the battle of Verneuil until he came out of it, paying part of his ransom and giving pledges and hostages for the rest, which he discharged shortly after; and to do this he sold part of his land, intending to recover other of it by aiding and succouring the King his sovereign lord, who for this purpose gave him a great number of men-at-arms and artillery, and put the Maid in his company, commanding him expressly that he should act and do wholly by her counsel. And he did so, as one who took much pleasure in seeing her in his company; and so did the men-at-arms, and also those of the people, all holding and reputing her to be sent by Our Lord; and so she was. Wherefore the Duke of Alençon and she and their men-at-arms took leave of the King and took the field, keeping fair order. And they so wrought that in that estate they entered a little time after into Orléans, where they were received with very great joy by all the citizens, and above all the others the Maid, whom they could not have enough of seeing (1).\n(1) The Maid’s second entry into Orléans took place on 9 June, according to the city’s expense accounts.\nAfter the Duke of Alençon, the Maid, the Count of Vendôme, the Bastard of Orléans, the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, La Hire, Messire Florentin d’Illiers, Jamet de Tilloy, and a valiant gentleman already well renowned, called Tudual de Carmoisen (2), called Le Bourgoys, of the nation of Brittany, with several other men of war, had been a little while inside Orléans, they departed thence on Saturday the eleventh day of June, making in all about eight thousand fighting men, both on horse and on foot, of whom some bore guisarmes, axes, crossbows, and others lead mauls. And having a good deal of artillery carried and led, they went to lay the siege before the town of Jargeau, which held the English party; in which were Messire William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, and Messire John and Messire Alexander de la Pole, his brothers, and with them from six to seven hundred English fighting men, furnished with cannon and other artillery, most valiant in war, and they showed it well also in the assaults and skirmishes which were made there during that siege; which was half raised by the terrible words of certain men who said that it should be abandoned and they should go to meet Messire John Fastolf and the other chiefs of the contrary party, coming from Paris and bringing provisions and artillery with a good two thousand English fighting men, meaning to raise the\n(2) Kermoisan. He perished in 1450 at the siege of Cherbourg by a culverin-ball. (Histoire d’Artus de Bretagne.)\nsiege, or at least to victual and give succour to the said town of Jargeau. And in fact several departed, and all the others would have done so had it not been for the Maid and certain lords and captains, who by fair words made them remain and recalled the others: so that the siege was laid again in a moment, and they began to skirmish against those of the town, who fired marvellously with cannon and other shot: with which they slew and wounded several French. And among the others the head was carried off, by a shot of one of their veuglaires, of a gentleman of Anjou who had placed himself about the spot; from which the Duke of Alençon, by the warning of the Maid showing him that he was in peril, had drawn back so suddenly that he was not yet two toises from it. All along that day and the following night the bombards and cannon of the French fired against the town of Jargeau; so that it was much battered; for with three shots of one of the bombards of Orléans, called Bergerie or Bergière (1), they brought down the greatest tower that was there.\n(1) This doubt, which is found expressed not only in the editions but also in the manuscripts, is one more indication of the later redaction of the work.\nWherefore on the morrow, which was Sunday the twelfth day of June, the French men of war put themselves into the ditches with ladders and other things necessary to make assault, and assailed marvellously those within, who defended themselves a great while most virtuously. And in especial there was on the walls one of them who was very great and big, and armed at all points, bearing on his head a bascinet, who gave himself over most fiercely and cast marvellously great iron stones and continually beat down ladders and the men upon them. Which the Duke of Alençon showed to Master Jean the culverineer, so that he might aim his culverin at him. With the shot of which he struck through the breast the Englishman who thus showed himself so boldly uncovered, and threw him down all dead inside the town.\nOn the other side, during that assault, the Maid went down into the ditch with her standard, and to the place where the bitterest resistance was being made, and went so near the wall that an Englishman cast a great iron stone upon her head and struck her, so that he constrained her to sit down on the ground. And although the stone was of very hard flint, nevertheless it flew in pieces without doing much harm to the Maid; who rose up again straightway, showing virtuous courage, and then exhorted her people the more, saying that they should have no doubt, for the English had no longer any power to defend themselves against them, in which she told them the truth; for straightway after these words the French, being all assured of it, began to mount against the walls with such great boldness that they entered into the town and took it by assault.\nWhen the Earl of Suffolk and his two brothers and several other lords of England saw that they could no longer defend the walls, they withdrew onto the bridge; but in withdrawing Messire Alexander, brother of the said Earl, was slain, and the said bridge was also soon after given up by the English, who knew it to be too weak to hold, and saw themselves surprised. Several valiant men of war pursued the English; and in especial there was a French gentleman named Guillaume Regnault, much desiring to take the Earl of Suffolk, who asked him whether he was a gentleman: to whom he answered yes; and again, whether he was a knight; and he said no. And then the said Earl made him a knight and yielded himself to him. And likewise Messire John de la Pole, his brother, and several other lords and men of war were there taken and made prisoners, of whom some were brought that evening by water and by night into Orléans, for fear lest they should be slain; for several others were slain on the way, because of a quarrel which arose among certain French over the share of the prisoners. And as for the town of Jargeau, and even the church whither a quantity of goods had been withdrawn, all was pillaged.\nThat same night the Duke of Alençon and the Maid also returned with several lords and men-at-arms into the city of Orléans, where they were received with very great joy. And from there they made known to the King the taking of Jargeau, and how the assault had lasted a good four hours, during which many fair feats of arms were done. And there were from four to five hundred English slain, besides the prisoners, who were of great renown, both in nobility and in deeds of war.\nThe Duke of Alençon and the Maid, sojourning a little while after that taking inside Orléans, where there were already from six to seven thousand fighting men, were joined there to strengthen the army by several lords, knights, squires, captains and valiant men-at-arms; and among the others, the lord of Laval and the lord of Lohéac, his brother; the lord of Chauvigny of Berry, the lord of La Tour of Auvergne, the Vidame of Chartres.\nAnd about those days the King also came to Sully-sur-Loire. And in truth his army grew much, for from day to day there arrived people from all parts of the kingdom, obedient to him.\nAnd then the Duke of Alençon, as lieutenant general of the King’s army, accompanied by the Maid, by Messire Louis de Bourbon, Count of Vendôme, and other lords, captains and men-at-arms in great number, both on foot and on horse, departed from Orléans with a great quantity of provisions, waggons and artillery, on Wednesday the fifteenth day of the said month of June, to go lay the siege before Beaugency, and on their way to assail the bridge of Meung-sur-Loire, although the English had fortified it and strongly furnished it with valiant men, who thought to defend it well. But notwithstanding their defence, it was taken by full assault, without much delay.\nFrom there, keeping their order, they departed on the morrow early in the morning, and so wrought that they arrived before the town of Beaugency and entered into it, because the English had abandoned it and had withdrawn into the castle and onto the bridge, which they had fortified against them; although they did not lodge wholly at their ease, for certain of the English had secretly ambushed themselves inside certain houses and ruins of the town, whence they sallied suddenly upon the French as they were lodging, and delivered them a very strong skirmish. During which there were several slain and wounded on one side and the other; notwithstanding that in the end the English were constrained to withdraw onto the bridge and into the castle, which the French besieged on the side towards Beauce, and set bombards and cannon.\nTo that siege came Arthur, Count of Richemont, Constable of France, and brother of the Duke of Brittany, with whom was Jacques de Dinan, lord of Beaumanoir, brother of the lord of Châteaubriant. And there that Constable prayed the Maid, and the other lords also did for love of him, that she would make his peace with the King, and she granted it him, on condition that he should swear before her and the lords that he would ever loyally serve the King. And the Maid further wished that the Duke of Alençon and the other great lords should bind themselves and give their words: which they did; and by this means the Constable remained in the siege with the other lords. Who concluded that they would put part of their people towards Sologne, so that the English should be besieged on every side; but the Bailiff of Évreux, chief of the besieged, had a parley for a treaty requested of the Maid, which was granted him. At the end of which, which was about midnight of the night of that day, it was granted that the English, surrendering the castle and the bridge, might go away on the morrow and take their horses and harness, with certain of their movable goods, of which the value of each should not amount to more than a mark of silver; provided also that they swore they would not arm themselves until ten days were past. And on these conditions they departed on the said morrow, which was the eighteenth day of June, and put themselves inside Meung, and the French entered into the castle and reinforced it with men to guard it.\nOn the other side, on the same night that the composition to surrender the castle and the bridge of Beaugency was being made, the lords of Talbot and of Scales and Messire John Fastolf came, who, knowing of the taking of the town of Jargeau, had left at Étampes the provisions and artillery which they were bringing from Paris to succour it, and had come in great haste, meaning with the others to succour Beaugency, and thinking to make the siege abandoned; but they could not enter it, although they were four thousand fighting men, for they found the French in such order that they abandoned their enterprise. And they returned to the bridge of Meung, and assailed it most bitterly; but they were fain to leave it all and enter into the town, because of the vanguard of the French, which came most hastily after the taking of Beaugency, that day in the morning, and meant to fall upon them. Wherefore that same day they wholly abandoned the said town of Meung, and took to the road in the fields in fair order, meaning to go to Janville. And then, when the Duke of Alençon and the other French lords, who were coming after their vanguard, knew it, they hastened as much as they could with their army, ever keeping fair order, so that the English had no leisure to go as far as Janville, [but halted near a] village in Beauce named Patay (1).\n(1) I supply the words between brackets to fill a lacuna which is marked by a blank in the Saint-Victor manuscript.\nAnd because the Maid and several lords did not wish that the great battle should be taken from its pace, they chose La Hire, Poton, Jamet de Tilloy, Messire Ambroise de Loré, Thibault de Termes and other valiant men-at-arms on horseback, both of the people of the lord of Beaumanoir and others who put themselves in their company, and gave them charge to go ride and skirmish before the English, to hold them and keep them from withdrawing into a strong place. Which they did, and more besides, for they fell upon them with such boldness, although they were only from fourteen to fifteen hundred fighting men, that they put them to disarray and rout, notwithstanding that they were more than four thousand fighting men. Of whom there remained dead on the place about two thousand two hundred, both English and false French, and the others took to flight, to save themselves, towards Janville, where the people of the town shut their gates against them: wherefore they had to flee elsewhere at hazard. And thereby several of them were afterwards slain and taken, especially because the great battle had joined, upon the rout, with the first riders.\nOn that day the French gained much, for the lord of Talbot, the lord of Scales, Messire Thomas Rameston and another captain, called Hungerford, were taken there with several other lords and valiant men of England. And on the other side those of Janville did not lose either, to several of whom many of the English had given in keeping the greatest part of their money when they passed through, thinking to go succour Beaugency.\nThat same day those of Janville surrendered to the King and his people; and so did a gentleman, lieutenant of the captain, who put the French inside the great tower, to whom he swore to be good and loyal from thenceforth towards the King.\nAt the renown of that rout, from which several escaped by flight, and among others Messire John Fastolf, who saved himself inside Corbeil, the people of the English garrisons in the country of Beauce, such as Montpipeau, Saint-Sigismond and other strong and fortified places, were so terrified that they set fire to them and fled hastily. And contrariwise the hearts of the French grew, who assembled from every side at Orléans, thinking that the King was to come there to order the journey of his consecration: which he did not; at which those of the city, who had had it draped and adorned, were ill content, not considering the King’s affairs, who to conclude his estate was keeping himself at Sully-sur-Loire.\nAnd for this the Duke of Alençon went thither, and all the lords and men of war who had been at the day of Patay and had thence withdrawn to Orléans; and in especial the Maid, who spoke to him of the Constable, showing him the good will he showed to have towards him, and the noble lords and valiant men of war of whom he was bringing him a good fifteen hundred fighting men; she prayed him to pardon him his ill will. Which the King did at her request, although, for love of the lord of La Trémoille, who had the greatest authority about him, he would not suffer him to be with him on the journey of his consecration; at which the Maid was very displeased, and so were several great lords, captains and other men of council, knowing that he was sending away many good men and valiant men. But nevertheless they dared not speak of it, because they saw that the King did wholly and entirely what it pleased the said lord of La Trémoille, to please whom he would not suffer the Constable to come to him. Wherefore he thought to employ elsewhere his men of war, who were much desirous to follow the wars, and wished to go besiege Marchesnoir, which is between Blois and Orléans. But when the English and Burgundians who were there in garrison were warned of it, they sent certain of them by safe-conduct to my lord the Duke of Alençon, who treated for the King with them, and gave them space of ten days to carry off their goods, and so wrought that they promised to be good and loyal French and to put the place into the King’s hand; for which they gave hostages, for greater surety. And to do this, and on that condition, the King was to pardon them all offences. After which treaty the Duke of Alençon sent word to the Constable that he should proceed no further, and neither did he; but the traitors perjured themselves, for when they learned that the Constable, for fear of whom they had made that treaty, was departing, they so wrought, during the term of ten days, that they took by cunning certain of the people of the Duke of Alençon and led them prisoners inside their place of Marchesnoir, so that they might have back their hostages; and for this they did not surrender it, but held it as before.\nOn the Sunday after the feast of Saint John the Baptist (1),\n(1) This was 26 June.\nthat same year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, Bonny was surrendered to Messire Louis de Culant, Admiral of France, who had gone to besiege it with a great company by the King’s ordinance. Who had sent to fetch Queen Mary, his wife, daughter of the late Louis, King of Sicily, second of that name, because several were of the opinion that he should bring her to be crowned with him at Reims. And a few days after she was brought to him at Gien, where he held several councils to conclude the manner most fitting for him to keep on the journey of his consecration. At the end of which councils it was concluded that the King should send the Queen back to Bourges, and that without besieging Cosne and La Charité-sur-Loire, which certain advised to take by force before his departure, he should take to the road: which was done, for the Queen being led back to Bourges, the King took his way towards Reims.\nAnd he departed from Gien on Saint Peter’s day, in that month of June, accompanied by the Maid, by the Duke of Alençon, by the Count of Clermont, afterwards Duke of Bourbon, by the Count of Vendôme, by the lord of Laval, by the Count of Boulogne, by the Bastard of Orléans, by the lord of Lohéac, by the Marshals of Sainte-Sévère and of Rais, by the Admiral of Culant and by the lords of Thouars, of Sully, of Chaumont-sur-Loire, of Prie, of Chauvigny and of La Trémoille, by La Hire, by Poton, by Jamet de Tilloy, [Tudual de Carmoisen] called Bourgois (1), and by several other lords, nobles, valiant captains and gentlemen, with about twelve thousand fighting men, all worthy, bold,\n(1) I supply, conformably to the enumeration of p. 170, the name of the lord of Kermoisan, which is missing in the editions and in the manuscripts.\nvaliant and of great courage, as they had shown before and then, and also afterwards in their deeds and valiant enterprises, and in especial in this journey. During which they passed going and repassed returning, frankly and without fearing anything, through the countries and districts of which the towns, castles, bridges and passages were furnished with English and Burgundians.\nAnd in especial they came, keeping their way, to present the siege and assault before the city of Auxerre. And in fact it seemed to the Maid and to several lords and captains that it was easy to take by assault, and they wished to essay it. But those of the city secretly gave two thousand écus to the lord of La Trémoille, so that he might keep them from being assailed; and they also gave the King’s host many provisions, which were most necessary. And thereby they made no obedience: at which the greater part of the army was much discontent, and especially the Maid; although for all that nothing else was done. But nevertheless the King remained there about three days, and then departed with all his host and went towards Saint-Florentin, which was surrendered to him peaceably.\nAnd from there he drew as far as Troyes, where he had those of the city summoned to make him obedience: whereat they would do nothing, but shut their gates and prepared to defend themselves if they were to be assailed. And moreover there sallied out from five to six hundred English and Burgundians who were there in garrison, and came to skirmish against the King’s army as it arrived and lodged round that city. But they were made to re-enter most hastily and in great rout by certain valiant captains and men-at-arms of the King’s army, which kept itself there as it were in siege for the space of five days. During which those of the host suffered several hardships of hunger; for there were from five to six thousand of them who were near eight days without eating bread. And in fact many would have died of famine, had it not been for the abundance of beans which had been sown that year by the admonishment of a Cordelier named Brother Richard, who in the Advents of Christmas and before had preached through the country of France in divers places and said among other things in his sermon: Sow, good people, sow plenty of beans; for he who is to come will come right soon. And so it was that for that famine, and also because the Trojans would not make obedience, the King was counselled by certain to turn back without passing further, considering that the city of Châlons and even that of Reims were also in the hands of the adversaries.\nBut as that thing was being treated in the council before the King, and as by the mouth of Master Regnault de Chartres, then Archbishop of Reims, Chancellor of France, several lords and captains had already been required to say their opinion on it; and after most of them had shown that, because of the strength of the city of Troyes and the want of artillery and of money, it was better to turn back: Master Robert Le Maçon, who was a man of great counsel and had aforetime been Chancellor, said in effect, being required to declare his opinion, that they ought to speak of it expressly to the Maid, by whose counsel the said journey had been undertaken, and that perchance she would find a good means. Which came to pass, for as they were thus concluding, she knocked hard at the door of the council, and after she had entered, the Chancellor set forth to her in brief words the causes which had moved the King to undertake the said journey, and those which moved him to abandon it. Whereupon she answered most wisely, and said that if the King would remain, the city of Troyes would be put into his obedience within two or three days, either for love or by force. And the Chancellor said to her: Joan, whoever could be certain within six days, we should wait well enough. To which she answered again that she had no doubt of it: wherefore it was concluded to wait (1).\n(1) Cf. the account of Jean Chartier, above, p. 73.\nAnd then she mounted on a charger, holding a staff in her hand, and had all things made ready in great diligence to assail and to have cannon fired: at which the Bishop and several of the city marvelled much. Who, considering that the King was their rightful and sovereign lord, and also the deeds and enterprises of the Maid, and the report that ran of her that she was sent of God: required to parley. And the Bishop issued out with certain good people, both of war and citizens, who made composition that the men of war should go away, they and their goods, and those of the city should have general abolition. And the King willed that the churchmen who had benefices under Henry, King of England, should keep them firm; but only that they should take new titles from him (2). And under those conditions, on the\n(2) See the articles of the treaty printed in the Recueil des Ordonnances, vol. XIII, p. 112.\nmorrow in the morning, the King and the greater part of the lords and captains, most well equipped, entered into the said city of Troyes. In which there were before several prisoners, whom those of the garrison were taking away by the treaty; but the Maid would not suffer it, when it came to departing, and for this the King redeemed them and paid their masters somewhat.\nThat same day the King put captains and other officers on his behalf in that city. And the following day all those of his army passed through it, who the evening before had remained in the fields under the guard of Messire Ambroise de Loré.\nAfter that the King departed with all his host at the admonishment of the Maid, who pressed him much, and so wrought that he came to Châlons and entered there in very great joy: for the Bishop and the burgesses came to meet him and made him full obedience. Wherefore he put captains and officers there on his behalf, and departed and went towards Reims. And because that city was not in his obedience, he lodged four leagues off, at a castle named Septsaulx (1), which belongs to the Archbishop. At which those of Reims were much moved, and in especial the lords of Châtillon-sur-Marne and of Saveuse, who were there in garrison on behalf of the English and Burgundians, who had the citizens assembled and told them that if they would hold out for six weeks, they would bring them succour. And after, with their own consent, they departed. Who, being not yet far gone,\n(1) It is from Septsaulx, 18 July, that the abolition granted by Charles VII to the inhabitants of Reims is dated.\nthe burgesses held public counsel, and by the will of all the inhabitants sent to the King, who gave them full abolition, and they delivered to him the keys of the city. Into which that day in the morning, which was Saturday, the Archbishop entered and made his entry, for since he had been made Archbishop he had not entered it. And after dinner, towards evening, the King entered it with his army entire; in which was Joan the Maid, who was much gazed upon by all. And thither came also René, Duke of Bar and of Lorraine, brother of the King of Sicily, and also the lord of Commercy, well accompanied by men of war, offering themselves to his service.\nOn the morrow, which was Sunday the [seven]teenth day of July, that same year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine (1), the lords of Sainte-Sévère and of Rais, Marshals of France, the lord of Graville and the lord of Culant, Admiral of France, were sent by the King, according to the ancient custom, to Saint-Remi to fetch the holy ampulla. Who swore the accustomed oaths (that is, they promised to conduct it and reconduct it surely), and the Abbot bore it most devoutly and solemnly, being vested in pontifical habit, having upon him a rich cope of gold, as far as before the church of Saint-Denis. And thither came the Archbishop, likewise vested\n(1) The author of the Chronique de la Pucelle interpolates this: It was ordained that the King would take and receive his worthy consecration; and all night great diligence was made that all should be ready in the morning. And it was a most marvellous case; for there were found in the said city all the necessary things which are great, although those which are kept at Saint-Denis in France could not be had.\nand accompanied by the canons, and took it and bore it into the church, and set it upon the high altar of Our Lady of Reims. Before which came the King, clad as belonged; to whom the Archbishop had the accustomed oaths made which are made to the true kings of France wishing to receive the holy unction. And straightway after, the King was made a knight by the Duke of Alençon, and that done, the Archbishop consecrated and crowned him, keeping the ceremonies and pronouncing the orisons, blessings and exhortations contained in the pontifical made proper to that holy unction; which accomplished, the King, by great excellence, made the lord of Laval a count. And on the other side the Duke of Alençon and the Count of Clermont there made several knights. And after the service the holy ampulla was borne back and conducted as it had been brought.\nWhen the Maid saw that the King was consecrated and crowned, she knelt before him in the presence of all the lords and, embracing him by the legs, said to him, weeping with hot tears (1): Gentle King, now is executed the pleasure of God, who willed that I should raise the siege of Orléans and bring you into this city of Reims to receive your holy unction, showing that you are true King, and he to whom the kingdom of France must belong. And she moved to great pity all those who beheld her.\n(1) Variant of the Chronique de la Pucelle: There was present Joan the Maid, holding her standard in her hand; who in effect was, after God, the cause of the said unction and coronation and of all this assembly. And whoever had seen the said Maid embrace the King on her knees by the legs and kiss his foot, weeping, would have had pity of it. She even moved several to weep in saying, etc.\nThat day and the two days following the King sojourned at Reims, and after went (1) to Saint-Marcoul, by whose merit the kings of France obtained the divine grace by which they cure the scrofula; and they must also go there forthwith after their holy unction: which the King did and accomplished. And having come there, he made his orisons and offerings; from which place he came to a little walled town named Vailly, in the valley, four leagues from Soissons. The burgesses of which city of Soissons brought him thither the keys, and so did those of the city of Laon, to whom he had sent his heralds to require them to open; but on departing from Vailly he went into Soissons, where he was received with very great joy by all those of the city, who much loved him and desired his coming. And there came to him the most joyful news that Château-Thierry, Crécy-en-Brie, Provins, Coulommiers and several other towns had returned into his obedience.\n(1) The Chronique de la Pucelle expands this passage thus: To a priory which belongs to the church of Saint-Remy, named Corbeny, situated about six leagues from Reims, where is the body of a glorious saint who was of the blood of France, named Saint Marcoul.\nWhen the King had sojourned some time in that city of Soissons, he departed and went to Château-Thierry, and thence to Provins, where he kept himself three or four days, and ordained his army in battle, and took the field towards a place called La Motte de Nangis (2), awaiting the Duke of Bedford, who had issued from Paris and, passing by Corbeil, arrived at Melun, whence\n(2) La Motte de Nangis in the Chronique de la Pucelle. It is the correct reading.\nhe had set out with more than ten thousand fighting men, saying that he would fight him. But he changed purpose and returned to Paris, although he had well as many men as the King. Who had certain people in his company who so desired to return beyond the river Loire that, to please them, he had concluded to do it. But those of Bray, where he thought to cross the Seine, and who had promised to deliver him the entry, put into their town a great company of English and Burgundians on the evening before he was to pass: at which the Dukes of Bar and of Alençon and the Counts of Vendôme and of Laval, with the other captains and valiant men of war, were ill content, against whose will the King thus wished to turn back. And their opinion was that he should set about reconquering more and more, seeing that the power of the English had not dared fight him. Wherefore they made him return to Château-Thierry (1), and thence to Crépy-en-Valois, from which place he came to lodge his host in the fields quite near Dammartin-en-Goële. To meet whom the French people ran from every side, crying Noël and singing Te Deum laudamus and devout anthems, versicles and responses, and making marvellous feast, gazing above all at the Maid. Who, considering their bearing, wept most hard, and drawing aside, said to the Count of Dunois: In God’s name, here is good and devout people, and I would that I might die in this country when I must\n(1) The Chronique de la Pucelle adds: on the Vigil of Our Lady of mid-August.\ndie. And the said Count then asked her: Joan, do you know when you will die, and in what place? To which she answered no, and that it was in the will of God; saying moreover to him and to the other lords: I have accomplished what Messire had commanded me, which was to raise the siege of Orléans and have the King consecrated. I would that it might please Him to have me led back to my father and my mother, so that I might keep my sheep and my cattle, and do what I used to do (1). And in rendering thanks to Our Lord she lifted her eyes most humbly towards heaven. By which words, which they saw to be true, and by her manner, they all firmly believed that she was a holy maid and sent of God; and so she was.\n(1) All this conversation is taken from the deposition of the Count of Dunois (see vol. III, p. 14); but the words concerning the accomplishment of the mission have been added.\nWhen the Duke of Bedford, uncle and lieutenant general of King Henry, and on his behalf governing the cities and towns and places holding his party in this kingdom, learned that the King was in the fields about Dammartin, he departed from Paris with a very great number of men of war, and came to lodge towards Mitry, near the said Dammartin, and put himself in his army, which he ordained by battles in fair order and a most advantageous place. Which was made known to the King; who had his people ordained likewise, in intention to await and receive the adversaries in battle, or to go assail them if they put themselves or were found in like place. But the English showed no semblance of wishing to assail them, for on the contrary they had put themselves in a most advantageous and fortified place: as was seen, perceived and reported by La Hire and certain other valiant captains and men of war, who that day, to see their bearing and whether it was lawful to assail them, went and made great skirmish against them in several places and divers times, from morning until night; although there was then as it were no damage on one side or the other. After which skirmishes the Duke of Bedford returned with his army into Paris, and the King drew towards Crépy-en-Valois, whence he sent his heralds to summon and require those of Compiègne to put themselves in his obedience; who answered that they would do it most willingly.\nAbout those days certain French lords went inside the city of Beauvais, of which the bishop and count was Master Pierre Cauchon, much inclined to the English party, although he was a native of the parts of Reims. But notwithstanding, those of the city put themselves in the full obedience of the King as soon as they saw his heralds bearing his arms, and all cried in very great joy: Long live Charles, King of France! they sang Te Deum, and made great rejoicings. And that done, they gave leave to all those who would not remain in that obedience, and let them go away peaceably and carry off their goods.\nA few days after, the Duke of Bedford sallied out of Paris again to come to Senlis with all his former army, increased by four thousand English whom his uncle, the Cardinal of England, had brought from beyond the sea, under colour of leading them against the Bohemian heretics; but, falsifying his promises, he employed them against the French, most true Christians, although they had been paid with the Church’s money (1). Which came to the King’s knowledge; who had departed, leading his host to go to Compiègne, and had lodged at a village named Baron (2), two leagues from the said city of Senlis, which held the English and Burgundian party. And for this he ordained that Messire Ambroise de Loré, afterwards Provost of Paris, and the lord of Xaintrailles should go, well mounted, towards Paris and elsewhere where it should seem good to them, and observe truly the doings of the Duke of Bedford and of his host. Who, having with them certain of their best-mounted men, departed at once and so wrought that they drew so near the host of the English that they saw and perceived on the highway between Paris and Senlis great clouds of dust, whereby they knew that they were coming. And on this occasion they sent one of their men hastily to the King, signifying to him the coming of the adversaries; and notwithstanding this they waited so long that they perceived and knew truly all the army, and what it might amount to, and how\n(1) See in Rymer, vol. X, p. 424, the articles of the agreement concluded between the Council of England and the Cardinal, dated 1 July 1429, to convert the army of the faith into a simple levy destined to reinforce the armies in France.\n(2) This itinerary is not comprehensible, for to go from Crépy to Baron is to turn one’s back on Compiègne. The King, in going to Baron, was turning aside to intercept the passage of the English army, intending to return later upon Compiègne.\nit was drawing towards the said city of Senlis: which by another of their men they sent again to tell the King hastily. Who had all his battles ordained and came with most great diligence with all his army into the fields; and they drew straight to Senlis; so they took the way between the river which passes at Baron (1), and a mount called Montépilloy.\n(1) This is the Nonette.\nOn the other side the Duke of Bedford arrived at the hour of vespers with all his host near Senlis, and set about crossing a little river which comes from that city to Baron; although the passage by which he thus crossed his army was so narrow that only two horses could pass abreast. Wherefore, as soon as the lords of Loré and of Xaintrailles saw them begin to cross that dangerous passage, they returned as hastily as they could to the King, and certified to him what they had seen. At which he was much joyful, and had his battles ordained and drawn straight to meet the English, thinking to fight them at that passage; but the army of the French could not come there so soon but that the greater part of the English had already crossed. And so the two armies drew so near that they sighted one another, and they were but a little league one from the other. From each of which, although it was already towards sunset, several valiant men and men of war departed, and skirmished one against another divers times; in which most fair feats of arms were done. The night making them cease, the\nEnglish lodged along the bank of that river, and the French were lodged towards Montépilloy.\nOn the morrow in the morning the King had his army most diligently ordained by battles, and made it into three parts, of the first of which (that is, of the vanguard), and where there were most men, he gave the charge to the Duke of Alençon and the Count of Vendôme. Of the second, which was to be in the middle, the conductor was René, then Duke of Bar and of Lorraine, and afterwards King of Sicily and Duke of Anjou. In the third, in which there were several lords and most valiant men-at-arms, and which was as it were the rear-guard, [the King] himself wished to be; and he had with him the Duke of Bourbon and the lord of La Trémoille, with a great number of knights and squires. For the wings of which three battles the Marshals of Sainte-Sévère and of Rais were ordained and had the charge, to whom were given several knights, squires and men of war of divers estates. And over and above all these ordnances, there was reserved to make skirmishes, reinforce and succour the other battles if need were, another battle of most valiant lords, captains and other men of war, whose conductors, having the charge, were the Maid, the Bastard of Orléans, the Count of Albret and La Hire. And as for all the archers, the conduct belonged to the lord of Graville and a knight of Limousin called Messire John Foucault.\nWhich ordnances thus made, the King rode rather far from these three battles several times before the army of the English, of which the Duke of Bedford was chief, who had in his company the Bastard of Saint-Pol and many Picards and Burgundians, with several other knights, squires and men of war, being in ordered battle near a village (1), and having at their back a great pond. Who notwithstanding had not ceased all night, and were still busy fortifying themselves in great diligence, both with stakes and ropes and with ditches. Wherefore when the King, who by the counsel of all the lords of his blood there present and other lords, knights, squires, captains and most valiant men-at-arms, had taken the conclusion to fight the English and their allies if they put themselves and were found in equal place: was warned by certain valiant captains and men knowing in arms of the manner they kept; how they were lodged in a place strong of itself and had fortified and were fortifying themselves with ditches and stakes: he saw well that there was no appearance of being able to assail or fight them without too great damage to his men. But notwithstanding this he had his battles drawn within two crossbow shots of the English, and had them signified that he would fight them if they would sally from their park. Which they would not do, although there were very great and marvellous skirmishes, for several valiant French often went both on foot and on horse as far as the fortification of the English to move them to sally; so that a great number of them sallied at divers times and drove back the French. Who, reinforced and succoured by certain of their own, again pursued\n(1) Notre-Dame de la Victoire.\nthe English, who likewise heartened and helped by others of their people sallying anew, charged again upon the French and made them recoil, until fresh men of their great battles came to join with them, by whose force and valiance they regained ground against their enemies. And so they passed that day without ceasing until near sunset.\nIn these sallies and oft-renewed skirmishes the lord of La Trémoille wished to go; who, being mounted on a most handsome charger and richly arrayed, and holding his lance in his fist, struck his horse with the spurs, which by chance fell to the ground and cast him into the midst of the enemies: by whom he was in great danger of being slain or taken; but to succour and remount him great diligence was made. Wherefore he got himself remounted with very great difficulty, for at that hour the skirmish was very strong; and so it was that about sunset several French gathered together and came most valiantly to present themselves right against the fortification of the English, and there fought them and skirmished hand to hand a great space of time, until several of them, both on foot and on horse, sallied out of their park in great strength and made them draw back. Against whom there sallied likewise from the King’s battles a great number of most valiant lords, knights, squires and other men-at-arms, and mingled themselves among their people against the English. And on that occasion the heaviest and most dangerous skirmish of the whole day was then made; and they mingled so closely that the dust rose so thick about them that one could not know nor discern which were French or English; and so it was that, although the two contrary battles were very near one another, they could not see one another. That last skirmish lasted until close night, which parted the French from the English, of whom on one side and the other several were that day slain, wounded and taken prisoners. The English withdrew and lodged all together inside their park and fortification, as they had done the night before; and the French, all assembled, also went to lodge half a league from them, near Montépilloy, as they had done the evening before. And when the morrow’s morning came, the English took to the road and went to Paris; and the King and his army returned towards Crépy-en-Valois.\nThe following night the King lodged inside Crépy, and on the morrow went to Compiègne, where he was received grandly and honourably by those of the town, who not long before had put themselves in his obedience: wherefore he put officers there on his behalf. In especial he made captain a valiant gentleman of the country of Picardy called Guillaume de Flavy, who was of a most noble house (1).\n(1) He had warred in the Argonne in the preceding years. It was the burgesses of Compiègne who asked for him as captain, when Charles VII had already provided La Trémoille with that office. He was nonetheless accepted on 18 August 1429, the very day of the King’s entry (manuscript notes on Compiègne after the archives of Saint-Corneille, in the Bibliothèque du Roi, at the Louvre).\nTo the said town of Compiègne those of the cities of Beauvais and of Senlis sent, and put themselves in the obedience of the King; who departed from Compiègne towards the end of the month of August and went into Senlis. And when the Duke of Bedford knew it, he departed from Paris with a very great army of men of war; and doubting lest the King should mean to go reconquer Normandy, he went thither and put his people into several places he held in that country in divers places holding the English party, and furnished them with provisions and artillery; leaving at Paris Messire Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne, calling himself Chancellor of France for King Henry, and with him Messire John Ratcliff (1), an English knight, and Messire Simon Morhier; who had in their company two thousand fighting men for the guard and defence of Paris.\n(1) Hathelet in the Chronique de la Pucelle. See the reading of Jean Chartier, above, p. 88.\nOn the other side, the King having ordained officers and captains on his behalf at Senlis, departed thence about the last day of that month and came to the town of Saint-Denis, of which full obedience was made to him. And he was there two days, during which several raids and skirmishes were made by the French there present against the English of Paris; in which several fair feats of arms were done on one side and the other.\nAnd on the third day the Maid departed, and the Duke of Alençon, the Duke of Bourbon, the Count of Vendôme, the Count of Laval and the Marshals of Sainte-Sévère and of Rais, La Hire, Poton and several other valiant knights, captains and squires, with a great number of valiant men of war, and came to lodge in a village called La Chapelle, which is on the road and as it were midway between Paris and Saint-Denis.\nAnd on the following morrow they came to put themselves in fair order in the Marché-aux-Pourceaux, before the Porte Saint-Honoré, and had several cannon placed, with which they had shot fired in several places and often into Paris. Where the men of war who were there in garrison were in arms, and also the people, and had several standards of divers colours carried, wheeling, going and returning around the walls within; among which there was one very great with a red cross. Certain French lords wished to draw nearer, and in especial the lord of Saint-Vallier, a Dauphinois, who so wrought that he and his men went and set fire to the boulevard and to the barrier of the said Porte Saint-Honoré. And although there were several English to defend them, nevertheless they had to withdraw by that gate and re-enter Paris; whereby the French took and gained by force the barrier and the boulevard. And because they thought that the English might sally by the Porte Saint-Denis to fall upon the French who were before the Porte Saint-Honoré, the Dukes of Alençon and of Bourbon ambushed themselves behind the mount which is near and against the said Marché des Pourceaux (and nearer they could not put themselves, for fear of the cannon, veuglaires and culverins which those of Paris kept firing without ceasing); but they lost their labour, for those of Paris dared not sally out of the city. Wherefore the Maid, seeing their cowardly bearing, resolved to assail them right to the foot of their wall.\nAnd in fact she came to present herself before them to do this, having with her several lords and a great company of men-at-arms and several lords, among whom was the Marshal of Rais, who all in fair order put themselves on foot and descended into the first ditch. In which they being, she mounted the ridge and descended thence into the second ditch, and put her lance into it in divers places, feeling and essaying what depth of water and mud there was. In doing which she was a great space, and so long that a crossbowman of Paris pierced her thigh with a bolt; but notwithstanding this she would not depart thence, and made most great diligence to have faggots and wood brought and thrown into the said ditch to fill it, so that she and the men of war might pass as far as the walls: which did not then seem possible, because the water there was too deep, and she had not a great enough multitude of men to do it, and also because night was near. Notwithstanding which she still kept herself upon that ditch, and would not return or withdraw in any manner, for prayer and request which several made her, who at divers times went to require her to depart thence, showing her that she ought to leave that enterprise: until the Duke of Alençon sent to fetch her and had her withdraw, and all the army, into the said village of La Villette (1), where they lodged that night, as they had done the evening before.\n(1) Read La Chapelle.\nAnd on the morrow they all returned to Saint-Denis; in which town the Maid was much praised for the good will and bold courage she had shown, in wishing to assail so strong a city and so well furnished with men and artillery as was the city of Paris. And certainly some said afterwards that, if things had been well conducted, there was very great appearance that she would have had her will of it; for several notable persons then being inside Paris, who knew King Charles, the seventh of that name, to be their sovereign lord and the true heir of the kingdom of France, and how with great wrong and by cruel vengeance they had been separated and taken from his lordship and obedience and put into the hand of King Henry of England, aforetime dead, and since continuing under King Henry his son, then usurping a great part of the kingdom: would have put themselves, as they afterwards did six years after, and been brought back into the obedience of their sovereign lord, and would have made him full opening of his principal city of Paris. Which at that time they did not do, for the causes alleged above. Wherefore the King, who then saw that they showed no semblance of wishing to yield to him, held several councils inside the town of Saint-Denis; at the end of which it was advised that, seeing the manner of those of the city of Paris, the great power of the English and Burgundians who were inside it, and also that he had not money enough, nor could have it there, to maintain so great an army, he would make the Duke of Bourbon his lieutenant general. Which he did, and ordained him to remain in the towns, cities and places obedient to him on this side of the river Loire; and to put great garrisons in them, and guard and defend them, he gave him a great number of men-at-arms and plenty of artillery.\nAnd beyond that ordnance, he willed and commanded that the Count of Vendôme and the Admiral of Culant should keep themselves at Saint-Denis, to whom he also gave several men-at-arms, so that they might keep the garrison. And that done, he departed on the twelfth day of September, and went to Lagny-sur-Marne, whence he departed on the morrow, and there ordained captain Messire Ambroise de Loré, to whom he gave Messire John Foucault, with several men of war. And he drew thence on the morrow to Provins, and thence to Bray-sur-Seine, which the inhabitants brought back to his obedience. And then he went to pass before Sens, which made him no opening; but he had to ford, a little below, the river Yonne, and draw to Courtenay, whence he went to Château-Renard and to Montargis, and at last to Gien, where he tarried some days, thinking to have accord with the Duke of Burgundy, who had sent him word by the lord of Chargny that he would get him Paris, and that he would come there in person (1). And on this occasion the King had sent him a safe-conduct, so that he might pass without hindrance through the places and passages obedient to him; and so he did, although, he being arrived at Paris, he kept nothing of what he had promised; but made alliance with the Duke of Bedford against the King, far stronger than before; and notwithstanding this, by virtue of the safe-conduct, he passed surely and frankly through all the countries, towns and passages of the King’s obedience, and returned to his countries of Picardy and of Flanders. And the King, who was truly informed, crossed the river Loire and returned to Bourges, whence he\n(1) Cf. the account of the Herald Berry, above, p. 48.\nhad departed at the request and supplication of the Maid, who had told him beforehand all that befell him of the raising of the siege of Orléans, and of his holy unction, and also of his frank return, as Our Lord had revealed to her.\nIn thanking Whom and praising Him for His grace, end is made by His divine grant to this present and most compendious treatise, entitled Of the Siege of Orléans laid by the English and of the coming and valiant deeds of Joan the Maid, and how she made them depart thence, and had Charles the Seventh consecrated at Reims, by divine grace and force of arms.\nCHRONICLE OF THE MAID. # Here is a work without an author’s name which, if the title given it is to be believed, would be the document par excellence on Joan of Arc. It was published for the first time by Denys Godefroy in the Histoire de Charles VII. The editor, according to his habit, took no care to say where he had found the text, and nobody has known since.\nThis chronicle begins at the accession of Charles VII in 1422, and stops abruptly in the year 1429, at the moment when the King takes the road back to Bourges after the check received before Paris. It is far from having the character of originality attributed to it. Part of what it contains on the Maid is only the slightly modified copy either of Jean Chartier or of the Journal of the Siege paraphrasing Jean Chartier; so that these borrowings alone carry its composition beyond 1467. Other portions of the account are made from the rehabilitation trial. There are recognised in it the most important passages of the depositions of Dunois, of the Duke of Alençon, of Brother Séguin. Nevertheless, divers details belonging properly to the Chronicle of the Maid must have been furnished by witnesses or actors in the events of 1429: the proof is in a passage where a certain question is reported which a notable but unnamed master of requests put to the Maid, and who is not among the witnesses heard at the trial. Elsewhere it is the author himself who puts himself forward as having heard the greatest French captains speak on the matter: a circumstance from which it follows that if this author wrote after the writer of the Journal of the Siege, at least he was not separated from him by a great interval of time, since he could still know some of the captains contemporary with Joan of Arc.\nIndependently of the sources already pointed out, the very substance of the Chronicle of the Maid, that which forms the canvas of the narrative up to the King’s departure for Reims, is taken almost word for word from an unpublished work bearing the title: The Deeds of the Noble French descended from the royal line of the noble King Priam of Troy down to the noble Charles, son of King Charles the Sixth, who was so loved of the nobles and of all others. It is a chronicle which takes things up from the beginning of the world and carries them to the arrival of Charles VII before Troyes in 1429. There is a copy of it among the manuscripts of the Royal Library (no. 10297), which was executed for Duke Charles of Orléans about the time when the narrative ends, that is, in 1429 or 1430. Now our anonymous compiler has copied this work entire, and that with such fidelity that he has sewn into it, but not fused, the different versions of the same facts drawn by him from other sources. Hence the double accounts which will be noticed below, concerning the arrival of Joan of Arc, concerning the siege of Jargeau, etc., etc.\nI have applied to the extracts of the Chronicle of the Maid a division by paragraphs which will bring out before the reader’s eyes each of the borrowings of which it is formed. Those of these paragraphs which belong to the Gestes des Nobles français are marked with an asterisk at the head of the paragraph; I indicate the provenance of the others by references to the sources. In this way the paragraphs bearing no indication are those which belong properly to the compiler. As from the surrender of Troyes the narrative is no more than a copy of the Journal of the Siege, to reproduce that part of the chronicle would have been useless. I have stopped my extracts there, having carried into a note under the Journal of the Siege two or three variants, the only ones which oppose the perfect conformity of the two works.\nOur text will not be found quite in conformity with that of Godefroy: the style had been modernised at the printing by the editor. We have restored it after his own manuscript preserved in the library of the Institut (no. 245).\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine there was a young girl of the marches of Vaucouleurs, a native of a village named Domremy, of the election of Langres, which is all one with the village of Greux, daughter of Jacques Darc and of Isabelle his wife, a simple village girl, who had been accustomed sometimes to keep the beasts; and when she was not keeping them, she learned to sew, or else she span. She was aged from seventeen to eighteen years, well formed of limbs and strong; who one day, without leave of father or mother (not but that she held them in great honour and reverence, and feared and dreaded them; but she dared not reveal herself to them, for fear lest they should hinder her enterprise), came to Vaucouleurs to Messire Robert de Baudricourt, a valiant knight holding the King’s party, who had in his place plenty of valiant men of war, warring upon the Burgundians as well as others holding the party of the King’s enemies; and Joan said to him simply the words which follow: Captain messire, know that God, for some time past, has several times made known to me and commanded that I should go to the gentle Dauphin, who must be and is true King of France; and that he should give me men-at-arms, and that I should raise the siege of Orléans and lead him to be consecrated at Reims. Which things Messire Robert reputed a mockery and derision, imagining that it was a dream or fancy; and it seemed to him she would be good for his men, for them to sport with in sin; and there were some who had a will to essay it; but as soon as they saw her they were cooled and had no will for it (1).\n(1) Journal of the Siege, p. 118.\nShe still pressed the said captain instantly to send her to the King, and had him get her man’s clothing, and horse and companions to conduct her; and among other things she said to him: In God’s name, you take too long to send me; for today the gentle Dauphin has had quite near Orléans a very great loss, and he will be in case to have a greater one still if you do not send me to him right soon. Which captain put the said words into his memory and thought, and learned afterwards that on the said day the Constable of Scotland and the lord of Orval were discomfited by the English. And the said captain was in great thought what he should do with her; so he deliberated and concluded that he would send her; and he had made for her a man’s robe and hood, jerkin, hose for fastening boots and spurs, and gave her a horse and a varlet, then ordained to two gentlemen of the country of Champagne that they should conduct her: one of the gentlemen named Jean de Metz and the other Bertrand de Poulengy; who made great difficulty of it, and not without cause; for they had to pass through the dangers and perils of the enemies. The said Joan well knew the fear and dread they showed; so she said to them: In God’s name, lead me to the gentle Dauphin, and have no doubt, that neither you nor I shall have any hindrance. And it is to be known that she called the King only Dauphin until he was consecrated. And then the said companions concluded that they would lead her to the King, who was then at Chinon (1).\n(1) Amplified version of the Journal of the Siege. See p. 125.\nSo they departed and passed by Auxerre and several other towns, villages and passages of the enemies’ country, and also by the countries obedient to the King, where all pillaging and robbing reigned, without their having or finding any hindrances, and came as far as the town of Chinon. They themselves said that they had passed certain rivers by ford, right deep, and passages renowned perilous, without any inconvenience; at which they marvelled. They being arrived in the said town of Chinon, the King summoned the gentlemen who had come in her company, and had them questioned in his presence; who knew naught to say but what is recited above (1).\n(1) Journal of the Siege, p. 126.\nSo the King and those of his council had great doubt whether the said Joan should speak to the King or not, and whether he should have her come to him; whereon there were divers opinions and imaginings, and it was concluded that she should see the King. The said Joan was brought into his presence, and said that they should not deceive her, and that they should show her him to whom she had to speak. The King was well accompanied, and although several feigned that they were the King, nevertheless she addressed herself to him quite plainly, and told him that God sent her there to aid and succour him; and that he should give her men, and she would raise the siege of Orléans, and would lead him to be consecrated at Reims; and that it was God’s pleasure that his enemies the English should go away into their own country; that the kingdom must remain to him; and that if they did not go, it would go ill with them (2).\n(2) Ibid., p. 127.\nAfter these things thus done and said, she was led back to her lodging, and the King assembled his council to know what he had to do: where was the Archbishop of Reims, his Chancellor, and several prelates, churchmen and laymen. So it was advised that certain doctors in theology should speak to her and examine her, and with them also canonists and legists; and so it was done. She was examined and questioned at divers times and by divers persons: whereat it was a marvellous thing how she bore herself in her case, and what she said was charged upon her on God’s behalf, how she spoke greatly and notably, seeing that in other things she was the simplest shepherdess that ever was seen. Among other things, they marvelled at how she told Messire Robert de Baudricourt, on the day of the battle of Rouvray, otherwise called of the Herrings, what had befallen; and also at the manner of her coming, and how she had arrived without hindrance as far as Chinon (1).\n(1) Journal of the Siege, p. 128.\nOne day she wished to speak to the King in private, and said to him: Gentle Dauphin, why do you not believe me? I tell you that God has pity on you, on your kingdom and on your people; for Saint Louis and Charlemagne are on their knees before Him, making prayer for you; and I will tell you, if it please you, such a thing that it will give you to know that you must believe me. Nevertheless she was content that some few of his people should be there, and in the presence of the Duke of Alençon, of the lord of Trèves, of Christofle de Harcourt, and of Master Gérard Machet, his confessor, whom he made swear, at the request of the said\nJoan, that they would not reveal or say anything of it, she said to the King a thing of great [consequence] (1) which he had done, right secretly: at which he was much astonished, for there was nobody who could know it but God and he. And from thence it was as it were concluded that the King should essay to execute what she said. Nevertheless he advised that it was expedient that she be brought to Poitiers, where the Court of Parlement was, and several notable clerks of theology, both secular and regular; and that he himself would go as far as the said city. And in fact the King went there; and had the said Joan brought and conducted; and when she was about midway on the road, she asked whither they were leading her; and she was answered that it was to Poitiers. And then she said: In God’s name, I know that I shall have much to do there; but Messire will aid me; now let us go, in God’s name (2).\n(1) Lacuna in the manuscript. Godefroy supplies conséquence.\n(2) Journal of the Siege, p. 128.\nShe was then brought into the city of Poitiers, and lodged in the house of one named Master Jean Rabateau, who had married a good woman; into whose keeping she was given. She was still in man’s habit, nor would she wear any other. So several notable doctors in theology were assembled, and others, bachelors, who entered into the hall where she was; and when she saw them, she went and sat at the end of the bench and asked them what they wished. Then it was said by the mouth of one of them that they came to her because it was said she had told the King that God sent her to him; and they showed by fair and gentle reasons that she ought not to be believed. They were there more than two hours, in which each of them spoke in his turn; and she answered them: at which they were greatly astonished, how so simple a shepherdess, a young girl, could thus prudently answer. And among the others there was a Carmelite, doctor in theology, a right sharp man, who told her that Holy Scripture forbade giving faith to such words if no sign were shown; and she answered plainly that she would not tempt God, and that the sign God had ordained for her was to raise the siege from before Orléans and to lead the King to be consecrated at Reims; let them come there, and they would see it: which seemed a hard thing and as it were impossible, seeing the power of the English, and that from Orléans or from Blois as far as Reims there was no French place. There was another doctor in theology, of the order of the Preaching Friars, who said to her: Joan, you ask for men-at-arms, and yet you say that it is God’s pleasure that the English leave the kingdom of France and go into their country. If that is so, there is no need of men-at-arms, for God’s mere pleasure can discomfit them and make them go into their country. To which she answered that she asked for men, though not in great number, who would fight, and God would give the victory. After which answer made by the said Joan, the theologians assembled to see what they would counsel the King; and they concluded without any contradiction, although the things said by the said Joan seemed to them right strange, that the King should trust himself to her and essay to execute what she said (1).\n(1) All this paragraph is translated from the deposition of Brother Séguin. See vol. III, p. 203 and following.\nOn the morrow several notable persons went there, both presidents and counsellors of Parlement and others of divers estates; and before they went, what she said seemed to them impossible to do, saying that it was but ravings and fancies; but there was none of them, when he returned and had heard her, who did not say that she was a creature of God; and some of them, in returning, wept hot tears. Likewise ladies, damsels and burgesses’ wives went there, who spoke to her, and she answered them so sweetly and graciously that she made them weep. Among other things they asked her why she did not take woman’s habit? And she answered them: I well believe it seems strange to you, and not without cause; but, since I must arm myself and serve the gentle Dauphin in arms, I must take the garments fitting and necessary for that; and also when I am among men, being in man’s habit, they will have no carnal concupiscence of me; and it seems to me that in this estate I shall better keep my virginity in thought and in deed.\nAt that time great diligence was being made to assemble provisions, and especially wheat, salted and unsalted meats, to essay to bring them into the city of Orléans. So it was deliberated and concluded that the said Joan should be tried upon the business of the said provisions; and harness, horse and men were ordained for her; and there was given her in especial, to conduct her and be with her, a right valiant and notable squire named Jean d’Aulon, prudent and wise, and for page a right gentle man named Louis de Contes, called Imerguet, with other varlets and servants. During these things she said that she wished to have a sword which was at Sainte-Catherine de Fierbois, where there were on the blade, quite near the hilt, five crosses. She was asked whether she had ever seen it, and she said no; but she knew well that it was there. She sent thither, and there was nobody who knew where it was or what it was. Nevertheless there were several there which had aforetime been given to the church, all of which they had examined, and there was found one all rusted which had the said five crosses. It was brought to her, and she said that it was the one she asked for. So it was furbished and well cleaned, and a fair scabbard was made for her all strewn with fleurs-de-lis (1).\n(1) Amplified version of the Journal of the Siege, q.v., p. 129.\nWhile the said Joan was at Poitiers, several good people went every day to visit her, and she ever spoke good words. Among the others there was a right notable man, master of requests of the King’s household, who said to her: Joan, it is desired that you essay to put the provisions inside Orléans; but it seems it will be a hard thing, seeing the bastilles which are before it, and that the English are strong and puissant. — In God’s name, said she, we shall put them inside Orléans at our ease; and there will not be an Englishman who sallies or makes semblance of hindering it.\nShe was armed and mounted at Poitiers; then she departed; and in riding she bore her harness as handsomely as if she had done nothing else all the time of her life. Whereat several marvelled; but still more did the doctors, war captains and others, at the answers she made, both of divine things and of war. The King had summoned several captains to conduct and be in the company of the said Joan, and among others the Marshal of Rais, Messire Ambroise de Loré and several others, who conducted the said Joan as far as the town of Blois (1).\n(1) Jean Chartier, above, pp. 53 and 54.\n* The news of the said Maid came to Orléans: how she was a girl of holy and religious life, daughter of a poor labourer of the district of the election of Langres near Barrois, and of a poor woman of the same country, who lived by their labour; that she was aged about eighteen to nineteen years, and had been a shepherdess in the time of her childhood; that she knew little of worldly things, spoke little, and the most of her speech was only of God, of His blessed Mother, of the angels, of the saints and saints of Paradise (2); she said that at several times certain revelations had been told her touching the salvation of the King and the preservation of all his lordship, which God did not will to be taken or usurped from him;\n(2) Here is how all this beginning is worded in the Manuscript of the Gestes des nobles Françoys, fol. 137: These things enduring, there was brought to Chinon before the King of France a girl of simple estate, a maid of holy and religious life, of the country of Barrois, who was daughter of a poor labourer of the district and of his wife, who lived by their honest labour, aged about twenty years; and in the time of her childhood she had been a shepherdess and knew little of worldly things. And little did this Maid speak; she only spoke of God and of His blessed Mother, of the angels, of the saints and saints of Paradise. And she said that at several times, etc. It is seen that the author of the Chronicle of the Maid confined himself to putting into indirect form the narrative of his predecessor.\nbut that his enemies should be driven from it; and she was charged to say and signify these things to the King within the term of Saint John’s day, one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine. That the said Maid had been heard by the King and his council, where she opened the things with which she was charged, and treated marvellously of the manners of making the English void the kingdom; and there was no chief of war who knew how to set forth so properly the manners of warring upon her enemies: whereat the King and all his council marvelled; for she was as simple in all other ways as a shepherdess. That for this marvel the King went to Poitiers and led the Maid thither, whom he had questioned by notable clerks of the Parlement and by doctors well renowned in theology; and having heard her, they affirmed that they reputed her inspired of God (1), and approved all her case and her words: wherefore the King held her in greater reverence, and sent thenceforth for men from every side, and had a great quantity of provisions and artillery brought to Blois to succour the city of Orléans. That the Maid requested, to conduct the succour, that it might please the King to give her such men and such number as she should require, which would not be a great number or a great power, and for her body she had a whole harness delivered to her.\n(1) Variant of the Ms. of the Gestes: They affirmed that they reputed her a divine thing, inspired of God.\n* Then the King ordained that all she should require should be given her; then the Maid took leave of the King to go to the city of Orléans; and she being come to Blois with few folk, she sojourned there some days, awaiting greater company. During her sojourn she had a white standard made, on which she had portrayed the representation of the Holy Saviour and of two angels, and had it blessed in the church of Saint-Sauveur of Blois. To which place there came soon after the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, the lords of Rais and of Gaucourt, with a great company of nobles and of commons, who loaded part of the provisions to carry them to Orléans. The said Maid put herself in their company; and she well thought they must pass before the bastides of the siege, towards Beauce; but they took their way through Sologne; and so she was led to Orléans on the penultimate day of April, in the same year.\n* This Maid sojourning at Blois, while awaiting the company which was to lead her to Orléans, wrote and sent by a herald to the chiefs of war who held the siege before Orléans, a letter of which the tenor follows, and is this (1):\n(1) As the letter is also reported in the Ms. of the Gestes, we give it after that earlier text, and consequently less altered.\nJhesus, Maria.\nKing of England, render account to the King of Heaven of His royal blood. Render to the Maid the keys of all the good towns which you have taken by force. She is come on God’s behalf to reclaim the royal blood, and is all ready to make peace, if you will render account; provided that you put down [France] (2), and pay for having held it.\n(2) Supply France, the object of this sentence and of the following. This word is likewise omitted in the version of the Journal of the Siege. See p. 139.\nKing of England, if you do not so, I am chief of war; in whatever place I shall reach your people in France, if they will not obey, I will make them go out, will they or nill they; and if they will obey, I will take them to mercy. Believe that if they will not obey, the Maid comes to slay them. She comes on behalf of the King of Heaven, body for body, to drive you out of France; and the Maid promises and certifies you that she will make so great a hahay there that for a thousand years in France so great a one has not been seen, if you do not render her account. And believe firmly that the King of Heaven will send her more force than you will know how to bring of all assaults against her and her good men-at-arms.\nAs for you, archers, companions of arms gentle and valiant, who are before Orléans, go away into your own country, in God’s name; and if you do not so, beware of the Maid, and remember your hurts. Take not your opinion that you will hold France from the King of Heaven, the Son of Saint Mary; but King Charles will hold it, the true heir, to whom God has given it, who will enter Paris in fair company. If you believe not the tidings of God and of the Maid, in whatever place we find you, we will fall upon you at blows, and we shall see which will have the better right, God or you.\nWilliam de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, John, lord of Talbot, and Thomas, lord of Scales, lieutenants of the Duke of Bedford, calling himself Regent of the kingdom of France for the King of England, make answer whether you will make peace at the city of Orléans. If you do not so, remember your hurts shortly.\nDuke of Bedford, who call yourself Regent of France for the King of England, the Maid prays and requires you that you cause not yourself to be destroyed. If you render her not account, she will make the French do the fairest deed that ever was done in Christendom.\nWritten the Tuesday of the great week.\nTo the Duke of Bedford, who calls himself Regent of the kingdom of France for the King of England (1).\n(1) The edition of the Chronicle prefixes to the address these words: And on the back was written: Hear the tidings of God and of the Maid.\nAfter the said letters were sent by the Maid to the English, it was concluded that they should go bring provisions to Orléans. And there were loaded in the said town of Blois several wains, carts and horses with grain; and a quantity of cattle was assembled there, both oxen, cows, sheep, ewes and swine; and it was concluded by the captains, both by those who were to conduct them and by the Bastard of Orléans, that they should go through Sologne, because the whole greatest power was on the side of Beauce. The said Joan ordained that all the men of war should confess and put themselves in estate to be in God’s grace; [and] she had them put away their wenches and leave all the baggage; then they all took to the road to draw to Orléans. They lay one night abroad on the way. And when the English knew of the coming of the said Maid and of the men of war, they abandoned a bastide which they had made in a place named Saint-Jean-le-Blanc; and those who were inside it went into another bastide which the said English had made at the Augustins, hard by the bridgehead; and the said Maid and her people, with the provisions, came towards the city of Orléans, above the said bastide, in the direction of the said place Saint-Jean-le-Blanc (1).\n(1) Jean Chartier. See above, p. 57.\nThose of the city at once and straightway prepared and fitted out vessels to come fetch all the said provisions; but the thing was so ill in point that the wind was contrary: now they could not go up against the stream (for the vessels can only be conducted thither by force of sail). Which thing was told to the said Joan, who said: Wait a little, for, in God’s name, all will enter the city. And suddenly the wind changed, so that the vessels arrived most easily and lightly where the said Joan was. In them was the Bastard of Orléans and certain burgesses of the city, who had great desire to see the said Joan; who prayed and required her on behalf of the city and the men of war in it, that she would come and enter the city, and that it would be a great comfort to them if it pleased her to come there. Then she asked the said Bastard: Are you the Bastard of Orléans? And he answered: Yes, Joan. After, she said to him: Who counselled you to make us come through Sologne, and that we should not have been through Beauce, right against the great power of the English? The provisions would have entered without making them pass over the river. The Bastard, excusing himself, answered her that it had been by the counsel of all the captains, seeing the power of the English through Beauce. To which she replied: The counsel of Messires (that is to say God) is better than yours and that of men, and it is surer and wiser. You thought to deceive me, but you have deceived yourselves; for I bring you the best succour that ever knight, town or city had; and it is the pleasure of God and the succour of the King of Heaven, not for love of me, but it proceeds purely from God; who, at the request of Saint Louis and Saint Charles the Great, has had pity on the city of Orléans, and has not willed to suffer the enemies to have the body of the Duke of Orléans and his city. As for entering the city, it would grieve me to leave my people, and I must not do it; they are all confessed, and in their company I should not fear all the power of the English. Then the captains said to her: Joan, go there surely, for we promise you to return right soon to you. Thereupon she consented to enter the city with those who had been ordained for her, and entered it; and she was received with great joy, and lodged in the house of the Treasurer of the Duke of Orléans, named Jacques Boucher, where she had herself disarmed. And it is true that, from morning until evening, she had ridden all armed, without alighting, drinking or eating. They had had supper prepared for her well and honourably; but she only had wine put in a silver cup, into which she put half water, and five or six sop-breads in it, which she ate, and took nothing else all day to eat or drink; then she went to bed in the chamber which had been ordained for her; and with her were the wife and the daughter of the said Treasurer, which daughter lay that night with the said Joan. And so the said Maid came into the city of Orléans, on the penultimate day of April, in the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine (1).\n(1) Deposition of Dunois, vol. III, pp. 5 and 6.\n* Soon she learned (2) that the chiefs of the siege took no account of her letters or of all their contents, but reputed all those who believed and gave faith to her words as heretics against the holy faith; and they had had the heralds seized and meant to have them burned. Which seizure, coming to the knowledge of the Bastard of Orléans, who was then at Orléans, he sent word to the English by his herald that they should send back to him the said heralds, letting them know that if they put them to death, he would put to like death their heralds who had come to Orléans about prisoners: whom he had arrested; and he would do the same to all the English prisoners who were then there in very great number. And soon after, the said heralds were given back.\n(2) Ms. of the Gestes, fol. 138 r°: Into the city of Orléans the Maid came on the penultimate day of April, the year 1429, and soon she learned that of her letters and of all their contents the chiefs of the siege took no account, etc., etc.\nNevertheless, some say that when the Maid learned that the heralds had been detained, she and the Bastard of Orléans sent word to the English to send them back; and the said Joan kept saying: In God’s name, they will do them no harm; but the said English sent back only one of them (3), to whom she asked: What says Talbot? and the herald answered\n(3) Up to here this paragraph conforms to the deposition of Jacquet Lesbahy, vol. III, p. 26. What follows belongs properly to the Chronicle of the Maid.\nthat he and all the other English said to her all the ills they could, injuring her, and that if they held her they would have her burned. Now go back, she said to him, and doubt not that thou shalt bring thy companion. And say to Talbot that if he arms, I will arm too, and let him be found in place before the city; and if he can take me, let him have me burned; and if I discomfit him, let them raise the sieges and go away into their country. The herald went there and brought back his companion. And before she arrived, two hundred English used to chase in skirmishes five hundred French; and since her coming, two hundred French chased four hundred English; and the courage of the French greatly increased.\nWhen the provisions had been put into the vessels or boats with the said Joan (1), the Marshal of Rais, the lord of Loré and others returned to the said place of Blois, and there found the Archbishop of Reims, Chancellor of France, and held council to know what was to be done. Some were of the opinion that each should return to his garrison; but afterwards they were all of the opinion that they should return to the said place of Orléans, to aid and comfort them for the good of the King and of the city. And as they were speaking of the manner, tidings came from the Bastard of Orléans, who made known to them that if they abandoned it and went away, the said city was in the way of perdition. And then it was concluded by almost all to return and to bring again provisions in force; and that they should go through Beauce, where the power of the English was,\n(1) At the time of her arrival in sight of Orléans, 29 April.\nin the great bastide called London; although the other time they came through Sologne, and nevertheless they were three times more men than were needed to come through Beauce. They made provision of plenty of victuals, both of grain and of cattle, and departed the third day of May, and lay that night in a village being as it were midway between Blois and Orléans, and took the morrow their way towards the said city (1).\n(1) Jean Chartier. See above, pp. 55 and 56.\n* The said third day of May there came also to Orléans the garrisons of Montargis, Gien, Château-Renard, of the country of Gâtinais and of Châteaudun, with a great number of footmen furnished with missiles and gisarmes. And the same day, in the evening, tidings came that the Marshal of Sainte-Sévère, the lord of Rais, my lord of Bueil and La Hire, who were bringing the provisions and the artillery, were coming from Blois through Beauce. So it was feared that the English would go to meet them: wherefore, on Wednesday morning, the Vigil of the Ascension, the fourth day of May, one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, the Bastard and the Maid armed, with a great company of men-at-arms and of missile-men, departed very early in the morning from Orléans, and went with standard displayed to meet the provisions, which they found; and they passed before the English, who dared not issue from their bastides, and then entered into the city about prime.\n* On the said day, about midday, certain of the nobles issued from Orléans with a great number of missile-men and of commons, who delivered a fierce and marvellous assault against the English who held the bastide Saint-Loup, which was most defensible and fortified; for it had been greatly furnished by the lord of Talbot, both with men, provisions and munitions. The French were much hurt in that assault. And during it the Maid came thither in all haste, armed, with standard displayed: whereby the assault grew stronger and stronger.\nThis Maid knew nothing of the sally of the said men of war out of the city, nor were there tidings of it in her house or her quarter, and she had laid herself down to sleep; and there was none in the said house but her page and the lady of the place, who were sporting at the door. And suddenly she awoke and arose, and began to call her people. Then came the lady and the page, to whom she said: Go fetch my horse. In God’s name, the people of the city are at work before a bastide, and there are wounded. So she said they should arm her hastily, and they helped her to arm. And when she was ready, she mounted her horse and galloped on the pavement, so that sparks flew from it; and she went as straight as if she had known the way beforehand; and yet she had never entered there. The said Joan said afterwards that her voice had awakened her and taught her the way, and that Messire had made it known to her (1).\n(1) Modified depositions of Louis de Contes and Simon Beaucroix.\n* And after her coming to the said place, there was no Englishman who could wound a Frenchman there; but the French well conquered the bastide upon them; and the English withdrew into the bell-tower of the church, and there the French began again the assault, which lasted long. During which Talbot had the English issue in force from the other bastides to succour his people; but at that same hour all the chiefs of war had issued from Orléans with all their power, who put themselves in the fields in ordered battles between the assailed bastide and the other English bastides, waiting there for the English to fight them. But the lord of Talbot, seeing this, had the English withdrawn inside their bastides, leaving to abandonment the English of the bastide Saint-Loup, who were conquered by force, about vespers.\nAnd there were among the English in the said bell-tower some who took the garments of priests or of churchmen, whom they wished to slay; but the said Joan protected them, saying that nothing should be asked of churchmen, and had them brought to Orléans.\n* Of whom the slaying was numbered at one hundred and sixty men, and the bastide was burnt and demolished; in which the French conquered a very great quantity of provisions and other goods. After, the Maid, the great lords and their power re-entered Orléans; wherefore at that hour thanks and praises were rendered to God in all the churches, in hymns and devout orisons, with sound of bells, which the English could well hear; who were much lowered in power by this event, and also in courage.\n* The Maid greatly desired to make the English depart entirely from the siege; and for this she required the chiefs of war to issue in full force on Ascension Day to assail the bastide Saint-Laurent, where were all the greatest chiefs of the war and the most of the power of the English; and nevertheless she made no doubt that she would soon conquer them; but she held herself quite sure of having them, and said openly that the hour was come. But the chiefs of war were not agreed to issue or work that day, out of reverence for the day; and on the other side they were of the opinion first to do so much that the bastides and boulevards on the side of Sologne might be conquered together with the bridge, so that the city might recover provisions from Berry and other countries. Thus the thing took delay that day, to the great displeasure of the Maid, who held herself ill content with the chiefs and captains of war.\nThe said Maid had a great desire herself to summon those who were in the bastille of the bridgehead and of the Tourelles, where Glacidas was, for they could be spoken to from upon the bridge; so she was led thither. And when the English knew she was there, they came under guard; and she told them that the pleasure of God was that they should go away, or else they would find themselves aggrieved. Then they began to mock and insult the said Joan, as it seemed good to them. Whereat she was not content, and her courage grew with it; so she resolved to go visit them on the morrow (1).\n(1) Journal of the Siege, p. 158.\n* In the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, on Friday the sixth day of May, the French passed beyond the Loire in great force, in sight of Glacidas, who forthwith had the bastide of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc abandoned and burnt, and had his English withdrawn with his munitions into the bastide of the Augustins, to the boulevard and to the Tourelles. So the Maid marched forward with all her footmen, keeping her way straight to the Portereau. And at that hour not all her people had yet crossed, but a great part of them were in an isle, being able to get but few vessels for their passage. Nevertheless the Maid went so far that she drew near the boulevard, and there planted her standard with few men. But at that hour there arose a cry that the English were coming in force from the side of Saint-Privé; for which cry the people who were with the Maid were terrified, and began to withdraw straight to the said passage of the Loire. At which the Maid was in great sorrow, and was constrained to withdraw with few folk. Then the English raised a great hue and cry upon the French, and issued in force to pursue the Maid, crying great cries after her and saying defamatory words to her; and all suddenly she turned against them, and few as her people were, she faced them, and marched against the English with great strides and standard displayed. So were the English, by God’s will, so terrified that they took a foul and shameful flight. Then the French returned, and began the chase upon them, continuing as far as their bastides, whither the English withdrew in great haste. This seen, the Maid set her standard before the bastide of the Augustins, on the ditches of the boulevard, whither the lord of Rais came straightway. And ever the French went on increasing, so that they took by assault the bastide of the said Augustins, where the English were in very great number, who were all slain there. And there was plenty of provisions and riches; but because the French were too intent on the pillage, the Maid had fire set to the bastide, where all was burnt. In that assault the Maid was wounded by caltrops in one of her feet; and because night was falling, she was brought back to Orléans, and left many men in the siege before the boulevard and the Tourelles.\n* That night the English who were inside the boulevard of Saint-Privé departed thence, and set fire to it; then they crossed the Loire in vessels and withdrew into the bastide Saint-Laurent. The Maid was that night in great fear lest the English should fall upon her people before the Tourelles; and for this, on Saturday the seventh day of May, about sunrise, by the accord and consent of the burgesses of Orléans, but against the opinion and will of all the chiefs and captains who were there on the King’s behalf, the Maid departed with all her strength, and crossed the Loire.\nAnd as she was resolving to cross, an allis shad was presented to Jacques Boucher, her host; and then he said to her: Joan, let us eat this shad before you depart. — In God’s name, said she, we shall not eat it until supper, when we shall have repassed over the bridge and shall bring back a godon who will eat his share of it (1).\n(1) Deposition of Colette, wife of Millet. See vol. III, p. 124.\n* So those of Orléans gave her cannon, culverins and all that was necessary to assail the boulevard and the Tourelles, with provisions, and some of the burgesses of Orléans on the one part. And to assail the said Tournelles and conquer the bridge, on the side of the city they set upon the said bridge, on the other part, a great number of men-at-arms and of missile-men, with a great device which the burgesses had made to pass the broken arches and assail the Tourelles.\nAt that assault the said Joan was wounded from early morning by a shot from a great war-bow, through the shoulder, clean through. And she herself drew out the iron, and had cotton and other things put on it to staunch the blood: notwithstanding which, she never left off making the diligences to have the assault made. And when it came to evening, it seemed to the Bastard of Orléans and the other captains that on that day they would not have the boulevard, seeing it was late. So they resolved to withdraw from the assault and have the artillery carried back into the city until the morrow; and they came to tell this conclusion to Joan, who answered that in God’s name they would enter it shortly, and they should have no doubt of it. Nevertheless they still assailed; and then she asked for her horse, mounted it and left her standard; and she went to a retired place, where she made her orison to God, and tarried not long before she returned and alighted; so she took her standard and said to a gentleman who was near her: Watch when the tail of my standard shall touch against the boulevard. Who a little after said to her: Joan, the tail touches it. Then she said: All is yours, and enter in (1).\n(1) Journal of the Siege, pp. 160 and 161.\n* So the English were assailed on both sides most bitterly; for those of Orléans shot marvellously against the English with cannon, culverins, great crossbows and other missiles. The assault was fierce and marvellous, more than any that had ever been seen in the memory of the living; to which came the chiefs who were inside Orléans when they perceived its manner. And valiantly the English defended themselves, and so much they shot that their powder and other missiles were going failing; and they defended with lances, gisarmes and other staves, and stones, the boulevard and the Tourelles.\nAnd it is to be known that on the city side they found a most awkward way to get a piece of timber to cross the arch of the bridge, and to do the thing so secretly that the English should not perceive it. And by chance they found an old broad gutter; but it was a good three feet too short; and forthwith a carpenter put an extension on it (1) with strong pegs, and went down below to put a prop, and did what he could for its surety; then there passed over it the Commander of Giresme and several men-at-arms. So it was reputed as a thing impossible, or at least right difficult, to have passed there; and still they kept making the said passage sure (2).\n(1) Projection, jutting part. See Du Cange, s.v. advantagium.\n(2) Journal of the Siege, p. 161.\n* The Maid on her side had ladders raised up (3) by her men in the ditch of the boulevard; and she strengthened the assault on every side more and more, which lasted from prime until six hours after midday.\n(3) The said assault enduring, about vespers the Maid had her people descend into the ditches of the boulevard, and ladders raised against it, etc. Ms. of the Gestes, fol. 142 r°.\nSo the English were so loaded upon with culverins and other missiles that they dared no longer show themselves at their defences; and they were also assailed on the other side of the Tourelles, into which the French set fire. At last the English were so oppressed on every side, and so wounded, that there was no longer any defence in them. At that hour Glacidas and other English lords thought to withdraw from the boulevard into the Tourelles to save their lives; but the drawbridge broke beneath them, by God’s judgement, and they were drowned in the river Loire. Then the French entered from every side into the boulevard and the Tourelles, which were conquered in the sight of the Earl of Suffolk, of the lord of Talbot and other chiefs of war, without their showing or making semblance of any succour. So there was great slaughter of English there; for of the number of five hundred knights and squires, reputed the most worthy and bold of all the realm of England, who were there under Glacidas with other false French, only about two hundred were retained prisoners alive. In this taking there died the said Glacidas, the lords of Poynings, of Comines (1), and other nobles of England and of other countries.\n(1) Ponnains and Couins in the Ms. of the Gestes. See above, p. 4.\nSo the greatest captains of the French told and affirmed to us that, after the said Joan had said the words above, they mounted up the boulevard as easily as by a stair; and they could not conceive how it could be so, save by a divine work.\n* After which so glorious a victory, the bells were rung by the Maid’s commandment, who returned that night over the bridge; and thanks and praises were rendered to God in most great solemnity in all the churches of Orléans. And in the said assault the Maid was struck by a missile, as is said. Before which came to pass, she had well said that she must be struck there unto blood; but she came soon to convalescence.\nAnd also, after her arrival, she was diligently tended, disarmed and very well cared for. So she would only have wine in a cup, into which she put half water, and went to bed and rest. And it is to be noted that before she departed, she heard mass, confessed herself and received in most great devotion the precious body of Jesus Christ; she also confessed herself and received it very often. So she confessed to several men of great devotion and austere life, who said plainly that she was a creature of God.\n* At this discomfiture the English were in great distress, and held great counsel that night. So they issued from their bastides on Sunday the eighth day of May one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, with their prisoners and all they could carry away, leaving in abandonment all their sick, both prisoners and others, with their bombards, cannon, artillery, powder, pavises (1), war munitions,\n(1) Pavaulx in the manuscript of the Gestes. The accounts of the city of Orléans for 1459 mention the wages of five men who helped to unload the cannon, pavises and other things which were brought from the river after the taking of the Tourelles. Jollois, Histoire du siège, p. 88.\nand all their provisions and goods, and went away in fair order, their standards displayed, all the way from Orléans as far as Meung-sur-Loire. So the chiefs of war who were in Orléans had the gates opened about sunrise, whence they issued on foot and on horse in great force, meaning to go fall upon the English; but the Maid came up, who counselled against the pursuit and wished them to be left free to depart without being assailed that day, unless they should come against the French to fight them; but the English turned their backs timorously (1), and withdrew both to Meung and to Jargeau. By this abandonment of the siege the greater part of the English power departed, who withdrew both into Normandy and elsewhere. And after the said abandonment, the English being still in the Maid’s sight, she had the churchmen come into the fields in their vestments, who sang in great solemnity hymns, responses and devout orisons, rendering praises and thanks to God.\n(1) Of whom some cast their harness among the fields, the manuscript of the Gestes adds.\nSo she had a table and a portable altar (2) brought, and two masses said. They said, she asked: Now look whether they have their faces towards you, or their backs? And she was told that they were going away and had their backs turned. To which she replied: Let them go; it does not please Messire that they be fought today; you will have them another time. She\n(2) One of those pieces of marble set in metal which constituted the portable altars. See Du Cange, s.v. Altare.\nwas only armed with a jesserant, because of the wound she had had the day before (1).\n(1) Deposition of Jean de Champeaux, vol. III, p. 29.\n* And that done, the commons of Orléans issued, who entered the bastides, where they found provisions and other goods in plenty; then all the bastides were cast to the ground, according to the will of the lords and captains; and their cannon and bombards were brought back into the city of Orléans. So the English withdrew into several places conquered by them: to wit, the Earl of Suffolk to Jargeau, and the lords of Scales, of Talbot and other chiefs of their party withdrew both to Meung, to Beaugency and to other places conquered by them. So they sent tidings of these things in haste to Duke John of Bedford, the Regent, who was much grieved at it, and fearing lest some of those of Paris should for this discomfiture return into the King’s obedience and move the common people against the English. So he departed in very great haste from Paris and withdrew to the Bois de Vincennes, whence he sent for men from every side; but few came there; for the Picards and other nations of the realm who held his party began to forsake the English, and to hate and despise them.\nAs the said English were going away, Étienne de Vignolles, called La Hire, and Messire Ambroise de Loré, accompanied by a hundred to six score lances, mounted horse and rode along beside them a good three great leagues, to see and mark their bearing, then returned into the said city (2).\n(2) We suppress the anecdote of the deliverance of the Bourg de Bar which is told as in the Journal of the Siege, above, p. 165.\n* The Maid, not being able at that hour to maintain the army for want of provisions and of payment, departed on Tuesday the tenth (1) day of May, accompanied by high lords, and went to the King, who received her with great honour, and held certain councils at Tours; which ended, he sent for his nobles from every side; and to cleanse the river Loire he gave the charge to the Duke of Alençon, who wished to have the Maid in his company. So they came in great force before Jargeau, where the Earl of Suffolk was with a great company of English, who had fortified the town and the bridge. The French put the siege there on every side on Saturday, Saint Barnabas’ day, the eleventh (2) day of the month of June; and in a few hours the town was much battered with bombards and cannon. And on the Sunday following, the twelfth day of the same month, the town and the bridge were taken by assault, where Alexander La Pole was slain with a great number of English. So there were taken prisoners William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, and John de la Pole, his brother; and the rout of the English was numbered at about five hundred fighting men, of whom the most were slain, for the common people slew between the hands of the gentlemen all the English prisoners whom they had taken to ransom. Wherefore the Earl of Suffolk, his brother and other great English lords had to be brought to Orléans by night and by the river Loire,\n(1) Godefroy’s correction. His Ms. reads treiziesme (thirteenth).\n(2) The Ms. and Godefroy’s edition have vingt et uniesme (twenty-first), and below vingt deuxiesme (twenty-second) instead of twelfth. We correct after the Ms. of the Gestes.\nto save their lives. The town and the church were wholly pillaged; it was also full of goods; and that night the Duke of Alençon, the Maid and the chiefs of war withdrew to Orléans with the chivalry of the host to refresh themselves; and there they were received with very great joy.\nWhen the Maid Joan was before the King, she knelt and embraced him by the legs, saying to him: Gentle Dauphin, come take your noble unction at Reims; I am much urged that you go thither, and doubt not that you will receive your worthy unction there. Then the King and certain who were about him, who knew and had seen the marvels she had done by the conduct, sense, prudence and diligence she had in deeds of arms, as much as if she had followed arms all her life; considering also her fair and honest manner of living: although the greatest part were of the opinion to go into Normandy, moved their imagination. And the King within himself, and also three or four of the principal men about him, were thinking whether it would displease the said Joan if she were asked what her voice said to her. Of which she perceived somewhat, and said: In God’s name, I know well what you are thinking; and you mean the voice I have heard touching your unction; and I will tell it you. I had put myself in orison in my accustomed manner. I was complaining because they would not believe me in what I said. And then the voice said to me: Daughter, go, go, I shall be at thy aid; go. And when this voice comes to me I am so rejoiced that it is a marvel. And in saying the said words she lifted her eyes to heaven, showing the sign of a great exultation. And then they left her with the Duke of Alençon (1).\n(1) Journal of the Siege. See p. 168 and note 2.\nAnd to declare more fully the manner of the taking of Jargeau and the assault, it is true that after the Duke of Alençon had acquitted his hostages touching the ransom agreed for his deliverance, and that the conduct of the Maid was seen and perceived, the King, as is said, gave the whole charge to the Duke of Alençon with the Maid, and sent for men as diligently as he could. So they came from every side, firmly believing that the said Joan came on God’s behalf; and more for this cause than in intention of having wages or profit from the King (2).\n(2) Jean Chartier, above, p. 64.\nThither came also the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of Boussac, Marshal of France, the lord of Graville, Master of the Crossbowmen, the lord of Culant, Admiral of France, Messire Ambroise, lord of Loré, Étienne de Vignolles called La Hire, Gaultier de Brusac, and other captains, who all went with the said Duke and Maid before the town of Jargeau, where the Earl of Suffolk was, as is said. And in laying the siege there were on divers days several great and bitter skirmishes: the English also were puissant in men, about six to seven hundred, all valiant men.\nMeanwhile they shot from the town, where there was strong fire of cannon and veuglaires. Which the Maid seeing, she came to the Duke of Alençon and said to him: Fair Duke, remove yourself from the lodging where you are, howsoever it be, for you would be there in danger of the cannon.\nThe Duke believed [this] counsel; and he was not withdrawn two toises when a veuglaire from the town was let fly, which took clean off the head of a gentleman of Anjou, quite near the said lord, and in the very place where he stood when the Maid spoke to him (1).\n(1) Deposition of the Duke of Alençon. See vol. III, p. 96. Cf. Journal of the Siege, p. 171.\nThe French were about eight days before the town, which was much battered by the cannon before it. So it was assailed most bitterly; and those within defended themselves as valiantly; and among the others there was a great and strong Englishman armed at all points, having on his head a strong bascinet, who did marvels at throwing great stones and beating down men and ladders, and he was at the place easiest to assail. The Duke of Alençon, perceiving this thing, went to one named Master John the cannoneer, and showed him the said Englishman. Then the cannoneer placed his culverin at the spot where the Englishman was and showed himself much; so he was struck by the said cannoneer through the breast and fell inside the town, where he died. The Maid descended into the ditch, her standard in her fist, at the place where the English made the greatest and bitterest defence. So she was perceived by certain English, of whom one took a great stone of weight and cast it upon her head, so that by the blow she was constrained to sit down; although the said stone, which was hard, broke into small pieces, at which they marvelled greatly; notwithstanding which she rose again soon after, and said aloud to the French companions: Mount boldly and enter in; for you will find no more any resistance (2).\n(2) Journal of the Siege, pp. 171 and 172.\nAnd so the town was won, as is said, and the Earl of Suffolk withdrew upon the bridge; so he was pursued by a gentleman named Guillaume Regnault, to whom the said Earl asked: Art thou a gentleman? And he answered him yes. And art thou a knight? And he answered no. Then the Earl of Suffolk made him a knight, and yielded himself to him. And likewise the lord de la Pole, his brother, was taken there; and, as is said, several of them were slain, and plenty of prisoners were being led to Orléans; but the most were slain on the way, under colour of certain quarrels raised among the French. The said taking of Jargeau was soon made known to the King, who was much joyful of it, and thanked and praised God for it, and most diligently sent for men of war from every side to come join with the said Duke of Alençon and Joan the Maid and other lords and captains (1).\n(1) Journal of the Siege, p. 173.\n* The Duke of Alençon and the Maid sojourned in the city of Orléans some days, during which there came thither with a great chivalry the lord of Rais, the lord of Chauvigny, the lord of Laval and the lord of Lohéac, his brother, and other great lords, to serve King Charles in his army; who came about that time to Sully. And on the other side there came to Blois, with a great chivalry, Count Arthur of Richemont, Constable of France and brother of the Duke of Brittany, against whom the King, on certain reports, had conceived hatred and ill will. The Maid and the chiefs of war (1) had great preparation made to lay the siege before Meung and Beaugency, where the lord of Scales and the lord of Talbot kept themselves at that time with a great company of English. And to strengthen the garrisons of the said places, the English who held La Ferté-Hubert were summoned; who, having received the summons, burnt the base-court, abandoned the castle and went to Beaugency. [So the lord of Talbot departed from Beaugency one night] (2) to go meet Messire John Fastolf, who had set out from Paris with a great company of English, provisions and missiles, to come revictual and strengthen the power of the English. But because he heard tidings of the taking of Jargeau, he left the provisions inside Étampes and came with his company into Janville, in which place he found the lord of Talbot; and they being assembled there held certain councils.\n(1) They held great councils inside Orléans, and had made, etc. Ms. of the Gestes, fol. 144 r°.\n(2) We supply this indispensable clause after our Ms. of the Gestes, fol. 144 v°.\nOn Wednesday the fifteenth day of June one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, John, Duke of Alençon, lieutenant general of the King’s army, accompanied by the Maid and by several high lords, barons and nobles, among whom were my lord Louis de Bourbon, Count of Vendôme; the lord of Rais, the lord of Laval, the lord of Lohéac, the Vidame of Chartres, the lord of La Tour, and other lords, with a great number of footmen and a great waggon-train laden with provisions and war apparatus, departed from Orléans to lay the siege before certain English places. Keeping their way straight to Beaugency, they halted before the bridge of Meung, which the English had fortified and well furnished, and forthwith on their coming it was taken by assault and furnished with good men. And that done, the French did not halt; but thinking that the lords of Talbot and of Scales had withdrawn, they went before Beaugency. At whose coming the English abandoned the town and withdrew onto the bridge and into the castle. Then the French entered into the said town and besieged the bridge and the castle on the side towards Beauce; so they set and placed there cannon and bombards with which they battered the said castle much (1).\n(1) Journal of the Siege, p. 174.\n* The Count of Richemont, Constable of France, came to that siege with a great chivalry; and with him were the Count of Perdriac, Jacques de Dinan, brother of the lord of Châteaubriant, the lord of Beaumanoir, and others. And inasmuch as the said Constable was in the King’s indignation, and for that cause held suspect, he put himself (2) in all humility before the said Maid, supplicating her that, as the King had given her power to pardon and remit all offences committed and perpetrated against him and his authority, and as, on certain sinister reports, the King had conceived hatred and ill will against him, in such manner that he had had defence made by his letters\n(2) Supply on his knees, after the Ms. of the Gestes, loc. cit.\nthat no welcome, favour or passage should be given him to come into his army: the Maid would be pleased, of her grace, to receive him for the King into the service of his crown, to employ therein his body, his power and all his lordship, pardoning him all offence. And at that hour the Duke of Alençon and all the high lords of the host were there, who required it of the Maid; who granted it them, provided that she received in their presence the oath of the said Constable to serve the King loyally, without ever doing or saying anything that might turn to his displeasure. And to keep this promise firm, without infringing it, and to stand against him if the said Constable were found failing (1), the said lords bound themselves to the Maid by letters sealed with their seals.\n(1) Misconstruction by the compiler of the Chronicle. The Ms. of the Gestes gives: et de lui estre contraires, se trouvé estoit deffaillant (and to be against him if he were found failing), which is the true reading.\n* So it was then ordained that the Constable should lay siege on the side of Sologne, before the bridge of Beaugency. But on Friday the seventeenth day of the month of June, the Bailiff of Évreux, who was inside Beaugency, had a treaty requested of the Maid, which was made and accorded about midnight, in such manner that they should render to the King of France, into the hands of the Duke of Alençon and of the Maid (2), the bridge and the castle, their lives safe, on the morrow at the hour of sunrise, and without carrying or leading away aught save their horses and harness, with certain of their movable goods amounting for each to one mark of silver only, and that they might\n(2) Ms. of the Gestes: That into the hands of the Duke of Alençon and of the Maid, for King Charles of France, the English should render the bridge and the castle, etc.\ngo freely into the countries of their party; but they were not to arm until after ten days had passed. And in this manner the English departed, who were well numbered at five hundred fighting men, and they rendered the bridge and the castle on Saturday the eighteenth day of June one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine.\n* Into the town of Meung there entered one night the lords of Talbot, of Scales and Fastolf, who could not have entry into the castle of Beaugency because of the hindrance of the siege. And they, thinking to make the siege be abandoned, assailed on the night of the composition the bridge of Meung; but on the said eighteenth day of June, as soon as the English had departed from Beaugency, the vanguard of the French came before Meung, and straightway all their power in battles most well ordained. Then the English ceased the assault of the bridge; so they issued into the fields with all their power and put themselves in battles, both on foot and on horse. But they began to withdraw all suddenly, leaving Meung with their provisions and munitions, and took their way through Beauce, on the side towards Patay. So there departed in haste the Duke of Alençon, the Maid, the Count of Vendôme, the Constable of France, the lord of Sainte-Sévère and of Boussac, Marshal, Messire Louis de Culant, Admiral of France, the lord of Albret, the lord of Laval, the lord of Lohéac, the lord of Chauvigny, and other great lords, who rode in ordained battles, and pursued the English so bitterly that they overtook them near Patay, at the place called Coinces (1).\n(1) Reading of the Ms. of the Gestes. The edition and Godefroy’s Ms. have: au lieu des Coynées.\nAnd then the Duke of Alençon said to the Maid: Joan, yonder are the English in battle, shall we fight them? And she asked the said Duke: Have you your spurs? Then the Duke said to her: How now, shall we have to withdraw or flee? And she said: Nay, in God’s name, go upon them, for they will flee and will not halt, and will be discomfited, without much loss of your people; and for this you need your spurs to follow them (1).\n(1) Deposition of Dunois, vol. III, p. 11.\nSo there were ordained riders, by way of vanguard, the lord of Beaumanoir, Poton and La Hire, Messire Ambroise de Loré, Thibault de Termes, and several others.\n* Who so beset the English (2) that they could no longer attend to ordering themselves and putting themselves in battle. So the French assembled against them in battle, so that the English were discomfited in a short hour, the slaughter whereof was numbered on the field by the heralds of England at more than two thousand two hundred English. In this battle, which was on the eighteenth day of June one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, were taken the lords of Talbot and of Scales, Messire Thomas Rameston and Hungerford (3), with several chiefs of war and other nobles of the country of England; and they were well numbered in all at five thousand men. So the chase\n(2) So the English were so hard held that they could no longer draw up the battle and put themselves in ordnance; against whom the French assembled in battle, so that, etc. Ms. of the Gestes, fol. 146 v°.\n(3) Read Hungerford. These two personages are not named in the Ms. of the Gestes.\nof the fugitives began, and it was pursued as far as near the gates of Janville; in which chase several English were slain. The good people of Janville shut their gates against the fleeing English, and mounted upon the wall to their defences. At that time there was in the castle, with a small company, an English squire, lieutenant of the captain who had the castle in guard; who, knowing the rout of the English, treated with the good people to render the said castle, his life safe, and swore to be a good and loyal Frenchman: whereat they received him. Great store remained in the said town, which had been left there by the English at their departing to go to the battle, with a great quantity of missiles, cannon and other war munitions, provisions and merchandise. And forthwith those of the said town of Janville brought themselves back into the King’s obedience.\n* After the flight of the English the French entered into Meung and pillaged all the town; and Messire John Fastolf fled thence (1), and others, as far as Corbeil. When the English who were in several other places in the country of Beauce, as at Montpipeau, Saint-Simon and other fortresses, heard tidings of this discomfiture, they took flight hastily and set fire within. After which glorious victories and recovery of towns and castles, all the army returned into Orléans on the said eighteenth day of June, where they were received with great joy by the churchmen, burgesses and common people,\n(1) The Ms. of the Gestes has: And from the battle fled Messire John Fastolf, which is clearer.\nwho rendered thanks and praises to God for it. The churchmen (1) and burgesses of Orléans well thought the King must come thither, to receive whom they had the streets hung with cloth of heaven, and meant to make great preparation to honour him at his joyful coming. But he kept himself within Sully, without coming to Orléans: at which certain who were about the King were not content. And so the matter rested at that time: wherefore the Maid went to the King and so wrought that on the twenty-second day of June, that year, he came to Châteauneuf-sur-Loire, to which place the lords and chiefs of war drew to him. And there he held certain councils, after which he returned to Sully. And to Orléans the Maid came, and had drawn to the King all the men-at-arms with munitions, provisions and waggon-train. After, the Maid departed from Orléans and went to Gien, whither the King came in force, and sent by heralds to the captains and others who held the towns and fortresses of Bonny, Cosne and La Charité that they should render themselves into his obedience: whereat they refused.\n(1) The Ms. of the Gestes has prodeshommes du clergié (worthy men of the clergy) instead of gens d\u0026rsquo;église.\n* The Count of Richemont, Constable of France, sojourned some days after the battle in the town of Beaugency, awaiting the answer of Duke John of Alençon, of the Maid and of the high lords who had stood sureties to appease the King and make him pardon his ill will. Which they could not bring about; and the King would not suffer him to go to him to serve him: at which he was in great displeasure.\nNevertheless the said Constable, who had a great company of nobles, desiring to cleanse the country of the Duke of Orléans, wished to lay the siege before Marchenoir, near Blois, which was furnished with Burgundians and English. Who heard tidings of it, and fearing the siege, drew under safe-conduct to Orléans, to the Duke of Alençon who was there at the time. So the said Burgundians so treated that, on having all their offences pardoned them by the King, and being given a term of ten days to carry off their goods, they should be and remain for ever good and loyal French. And so they swore; and gave certain hostages into the hands of the Duke of Alençon, who made this thing known to the Constable, who thereupon departed; but after his departure the Burgundians of the said Marchenoir so wrought that they took and retained prisoners certain of the people of the said Duke of Alençon, to recover their hostages; and so they falsified their oaths.\n* During these things the King went to the town of Gien; who sent Messire Louis de Culant, his Admiral, before Bonny with a great company; and on the Sunday after Saint John’s day, one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, that place was rendered to him by composition. And because the Maid was desirous, before the King should employ his power to recover his towns and castles, to lead him straight to Reims, there to be crowned and receive the holy royal unction (to which certain were of contrary opinion, tending to have the King first besiege Cosne and La Charité, to cleanse the countries of Berry, of Orléans and of the river Loire): he held great councils on these things at Gien, during which the Queen was brought thither, in hope of being led to be crowned at Reims with the King. And they sojourning there, the barons and high lords of several districts of the kingdom came to the King’s service in great power. So in the end the King resolved in his council to send the Queen back to Bourges, and that he would take his way straight to Reims to receive his unction, without laying any sieges on the Loire. Then the Queen returned to Bourges, and the King departed from Gien on Saint Peter’s day, in the month of June one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, with all his power, keeping his way straight to Reims (1).\n(1) Here end the borrowings made from the Ms. of the Gestes. Here are the last two paragraphs of that work, which were not introduced like the others into the Chronicle of the Maid:\nKeeping his way straight to Reims, the King addressed himself into Auxerrois, and by his heralds summoned the burgesses of the city of Auxerre, those of Cravant and of Coulanges-les-Vineuses, who held themselves for the English King and the Duke of Burgundy, to render themselves into his obedience; to which summons they obeyed, and he received them into his grace, and other towns and castles of the district, and benignly pardoned them all offences. So they furnished the King abundantly with provisions and carriage to sustain his host; and in all that he would require of them they employed themselves in his service. Into Auxerre the King did not enter at that time; but to take possession of it and receive the oath of the clergy and of the burgesses, he sent thither high lords; and that done he crossed the river Yonne, and from every side his host went on increasing each day, both of high lords, barons and nobles, and of burgesses and common folk. And riding through the country and receiving towns and places in obedience, he kept his way straight to the city of Troyes in Champagne, into which the Duke of Burgundy had set several captains to the number of five hundred men-at-arms to resist the King.\nBefore Troyes came King Charles of France on Wednesday the sixth day of July 1429, and there laid siege on every side. So he had his apparatus and his bombards seated and placed on the edge of the ditches of the city, which was strong and well enclosed with wall; against which he commanded his bombards to be shot.\nAnd this by the instigation and procurement of Joan the Maid, saying that it was the will of God that he should go to Reims to be crowned and consecrated; and that, although he was King, nevertheless the said coronation was necessary to him. And although several, and the King himself, made difficulty of it, seeing that the said city of Reims and all the towns and fortresses of Picardy, Champagne, the Isle of France, Brie, Gâtinais, the Auxerrois, Burgundy, and all the country between the river Loire and the sea was occupied by the English, nevertheless the King stopped at the counsel of the said Maid and resolved to execute it. So he made his assembly at Gien-sur-Loire; and there came into his company the Dukes of Alençon, of Bourbon, the Count of Vendôme, the said Maid, the lord of Laval, the lords of Lohéac, of La Trémoille, of Rais, of Albret. And several other lords, captains and men-at-arms still came from every side to the King’s service; and several gentlemen, not having wherewith to arm and mount themselves, went thither as archers and cutters, mounted on little horses; for every one had great expectation that by means of the said Joan much good would come to the kingdom of France; so they desired and coveted to serve her and to know her deeds, as a thing come on God’s behalf (1). She ever rode armed at all points and in war attire, as much as or more than any captain of war there was; and when war was spoken of, or men had to be put in ordnance, it was a fair thing to hear her and see her do the diligences; and if the cry to arms was sometimes raised, she was the most diligent and first, be it on foot or on horse; and it was\n(1) Jean Chartier, plus the circumstance of the gentlemen who become varlets.\na very great admiration to the captains and men of war, the understanding she had in these things, seeing that in others she was the simplest village girl that ever was seen. She was most devout, confessed often, and received the precious body of Jesus Christ; she was of most fair life and honest conversation (1).\n(1) Jean Chartier, p. 70.\nAt that time the lord of La Trémoille was in great credit with the King; but he ever feared to be put out of government, and dreaded especially the Constable and others his allies and servants. Wherefore, although the said Constable had a good twelve hundred fighting men and men of deed, and though there were other lords who would willingly have come to the King’s service: the said La Trémoille would not suffer it; and there was nobody who dared speak of it against the said La Trémoille. At the said place of Gien-sur-Loire a payment was made to the men of war of three francs per man-at-arms, which was a small thing; then the Maid departed, having several captains of men-at-arms in her company with their people, and they went to lodge about four leagues from Gien, taking the road towards Auxerre; and the King departed on the morrow, taking the same road. And on the day of the said King’s departure, all his people found themselves together, which was a fair company; and he came to lodge with his host before the said city of Auxerre, which made not full obedience; for they came to the King, praying and requiring him to pass on, asking and requesting abstinence of war; which thing was granted them by the means and request of the said La Trémoille, who had two thousand écus of it: whereat several lords and captains were much ill content with the said La Trémoille and with the King’s council, and especially the Maid, to whom it seemed that it would have been had most easily by assault. Nevertheless those of the city gave and delivered provisions to the people of the King’s host, who were in great necessity of them (1).\n(1) Jean Chartier, pp. 70 and 71; but the circumstance of the broken sword has been omitted.\nThe said Maid had the custom that as soon as she came to a village, she went to the church to make her orisons, and had the priests sing an anthem of Our Lady. So she made her prayers and orisons, and then went to her lodging, which was commonly ordained for her in the most honest house that could be found, and where there was some honest woman. Never did man see her bathe or purge herself, and she always did it secretly; and if it happened that she lodged in the fields with the men of war, she never disarmed. There were several, even of great lords, resolved to know whether they could have her carnal company; and for this they came before her handsomely dressed; but as soon as they saw her, all will ceased in them; and when she was asked why she was in man’s habit and rode in arms, she answered that so it was ordained to her, and that principally it was to keep her chastity the more easily; also that it would have been too strange a thing to see her riding in woman’s habit among so many men-at-arms. And when lettered people spoke to her on these matters, she answered them so that they were much content, saying they doubted not that she had come on God’s behalf (1).\n(1) Rehabilitation trial, passim.\nAfter the King had been lodged before the said city of Auxerre three days, he departed with his host, drawing towards the town of Saint-Florentin, where those of the town made him full obedience. And he tarried not long there, but came with his host before the city of Troyes, which was a great and fat town; and there were inside it from five to six hundred fighting men, English and Burgundians, who sallied valiantly at the arrival of the King’s people; and there was a hard and bitter skirmish, in which some were cast to the ground on one side and the other, for the King’s people received them right well, and the said English were constrained to withdraw into the said city, etc., etc. (2).\n(2) We omit the account of the siege of Troyes, which is nothing else than the text of Jean Chartier fused with that of the Journal of the Siege, without any addition. Thus there are spoken in it successively the passage of Brother Richard, the council held at the King’s lodging, and the impulse given to the works of the siege by the Maid. See above, pp. 72 and 181.\nThe people of the city knew and perceived the preparations that were being made; and thereon they considered that it was their sovereign lord; and certain simple people said they had seen around the standard of the said Maid an infinity of white butterflies. And as moved suddenly by a good will inspired of God, knowing also the marvellous things which this Maid had done in raising the siege of Orléans, they resolved to parley with the King, to know what treaty they might have. And the men of war themselves, the King’s enemies, who were inside the city, counselled it. And in fact the Bishop and the burgesses of the city and of the men of war, in very great number, came to the King, and in the end took composition and treaty, to wit that the men of war should go away, they and their goods, and those of the city should remain in the King’s obedience and render him the said city, provided they had general abolition; and as for the churchmen who had regales and collations of benefices from the King his father, he approved the collations; and those who had them from King Henry of England took letters of the King; and he willed that they should have the benefices, whatever collations he might have made of them to others (1).\n(1) Journal of the Siege, save the circumstance of the white butterflies, which might well be taken from the condemnation trial. See vol. I, p. 103.\nThose of the city made great feast and great joy, and those of the host had provisions at their pleasure. And in the morning almost all the garrison departed, both English and Burgundians, drawing whither they would go. And although by the treaty they maintained that they could take away their prisoners, and in fact were taking them, the said Joan kept herself at the gate, saying that in God’s name they should not take them; and in fact she kept them from it. And the King contented the said English and Burgundians somewhat for the ransoms at which the said prisoners were set; then the King entered there about nine o’clock in the morning. But the said Joan had entered there first, and had ordained missile-men on foot along the streets. And with the King there entered on horseback the lords and captains, well clad and mounted, and it was a very fair sight to see. So he put a captain and officers in the said city, and it was ordained by the King that the lord of Loré should remain in the fields with the men of war of the host. And on the morrow they all passed through the said city in fair order: whereat those of the city were right joyful; and they swore to the King to be good and loyal, and such have they ever shown themselves since (1).\n(1) Jean Chartier (p. 76) and the Journal of the Siege (p. 184) amplified with certain circumstances of detail.\nTHE ABBREVIATOR OF THE TRIAL. # In following the generation of the chronicles issuing from the account of Jean Chartier combined with other sources, we come to a work which was written about the year 1500 by order of Louis XII, at the instigation of the Admiral Louis Malet de Graville. It is a history of Joan of Arc, at the end of which is put an abridgement of the two trials. That of 1431 is reported there more at length; the author reproduced all its interrogatories; but frightened by the volume made by the pieces of the rehabilitation, he confined himself to indicating summarily the content of the principal ones; of which moreover he justifies himself in these terms: And it must here be understood that the said trial would be too long and tedious for whoever would write all it contains, to wit its acts, the informations and depositions of the witnesses, articles and reasons, which are of so long deduction that I have wished to abridge it and write it as summarily as I have been able, to show only the nullity, falsity and disloyalty of the said trial made by the said bishop, inquisitor and their adherents. After that he is not long in arriving at the definitive sentence, which he translated entire; then he gives the names of the judges called for the revision, such as they are found in the first act of the drafting of the Durfé manuscript (see vol. III, p. 372). Finally he concludes thus: These brief and summary trials, both of condemnation and of absolution, are extracted from three books which do not always agree together; and for this I pray those who will read it that it may please them to bear with me if it seems to them there is any error or fault, having regard to the diversity of the said works from which proceed the faults, if any there be.\nThis work has never been printed entire; it has no title and its author is unknown; but at divers epochs fragments more or less long have been published. Thus it is thence that comes a relation which followed the Histoire et Chronique de Normandie, printed at Rouen in 1581. It bears for title: Here follows the book of the Maid, native of Lorraine, who restored France into the hands of the King; together with the judgement, and how she was burned in the Old Market at Rouen. Later Robert Hotot borrowed from the Abbreviator, to place at the head of his edition of the Journal of the Siege (Orléans, 1621), all the history of Joan of Arc with the preliminaries of the condemnation trial put into French: documents which he gave as extracts from an ancient book written by hand, and curiously, containing the trial of Joan of Arc, called the Maid of Orléans, in which book there are some leaves torn out, so that the beginning is wanting. Effectively Robert Hotot’s extract begins with a tag of a sentence in the middle of a piece which served as prologue to the whole work. Finally in 1827 M. Buchon, in his Collection des Chroniques nationales (vol. IX), printed after a manuscript of Orléans, and under the title of Chronique et procès de la Pucelle d’Orléans, the work in question, less the fragment of prologue given by Hotot, and also less the abridgement of the rehabilitation which ends it.\nThe Orléans manuscript, whence I myself have drawn all my notions of the Abbreviator’s work, is a paper volume written in the time of Francis I. Before the Revolution it belonged to the Chapter of the cathedral; today it forms part of the town library, catalogued under no. 411. M. Septier gave notice of it in his book on the Orléans manuscripts, and before M. Septier, De l’Averdy had spoken of it after information furnished to M. de Breteuil by a learned Orléanais. The first leaf, half torn, now offers only a fragment of preface, absolutely conformable to what Robert Hotot printed; proof that it is this same exemplar that the editor of 1621 used.\nThe mutilation of the Orléans manuscript is regrettable. One may believe that the author named himself in the destroyed part of the prologue. The text furnishes nothing to supply it; only it may be inferred that this author was an ecclesiastic, from a passage where, speaking of Gerson, he calls him our master. His abridgement of the two trials is drawn from the known documents, that is, the authentic instruments and the Durfé manuscript. These are the three books not agreeing together, on whose disagreement he means to cast all the faults committed by him. A canon of Orléans, dead some few years ago, M. Dubois, taking these expressions literally, believed he could prove that the Abbreviator had at his disposal judicial documents now lost, and among others the French minute of the interrogatories of Joan of Arc. The dissertation in which he seeks to establish this point has been published by M. Buchon, at the place indicated. This opinion is not tenable. It is in formal contradiction with the testimony of the author himself declaring his abridgement translated from the Latin, in a rubric which will be found reported below. On the other side M. Dubois has the disadvantage, in his dissertation, of having reasoned the whole time against the originals of the trial, without knowing them.\nAs for the narrative part of the life of Joan of Arc, the Abbreviator made it with Jean Chartier, with another bad chronicle of France, written for Charles VIII while still Dauphin, and which is itself an abridgement of Chartier seasoned with errors (there is a manuscript exemplar of it in the Royal Library, no. 10299, French); finally with a third chronicle most authentic, says he, which he had not himself seen, but the content of which great personages had reported to him relative to the secret revealed by the Maid to Charles VII.\nOf this compilation formed of so many heterogeneous elements, it will suffice to extract here the passages which are not the repetition of the anterior documents already known.\n[Fragment of the author’s prologue.]\nin the city of Rouen for her demerits, I answer them that she was condemned and executed, but it was iniquitously and through envy, as is shown clearly by the trial of the said condemnation, and even of her absolution, which I have wished to put hereafter in writing, by which it may be clearly seen how falsely, iniquitously, through envy, and not by justice, she was condemned and executed. Which trial I have extracted by the commandment of King Louis, the Twelfth of that name, and of my lord of Graville, Admiral of France. I pray those who will read it that, if they find in it any fault or error, it may please them to bear with and pardon the writer.\n[Introduction to the narrative.]\nAfter I had seen and read all the chronicles which are called the Chronicles of France, of Froissart, of Monstrelet, of Gaguin and other chronicles written by several persons, and I have regarded and well considered all the marvellous cases befallen in the said kingdom since the time of Marcomir and Pharamond, son of the first King of France, until now: I have found no case so singular and marvellous, nor more worthy of being put in writing to remain in perpetual memory of the French, that the kings of France, the princes and the lords, the nobles and all the people of the said country may understand and recognise the singular grace God did them, of preserving them from falling and tumbling into the subjection and servitude of the ancient enemies of France, the English.\n[Secret revealed to Charles VII by the Maid.]\nAlthough in the chronicles I have seen no mention is made of a thing which, long ago, I heard said and revealed, not on one occasion only but several, to great personages of France, who said they had seen it in a most authentic chronicle; which thing, reduced to writing from that time, both for the authority and reputation of him who said it and because it seemed to me a thing worthy of memory, I have much wished to put here in writing.\nIt is that, after the King had heard the said Maid, he was counselled by his confessor, or others, to speak to her in secret and ask her in secret whether he could certainly believe that God had sent her to him, so that he might the better trust her and give faith to her words: which the said lord did. To which she answered: Sire, if I tell you things so secret that none but God and you know them, will you well believe that I am sent on God’s behalf? The King answered that the Maid asks him. Sire, do you not well remember that on All Saints’ day last, being in the chapel of the castle of Loches, in your oratory, all alone, you made three requests to God? The King answered that he well remembered having made certain requests to Him. And then the Maid asked him whether he had ever told and revealed the said requests to his confessor or to others. The King said no. And if I tell you the three requests you made Him, will you well believe my words? The King answered yes. Then the Maid said to him: Sire, the first request you made to God was that you prayed Him that, if you were not the true heir of the kingdom of France, it might be His pleasure to take from you the courage to pursue it, so that you should no longer be a cause of making and sustaining the war whence proceed so many ills, to recover the said kingdom. The second was that you prayed Him that, if the great adversities and tribulations which the poor people of France suffered and had suffered so long proceeded from your sin and you were the cause of them: it might be His pleasure to relieve the people of them, and that you alone should be punished for them and bear the penance, be it by death or such other pain as it might please Him. The third was that, if the sin of the people was the cause of the said adversities, it might be His pleasure to pardon the said people and appease His ire, and put the kingdom out of the tribulations in which it had already been twelve years and more. The King, knowing that she spoke truth, gave faith to her words and believed she had come on God’s behalf, and had great hope she would aid him to recover his kingdom; and he resolved to help himself of her and believe her counsel in all his affairs.\n[Taking of the Maid and preliminaries of her trial.]\nThe above-said solemnity [that of the unction] being perfected, and the oath of fidelity made by the inhabitants of the said place of Reims, the King, by the counsel of the said Maid, dislodged and took his way to Vailly, where he was right willingly received and obeyed, and likewise at Soissons; and thence went through the country of Brie, where he recovered certain places which were in his enemies’ hands. And he ever had good issue of all the enterprises he made by the Maid’s counsel. Of which enterprises and deeds of hers I shall forbear to write further, because all is written at length in the chronicles of which I have spoken; and what I have recited of them is only to give knowledge of the great goods she did in France, which is a thing admirable and worthy of memory.\nAnd although the said deeds cannot be manifested and celebrated enough, nevertheless it has not been and is not my intention to recite them at length or in detail, but I wish only to write how she was taken before\nCompiègne, and afterwards led to Rouen; in which place, at the great suit of the English, her mortal enemies, her trial was made, by which she was falsely and iniquitously condemned to be burned, as has since been found by the trial of her absolution, by which she was declared innocent of all the cases whereof she was accused; notwithstanding the determination made by my lords of the University of Paris, who, by flattery and to please the King of England, declared her a heretic, against the opinion of the late our master Jean Gerson, Chancellor of Notre-Dame of Paris, so learned and so wise, as his works show and give judgement of it. Which opinion, with the reasons which moved him to be against the opinion of the said University, is written hereafter (1); by which it may be seen where there is more appearance of truth and of good judgement.\n(1) See the Rehabilitation Trial, vol. III, p. 208.\nAnd to return to my purpose of speaking of the said Maid, whose renown grew every day, because the affairs of the kingdom all came to good end, and the said lord never failed to achieve all the enterprises he made by the counsel of the said Maid, she also had the honour and grace of all that was done. Whereat certain lords and captains, as I find in writing, conceived great hatred and envy against her: which is a thing likely and easy enough to believe, considering what befell soon after; for, she being at Lagny-sur-Marne, she was warned that the Duke of Burgundy and a great number of English had laid the siege before the town of Compiègne, which had not long before been reduced to the King’s obedience; and she departed with a certain number of men-at-arms she had with her, to go succour the besieged of the said place of Compiègne. Whose coming gave great courage to those of the said city.\nA day or two after her coming, an enterprise was made by certain of those who were inside, to make a sally upon the enemies. And although she was not of the opinion to make the said sally, as I have seen in certain chronicles, nevertheless, lest she should be noted for cowardice, she was willing to go in the company: whereof it went ill with her; for, as she was fighting virtuously against the enemies, one of the French made the sign of retreat; wherefore each hastened to withdraw. And she, who wished to sustain the effort of the enemies while our people were withdrawing, when she came to the barrier, she found so great a press that she could not enter inside the said barrier; and there she was taken by the people of my lord John of Luxembourg, who was at the said siege with my said lord the Duke of Burgundy. Some would say that one of the French was the cause of the hindrance whereby she could not withdraw: which is a thing easy to believe, for it is not found that there was any Frenchman, at least any man of name, taken or wounded in the said barrier. I will not say that it is true; but, however it be, it was a great damage to the King and the kingdom, as may be judged by the great victories and conquests there were in so short a time as she was with the King.\nThe said Maid being taken by the people of the said Luxembourg, in the manner which is said, the said Luxembourg had her led to the castle of Beaurevoir (1), in which place he had her kept most carefully day and night, because he feared lest she should escape by magic art or by some other subtle manner.\n(1) Read Beaurevoir.\nAfter the said taking, the King of England and his council, fearing lest the said Maid should escape by paying ransom or otherwise, made all diligence to recover her. And to this end he sent several times to the said Duke of Burgundy and the said John of Luxembourg; to which the said Luxembourg would not hearken, and would not give her up at any price: whereat the said King of England was right ill content. Wherefore he assembled his council several times to advise what he could do to recover her. And in the end he was counselled to summon the Bishop of Beauvais, to whom he had it shown that the said Maid used magic and diabolic art, and that she was a heretic; that she had been taken in his diocese and was prisoner there; that it was for him to have cognisance of it and do justice of it, and that he ought to summon and admonish the said Duke of Burgundy and the said Luxembourg to render him the said Maid to make her trial, as it is ordained by disposition of law for prelates to make the trial against heretics, offering him to pay such reasonable sum as should be found that she ought to pay for her ransom. Which thing, after several remonstrances, the said Bishop agreed to do by counsel, if he should find that he must and could do it. And for this he counselled with my lords of the University of Paris, who were of the opinion that he could and must do it. And to please the King of England, they agreed with the said Bishop that they would write, on behalf of the University of Paris, to my lord John of Luxembourg, who held the Maid prisoner, that he ought to render her to make her trial, and that if he did otherwise he would not show himself a good Catholic, and several other remonstrances contained in the said letters, as will be seen by the copy of them which is written hereafter. When the said Bishop had heard the counsel and the offer of the said University, he agreed to make the said summons, which was put in writing, of which the tenor follows (1).\n(1) There follow the letter of the University of Paris to John of Luxembourg and the summons carried to the camp of Compiègne by the Bishop of Beauvais. See these pieces in the Condemnation Trial, vol. I, pp. 10 and 13.\nThe said summons and letters being written and despatched, the Bishop of Beauvais, named Messire Pierre Cauchon, accompanied by a man who bore the letters of the University of Paris and by an apostolic notary, departed from Paris and went to Compiègne, where the said Duke of Burgundy and of Luxembourg were at the siege before the said Compiègne; to which said\nDuke the said Bishop presented the schedule of the summons. Which Duke, after he had received it, gave it to my lord Nicole Raoullin, his Chancellor, who was present, and told him to give it to my lord John of Luxembourg and to the lord of Beaurevoir (2): which he did presently; for they both came up there. Which schedule the said Luxembourg received and read. And\n(2) Misconstruction of the Abbreviator. The Latin has: domino J. de Luxemburgo, militi, domino de Beaurevoir (to lord J. of Luxembourg, knight, lord of Beaurevoir) (vol. I, p. 15).\nafter, the letters of the University were presented to him, which he likewise read, as is contained in the instrument of an apostolic notary named Triquelot, in which mention is made only of the schedule of the summons; which instrument I have translated from Latin into French (1).\n(1) I omit this translation of the act reported vol. I, p. 15.\nAfter the said schedule and letters of the University were given and presented, as is said, the said Bishop spoke to the said Luxembourg. And after several words, it was agreed that, on giving him a certain sum of money, the said Maid should be delivered to him: which was done three or four days after. Which Maid being received by the said Bishop, he put her into the hands of the English, who led her to Rouen and put her inside the castle of the said place, in a strong prison, well ironed, well shut and well guarded.\nA certain very short time after, the said Bishop of Beauvais, solicited by the King of England and the people of his council, who desired the death of the said Maid, transported himself to Rouen; in which place he had called all the greatest personages and the most clerks and lettered men, the advocates and notaries, whose names are written hereafter. And when they were assembled, he told and declared to them how the King of France and England, their sovereign lord, had been counselled by the lords of his council and by the University of Paris to have made the trial of that woman, named Joan, vulgarly called the Maid, who is accused of heresy and of diabolic art and of several other crimes and misdeeds; and that, because the said woman had been taken and apprehended in his diocese, it was for him to make her trial, in which he wished to work by their counsel; and he prayed them to assist with him to do therein what should be found by reason. All of whom answered that they were ready to obey the King, and that they would willingly assist in the said trial.\nOn the morrow, because the archiepiscopal see was then vacant and the jurisdiction was in the hands of the chapter of the church of Rouen, the said Bishop found himself at the said chapter, and said to the Dean and canons of the said church like words to those he had said the day before; but, because he was out of his diocese, he wished well to have leave and permission to work in the territory of the Archbishop of Rouen; and he prayed them to permit him to work in the said territory: which was granted him. Whereof he asked letters: which was granted him.\nThese preparations made to begin the trial, although it had been shown to the said Bishop that, seeing the said trial was made in matter of faith and by churchmen, the said Joan the Maid ought to be put in the prisons of the Archbishop of Rouen, nevertheless, this good lord, wishing to please the King of England and have the grace of the English, would not do it; but left her in the prisons of the said English, her mortal enemies. In which he began to show the will he had to do good justice in this trial, in which he and his company showed themselves no less affectioned to make the said Maid die than Caiaphas and Annas and the scribes and Pharisees showed themselves affectioned to make Our Lord die, as may be clearly seen in the deduction of the said trial, in which there are several lies, as I have found in two books in which the trial of her condemnation is written, where there are several diversities, especially in her interrogations and in her answers; and it is also well proved by the trial of her absolution that the trial of her condemnation was falsified in several places.\nHere begins the deduction of the trial made by my lord Pierre Cauchon, Bishop and Count of Beauvais, in matter of the faith, against a woman named Joan, vulgarly called the Maid, translated from Latin into French by the commandment of King Louis, the Twelfth of that name, and at the prayer of my lord the Admiral of France, lord of Graville.\nAnd first, the said Bishop being in the city of Rouen in the year one thousand four hundred and thirty, after the Epiphany, which was the twelfth day of the month of January, had called before him the reverend fathers and masters, my lords Gilles, Abbot of Fécamp, doctor in theology; Nicole, Abbot of Jumièges, etc., etc. All of whom appeared, at the summons of the said Bishop, in the council chamber near the castle of Rouen. To whom the said Bishop set forth how a woman named Joan, vulgarly called the Maid, had lately been taken and apprehended in his diocese, etc., etc. (1).\n(1) Let this specimen of the Abbreviator’s work suffice, and let it be compared with the text of the trial to be assured that it is but a most incomplete and most faulty reproduction of it.\nTHE MIRROR OF VIRTUOUS WOMEN. # Mirror of virtuous women, together with the patience of Griselda, by which is demonstrated the obedience of virtuous women; the admirable history of Joan the Maid, native of Vaucouleurs, who by divine revelation and by great miracle was the cause of expelling the English both from France, Normandy and other neighbouring places, as you will see by the said history extracted from several chronicles making mention of it; newly printed at Paris. (8°, gothic). Such is the title of a work which Lenglet Dufresnoy had sought in vain in the cabinets of amateurs, and which until lately was so rare that the learned M. Brunet doubted its existence. M. Silvestre reprinted it in 1840, in his collection of rare gothic books, and since it has appeared in the Charpentier format (New Blue Library), by the care of M. Le Roux de Lincy.\nThe history of the Maid contained in this little book was, it appears, most popular in the time of Louis XII. The most important thing it offers is an anecdote on the catastrophe of Compiègne, which the author says he holds from two octogenarians of that city, questioned by him in 1498. Flavy, according to this testimony, would have sold the Maid to John of Luxembourg. It is evident that this is the origin of what all posterior historians, beginning with Belleforest and Jean Bouchet, have retailed about this pretended treason. We refer on this point to the opinion expressed in our preface.\nWe shall also extract from the same opuscule a version of the secret revealed to Charles VII, which differs little from that reported above, p. 257, as well as the account of the Maid’s arrival at the court: an account full of errors, and which by that very fact will show with what rapidity the history of Joan of Arc was turning into legend when the sceptics of the Renaissance came to call it in question.\nOf Joan the Maid who came to the King of France during the siege of Orléans.\nStraightway after the siege of the English was laid before the city of Orléans and during the said siege, to Messire Robert de Baudricourt, captain of Vaucouleurs in Lorraine, then being in the King’s host, there addressed herself a young maid of the said Vaucouleurs, named Joan, aged eighteen years, who was tall and most fair, and had been a shepherdess all her life. To which captain she said and prayed that he would present her to the King of France, for God had had revealed to her by the Virgin Mary, and by my lady Saint Catherine and my lady Saint Agnes, certain right singular things for the recovery of his kingdom; which she would not dare declare to any person other than the King. And of this the said captain was most tediously prayed, required and pressed by the above-said Maid; which captain adjoined some faith. So he advertised the King of it and the great personages who were about him; but some would make no account of it, saying it was a fancy and that no ear should be lent to it. The others were of contrary opinion and said that God meant to relieve the poor kingdom of France by the sense and conduct of her whom He alone would inspire above the conduct of human understandings, giving all to understand that by Him alone all kings reign and all lords hold lordship. Nevertheless it was advised, before passing further, that they should send in diligence to Vaucouleurs to fetch the father and the mother of this Maid; which was done.\nAnd when they were at court, they were questioned how their daughter had lived, of what craft, and how their daughter had had that vision and what it was. They answered that she was their daughter and that they had accustomed and put her from her young age to keep their cattle in the fields, and that for some days past she had told them at several times that the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and certain Saints of Paradise had appeared to her and often admonished her to withdraw to the King of France, to advertise him of certain things in which it was most necessary to work diligently to recover his kingdom; and that, to do this, she had departed from them and come to speak to the captain of their place, who was at court, and had addressed herself to him because she had often seen him in their country. And naught else did they say, save that their daughter had ever borne herself humble, sober, chaste and devout towards God and the world, in the poverty in which they were, in which they had nourished and raised her; and she was not cunning, subtle or a gossip.\nAfter the father and mother had been heard speak of the estate of their daughter, it was advised that she should be questioned by the King’s confessor and by certain doctors and people of the King’s great council, before permitting her to speak to the King.\nHow Joan was questioned by great personages, and how she knew the King among his princes, and of the things she said to him.\nJoan the Maid [was] examined and most amply questioned by the King’s council, to whom she said and declared the visions and apparitions which had come to her, without in any wise revealing to them what she had to say to the King. And she was kept for certain days, and each day she was questioned with several divine and human interrogatories; but in the end she was found so constant and so well-mannered that it was advised she should be made to speak to the King. So she was brought into a hall where the King was. Whom she knew and perceived among the other lords who were there, although they thought to make her believe that some other of the company was the King; but she said no, and pointed out the King with her finger, saying that it was with him she had to do and not with another: whereat all who were there marvelled.\nWhen Joan the Maid had perceived the King, she drew near him and said to him: Noble lord, God the Creator has had me commanded by the Virgin Mary, His Mother, and by my lady Saint Catherine and my lady Saint Agnes, as I was in the fields keeping my father’s lambs, that I should leave all there and in diligence withdraw to you to reveal to you the means by which you will come to be King crowned with the crown of France, and will put your adversaries out of your kingdom. And it has been commanded me by Our Lord that no person other than you should know what I have to say to you.\nAnd when she had said and shown this, the King had those who were there withdraw far to the bottom of the said hall, and at the other end where he was seated he had the Maid draw near him. Who for the space of an hour spoke to the King, without any person other than the two of them knowing what she said to him. And the King wept most tenderly: whereat his chamberlains, who saw his countenance, would have drawn near to break off the talk; but the King made them sign to withdraw and let her speak. What words they had together, nobody has been able to know or learn aught of, save that it is said that, after the Maid was dead, the King, who was much grieved at it, said and revealed to a certain person that she had told him how a few days before she came to him, he being one night laid in his bed while all those of his chamber were asleep, he was pondering in his thought the great affairs in which he was; and as one wholly out of hope of the succour of men, he arose from his bed in his shirt, and beside his bed, out of it, put himself on bare knees, with tears in his eyes and hands joined, as reputing himself a miserable sinner, unworthy to address his prayer to God, supplicated His glorious Mother, who is Queen of mercy and consolation of the desolate, that, if he was the true son of the King of France and heir of his crown, it might please the Lady to supplicate her Son to give him aid and succour against his mortal enemies and adversaries, in such manner that he might chase them out of his kingdom and govern it in peace; and if he was not the King’s son and the kingdom belonged not to him, that God’s good pleasure might be to give him patience and some temporal possessions to live honourably in this world. And the King said that at these words, which were borne him by the Maid, he knew well that verily God had revealed this mystery to this young maid; for what she had told him was true. And never had any man other than the King known aught of it.\nHow she was sold by the captain of Compiègne, and of the laments she made in the church of Saint-Jacques of the said place.\nIn the year 1430, about the beginning of the month of June, Messire John of Luxembourg, the Earls of Huntingdon, of Arundel, English, and a very great company of Burgundians laid the siege before Compiègne. And it was advised by Guillaume de Flavy, who was captain of it, that the Maid should go in diligence to the King to recover and assemble men to raise the siege; but the said Flavy had made this ordinance because he had already sold the Maid to the above-said Burgundians and English. And to attain his ends, he pressed her much to go out by one of the gates of the city, for the siege was not before that gate.\nThe said Maid, one right early morning, had mass said at Saint-Jacques and confessed herself and received her Creator, then withdrew near one of the pillars of the said church, and said to several people of the city who were there (and there were a hundred or six score little children who much desired to see her): My children and dear friends, I signify to you that I have been sold and betrayed, and that shortly I shall be delivered to death. So I supplicate you to pray God for me; for nevermore shall I have power to do service to the King or to the kingdom of France. And these words I heard at Compiègne, in the year one thousand four hundred and ninety-eight, in the month of July, from two old and ancient men of the city of Compiègne, aged, the one four score and eighteen years, and the other four score and six; who said they had been present in the church of Saint-Jacques of Compiègne when the above-said Maid pronounced those words.\nWhen the Maid, with a company of twenty-five or thirty archers, had gone out of the city of Compiègne, Flavy, who well knew the ambush, had the barriers and the gate of the city shut. And when the Maid was a quarter of a league off, she was met by Luxembourg and other Burgundians; so she judged them more puissant and returned at a run, thinking to save herself inside the city; but the traitor Flavy had had the barriers closed to her and would not have the gates opened to her. For which cause the Maid was taken at that hour by the Burgundians at the barriers of Compiègne, and by them delivered to the English, in the above-said year 1430, under the sign of Gemini, as appears by the numerical letters of this little verse:\nnVnC CadIt In geMInIs bVrgVndo VICta pVeLLa. (Now falls in Gemini, by the Burgundian conquered, the Maid.)\nAnd because by the justice of men the said Flavy was not punished for this deed, God the Creator, who would not leave such a case unpunished, permitted afterwards that the wife of the said Flavy, named Blanche d’Aurebruche (1), who was a most fair damsel,\n(1) This lady is called the Viscountess of Arsy (read Acy) by Mathieu de Coussy, who relates in all its detail the story of the murder of Guillaume de Flavy in 1449. Blanche d’Aurebruche was daughter of Robert d’Aurebruche, Viscount of Acy, whom Flavy had put to death in prison in order the sooner to have his castle of Nesle. This circumstance contributed much to mitigate the crime of his daughter. The barber, her accomplice, was a bastard of noble family. A captain named Pierre de Louvain, whom she remarried, was also in the plot. See Mathieu de Coussy, ch. XXVII, and the Memoirs of Jacques Duclercq, book V, ch. x.\nsuffocated and strangled him by the aid of a barber of hers, as he lay abed in his castle of Nesle in Tardenois: whereof she afterwards had grace of King Charles the Seventh, because she proved that her above-said husband had undertaken to have her drowned.\nWhen the Maid was in the hands of Messire John of Luxembourg, he kept her some little time, and then sold her to the English, who gave him a great price for her, and the English led her to Rouen, where she was in prison and harshly treated.\nHow the said Joan was unjustly condemned to be burned in the market of Rouen where the church of Saint-Michel now is.\nThe English had the Maid’s trial made at Rouen, and under colour of justice, though nevertheless they had found in her no vice, stain or crime whatsoever, but because she publicly wore man’s habit (albeit she had told and declared to them that she did it so that the men with whom she was forced to consort for the affairs of the kingdom should not take in her carnal or wanton fancies): all this notwithstanding, they had her condemned and declared a heretic by an Englishman, Bishop of Beauvais; and by their secular judge she was condemned to be burned in the market of Rouen, where now is the church of my lord Saint-Michel (1).\n(1) If the author means by this that Saint-Michel did not exist at the time of Joan of Arc’s execution, he is mistaken; this church is found mentioned as early as the twelfth century; but perhaps he only means to give it to be understood that it had been rebuilt and advanced upon the square after the rehabilitation. Nothing remains of it today.\nBefore nevertheless pronouncing her sentence, she was again essayed and questioned before divers judges in several consistories, enquiring several things touching the faith and law of Jesus Christ; for they thought that Charles, King of France, had taken this woman instructed by magic art, and in that he had erred in the Catholic faith: wherefore they held him unworthy to hold the kingdom. And although they found in her naught but all holiness and Christian life, nevertheless several, by flattery, as is the custom of some, to please the English enemies, strove to overcome the Maid, both by fallacies of sophistry and otherwise; albeit she submitted herself, with all she had done, and thereupon they accused her, to the examination of the Holy Apostolic See: showing that they ought not to be both judges and parties. Nevertheless all this availed her not nor hindered them from perfecting their cruel and unjust enterprise; for about tyrants there have ever been evil counsellors, who, blinded by iniquitous affection or flattery, to acquire the grace of princes, have procured the condemnation of just worthy men and had them punished as sinners and malefactors; for to that whereto they see the courage of princes and tyrants inclined, by all means they apply themselves to please them. Even so died the Maid. And that sentence was executed at the end of May 1431, as appears by the numerical letters of this verse:\nIgnibVs oCCVbVIt geMInIs ILLVsa pVeLLa. (By fires perished in Gemini the deceived Maid.)\nAnd her body was reduced to ashes, which afterwards were cast to the wind outside the city of Rouen. Nor ever since did the English prosper in France; but they were cast out of it, and out of all the neighbouring countries, to their great shame and confusion. And it is to be presumed that this was by the just judgement of God, who would not, among the other iniquities and pillagings committed by them, that the judgement thus made by them of the said Maid should remain unpunished;\nFor by experience is seen What is commonly said, That God, true judge, be it as it may, Renders to each his payment.\nPIERRE SALA. # Although he saw the reign of Francis I, Pierre Sala may still pass for a contemporary author in regard of Joan of Arc. The anecdote he relates of her came to him directly from Charles VII through M. de Boisy, chamberlain of that prince. We place it here because it confirms what is said in the preceding chronicles touching the secret revealed. It is taken from Pierre Sala’s work, which bears the title Hardiesses des grands Rois et Empereurs (Bold deeds of great Kings and Emperors). This Sala, who appears to have been the son of an illustrious parliamentarian of the same name, served as varlet Louis XI and Charles VIII, as pantler the Dauphin Orlando, as master of the household Louis XII. Francis I at his accession finding him old and decrepit, gave him his retreat and sent him to finish his days quietly in the royal house of Antiquaille, at Lyons. It is there that Sala composed his book of the Hardiesses, which he offered to his young benefactor in 1516, when the latter was returning victor from the Milanese. The Royal Library possesses two manuscripts of this work, one of which is the very one which served for the presentation (no. 191 of the French Supplement). For fuller information on these manuscripts, resort to the Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, vol. II (first series), p. 281, and to the Manuscrits françois de la bibliothèque du roi, by M. P. Paris, vol. V, p. 91.\nPierre Sala’s account of the Maid has been known for a long time. Colletet, who held a copy of it from Père Jacob, sent it to Symphorien Guyon, then occupied in writing the history of Orléans. Symphorien Guyon hastened to introduce into his book so curious an adventure, thanking Colletet much, without naming Père Jacob, who was angered at it. It is Niceron who informs us of this anecdote in his Mémoires. A hundred years after, Lenglet Dufresnoy published the very text of Pierre Sala at the end of his Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc (Part II, p. 149). We give it anew, more complete and after a better reading, that of manuscript 191 S. F.\nIt is a notorious thing that, of all times, Our Lord has never abandoned His good kings at their great need. Have you not heard aforetime of the fair miracles He wrought for King Clovis, who was the first Christian king, and consequently for King Dagobert, for Charles the Great and for several other kings? And of fresh memory, for the gentle King Charles VII, of whom we speak, when after he was brought so low that he had no more whither to withdraw in his kingdom, save at Bourges and in some castle thereabout, Our Lord sent him a simple maid, by whose counsel he was restored to his entirety and remained a peaceable king. And because perchance it would be hard for certain people to understand that the King gave faith to the words of the said Maid, know that she made him such a message on God’s behalf, in which she declared to him a secret enclosed within the King’s heart, of such sort that he had never in his life revealed it to any creature, save to God in his orison. And for this, when he heard the tidings which the said Maid said to him apart (which could not be known by her save by divine inspiration), then he put all his conduct and resource into her hands; and although the King still had good and sufficient captains to deliberate on the business of his war, yet he commanded that nothing should be done without calling the Maid. And sometimes it befell that her opinion was quite contrary to the captains’; but, however it was, if they believed her, it ever turned out well; and contrariwise, when they would execute their opinion without her, it turned out ill. But you might ask me how I have known what I tell you at present, and I am going to recount it to you.\nIt is true that about the year 1494 I was of the chamber of the gentle King Charles VIII, who may well be called the Bold, for he well showed it at Fornovo, on returning from the conquest of his kingdom of Naples, when, only accompanied by about eight hundred French, he discomfited sixty thousand Lombards, of whom some were slain and the others fled. This gentle king espoused my lady Anne, Duchess of Brittany, and had of her a fair son, who was Dauphin of Viennois, named Charles Orlando, born in the Plessis-lèz-Tours; and in the same place he was nurtured by the King’s commandment, under the government of a most noble ancient knight, his chamberlain, named Messire Guillaume Gouffier, lord of Boisy, who was chosen by him among all those of the kingdom for a good and loyal worthy man. For this cause he would commit his son into his hands as to him in whom he much trusted. With this noble knight were placed the lord of La Selle-Guenault, two masters of households, a physician and me, who was his pantler; and there were no more at that beginning of estate, save the ladies and twenty-four archers for his guard.\nThereabouts I followed this good knight, my lord of Boisy, when he sported through the park; and I so loved him for his great virtues that I could not part from him; for from his mouth came naught but fair examples, in which I learned much good. And it seems to me that if I know any good, I hold it of him. He recounted to me, among other things, the secret which had been between the King and the Maid; and well might he know it, for in his youth he had been much loved of that King, so much that he would never suffer any gentleman to lie in his bed save him. In this great familiarity which I tell you of, the King recounted to him the words which the Maid had said to him, such as you shall hear hereafter.\nIt is true that in the time of the great adversity of this King Charles VII, he found himself so low that he knew not what to do any more, and did naught but think on the remedy of his life, for, as I have told you, he was enclosed among his enemies on every side. The King being in this extreme thought, entered one morning into his oratory, all alone; and there he made an humble request and prayer to Our Lord, within his heart, without pronouncing of word, in which he devoutly required Him that, if it were so that he was the true heir descended of the noble house of France, and that the kingdom justly ought to belong to him, it might please Him to keep and defend him, or at the worst give him grace to escape without death or prison; and that he might save himself in Spain or in Scotland, which were of all antiquity brothers-in-arms and allies of the kings of France, and for this he had there chosen his last refuge.\nA little time after this, it befell that the King being in all these thoughts I have recounted to you, the Maid was brought to him; who in keeping her sheep in the fields had had divine inspiration to come comfort the good King. Who failed not, for she had herself led and conducted by her own kinsfolk as far as before the King, and there she made her message with the tokens above said, which the King knew to be true; and from that hour he counselled by her, and it went well with him for it, for she conducted him as far as Reims, where she had him crowned King of France, in despite of all his enemies, and rendered him peaceable in his kingdom. Afterwards, as it pleases God to ordain of things, this holy Maid was taken and martyred by the English: whereat the King was much grieved, but he could not remedy it.\nMoreover, the said lord recounted to me that ten years after, there was brought back to the King another affected Maid, who much resembled the first. And they meant to give it to be understood, by making rumour run, that it was the first who had been raised again. The King, hearing these tidings, commanded that she be brought before him. Now at that time the King was wounded in one foot and wore a tawny boot; by which token those who were conducting this treason had advertised the false Maid, so as not to fail to know him among his gentlemen. It befell that at the hour when the King summoned her to come before him, he was in a garden under a great trellis. So he commanded one of these gentlemen that as soon as he should see the Maid entered, he should advance to receive her, as if he were the King: which he did. But she being come, knowing by the above-said tokens that it was not he, refused him; so she came straight to the King. Whereat he was astonished and knew not what to say, save in saluting her right sweetly, he said to her: Maid, my friend, be you most welcome back, in the name of God who knows the secret that is between you and me. Then, miraculously, after having heard this single word, the false Maid put herself on her knees before the King, crying him mercy; and on the spot she confessed all the treason, whereof certain were most sharply justiced, as well belonged in such a case.\nGUILLAUME GIRAULT. # Guillaume Girault, notary at the Châtelet of Orléans at the epoch of the siege, was an important man in the city, for he had exercised in 1416 and 1417 the functions of procurator or échevin. A relation of the deliverance of Orléans written in his hand and signed with his name was found about twenty years ago among old minutes, in the study of Me Assier, notary at Orléans. M. Jollois hastened to publish this piece in his Histoire du Siège. I reproduce it after another copy taken from the original which is today in the keeping of Me Lorin, successor of Me Assier.\nOn Wednesday, the Vigil of the Ascension, the fourth day of May, the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, by the [men] of the King our lord, and the [inhabitants] of the city of Orléans, present and aiding Joan the Maid [found] by her works to be a virgin and sent of God for this, and also as by miracle, the fortress of the English at Saint-Loup near Orléans was taken by force of arms, which the English, enemies of the King our said lord, had made and held. And there were taken and slain more than six score English.\nAnd on the Saturday following, after the Ascension of Our Lord, the seventh day of the said month of May, and also by the grace of Our Lord, and also as by the most evident miracle which has appeared for this since the Passion, with the aid of the said people of the King and of the said city of Orléans, the siege which the said English had laid at the Tourelles of the bridgehead of Orléans, on the side of Sologne, which had been taken by effort and assault on the twenty-fourth day of the month of October last past, was raised. And there were slain and taken about a thousand English who guarded the said Tourelles; the said Maid, who conducted the work armed at all points, being present at it.\nAnd on the Sunday and Monday following, the said English departed from Saint-Pouair, where they had made a strong bastille which they called Paris, and from another bastide near it which they called the Tower of London; from the Pressoir-Ars which they named Rouen, where they had made a strong bastille; from Saint-Laurent where they had had several fortresses and bastilles made; and all the said fortresses and bastilles enclosed on two sides by ditches and on one side all round.\nSigned: Guillaume Girault.\nJEAN ROGIER. # This author, who died only in 1637, may legitimately figure among those of the fifteenth century by reason of the unique information he gives us, both on Joan of Arc and on the journey of Charles VII to Reims. His relation has been recently printed by M. Varin in the Archives législatives de la ville de Reims (2nd part, Statuts, vol. I, p. 596). It is extracted from an autograph manuscript of Jean Rogier, preserved in the Royal Library (French Supplement 1515-2), which bears this title: Collection made by me, Jean Rogier, of the charters, titles and notable judgements which are found in the house and hôtel de ville, as also in the chamber of the échevinage of the city of Reims; together with the deeds and notable acts of the inhabitants of the same since the year eleven hundred and sixty or thereabouts, no charters or titles older than that time being found; but by certain of them conjecture may be made what the preceding government was.\nLetters of Charles VII, of the Maid, of the military commanders of the country, of the municipal bodies of the cities of Troyes and of Châlons-sur-Marne, precious pieces whose originals no longer exist, are the sole elements which have entered into the composition of the account which is to be read.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, the English having been chased from the siege which they held before the city of Orléans by the succour of Joan the Maid, and all their army discomfited in the neighbourhood of Beaugency, Meung and other places, the Dauphin, who was King Charles the Seventh (but he will be so named until his arrival at Troyes, in order to make this present collection conformable to the letters and advices which are reported in it), took resolution by the advice of his council to set out for Champagne to come to the city of Reims to have himself consecrated and crowned King of France; and, following what the Duke of Burgundy wrote to the inhabitants of the said Reims, making answer to the letters which the said inhabitants had written him, the said Dauphin had had some assurance from certain inhabitants of the said city that, he coming into Champagne, the gates of the city of Reims would be opened to him. And the said Duke of Burgundy says in his letters that he was advertised that certain of the said inhabitants had, by letters or messages, summoned and brought the said adversaries, assuring them that, they being come thereabouts, opening of the gates of the said city would be made them, with entire obedience; and that otherwise they would not have so hardened themselves to come into these marches.\nThe Cordelier who was taken by those of Troyes, as will be said hereafter, strongly confirms what the said Duke of Burgundy had written of it; saying to those of Troyes that he had seen three or four burgesses who said they were of the city of Reims, who said among other things to the said Dauphin that he should go surely to Reims, and that they made themselves strong to put him inside the said city; although the history of France makes no mention of these particulars, which might be said to be invented; but it must not at all be doubted that it was not done thus. The letters of the Duke of Burgundy are still in good form, and those of the inhabitants of Troyes touching the report of the Cordelier, and then the effects which followed.\nA great prudence is recognised on the part of the inhabitants of the said Reims in the course of this setting-out of the Dauphin; who, in order not to give ill suspicion of them towards the chiefs who governed for the Englishman, gave them advice of all they heard of the said setting-out and of the estate of the said city of Reims, and sent word that the passages should be hindered to the said Dauphin; but of asking succour to defend and guard the said city, not a word, and they would receive none, as will be said hereafter. And it must be noted that from Orléans as far as the said Reims, all was at the Englishman’s devotion.\nPhilibert de Moulant, having charge of a company of men of war, being at Nogent-sur-Seine, wrote to the inhabitants of Reims on the first day of July of the said year 1429 that the Dauphin and his power were at Montargis, and boasted that they were going to Sens, promising themselves that those of Sens would make them an opening; but that he was well assured of the contrary, and that they awaited the succour of the King of England, of my lord the Regent and of my lord of Burgundy; and that the inhabitants of the said city had taken and wore the cross of Saint Andrew; and that the towns of Auxerre and others of the country cared naught for the Armagnacs or for the Maid; and that, if the said inhabitants of Reims had need of him, he would come succour them with his company, as a good Christian must do. The inhabitants of the city of Troyes gave like advice to the inhabitants of Reims, and on the same day, sending them word that the enemies of the King and of the Duke of Burgundy were near Auxerre to go to the city of Reims, and that, if it happened that they were required by the said enemies to do anything contrary to the party they held, they were resolved to make answer wholly negative, and to keep themselves in that party of the King and Duke of Burgundy unto death inclusive.\nThe Dauphin being arrived near the city of Troyes on the fifth day of the said month of July, sent word to the said inhabitants that, by advice of his council, he had undertaken to go to Reims to receive his unction and coronation there, and that his intention was to pass on the morrow through the said city of Troyes, and to this end sent them word and commanded them to render him the obedience they owed him, and that they should dispose themselves to receive him, without making difficulty or doubt of things past, for which they might doubt lest he should wish to take vengeance: which he had not in will; but that they governing themselves towards their sovereign as they ought, he would put all in oblivion and hold them in his good grace.\nJoan the Maid likewise wrote to the said inhabitants in this fashion:\nJhesus Maria.\nMost dear and good friends, if it lies not in you, lords, burgesses and inhabitants of the city of Troyes, Joan the Maid sends you word and makes known to you on behalf of the King of Heaven, her rightful and sovereign lord, in whose royal service she is every day, that you should make true obedience and recognition to the gentle King of France, who will shortly be at Reims and at\nParis, come who may against, and into his good towns of the holy kingdom, by the aid of King Jesus. Loyal Frenchmen, come to meet King Charles and let there be no failing; and doubt not for your bodies or your goods, if you do so. And if you do not so, I promise and certify you on your lives that we will enter by God’s aid into all the towns which must be of the holy kingdom, and will there make good firm peace, come who may against. To God I commend you, God be your guard, if it please Him. Answer shortly. Before the city of Troyes, written at Saint-Fal, the Tuesday, fourth day of July.\nOn the back of which letters was written: To the lords burgesses of the city of Troyes.\nOf all the above the said inhabitants of Troyes gave advice to the inhabitants of the said Reims, sending them copy of the said letters, as is seen by their letters written the same fifth day of the said month of July, saying that they awaited that day the enemies of the King and of the Duke of Burgundy, to be besieged by them. At whose enterprise, whatever power the said enemies might have, having seen and considered the just quarrel they held and the succour of their princes which had been promised them, they were resolved better and better to guard themselves and the said city in the obedience of the King and of the Duke of Burgundy, unto death, as they had all sworn upon the precious body of Jesus Christ; praying the said inhabitants of Reims to have pity on them, as brothers and loyal friends, and to send to my lord the Regent and the Duke of Burgundy, to require and supplicate them to take pity on their poor subjects and go succour them.\nAnd by other letters written the same day at five o’clock after midday upon the walls of the said city, the said inhabitants of Troyes give advice to those of Reims that the enemy and adversary in his person, with his power, had arrived that day, about nine o’clock in the morning, before their city, and had besieged them; and that he had sent them his closed letters signed with his hand, sealed with his privy seal, containing what is above transcribed. Which letters, after having been read in council, by deliberation of the same answer had been made to the heralds who had brought them, without their having entry into the said city, that the lords, knights and squires who were in the said city on behalf of the King and the Duke of Burgundy had, with them the inhabitants, sworn and made oath not to suffer to enter into the said city of Troyes any who were stronger than they, without the express commandment of the Duke of Burgundy: by reason of which oath, those who were inside the said city dared not thrust him into it; and moreover, for their excuse, they the inhabitants, it had been joined to the said answer that, whatever will they had, the great multitude of men of war who were in the said city was stronger than they. Which answer thus made, each of them had drawn himself upon the walls and to his guard, in intention and firm will that, if any effort were made upon them, to resist unto death; and it seemed to them that, at God’s pleasure, they would render good account of the said city, requiring again the said inhabitants of Reims that they should send to the said Regent and\nDuke of Burgundy to show their necessity. They also said that they had received letters from Joan the Maid, whom they called Cocquarde (1), which they certified to be a sheer folly full of the devil, and that to her letter there was neither rhyme nor reason, and that after having made lecture of it and well mocked at it, they had cast it into the fire, without making her any answer, forasmuch as it was naught but mockery. They also said that certain companions of the said city had taken a Cordelier, who had known, confessed and sworn in priest’s words and under the vow of his religion, that he had seen three or four burgesses who said they were of the city of Reims, who said among other things to the said Dauphin that he should go surely to Reims, and that they made themselves strong to put him inside the said city. And the said men of Troyes sent word to those of Reims that thereon they should take advice, to take heed whom they trusted.\n(1) The sense of the word coquard has much varied. Originally it signified a fop, a fashionable man. Cocquarde may here pass for the equivalent of hâbleuse, a woman of no substance.\nThe inhabitants of the city of Châlons, having received like advice from the said inhabitants of Troyes touching the coming and arrival of the said Dauphin, and moreover that the letters of Joan the Maid had been carried to the said Troyes by one named Brother Richard the Preacher, gave advice of it to the inhabitants of Reims, sending them word that they had been much astonished at the said Brother Richard, forasmuch as they had thought him a very good worthy man, but that he was become a sorcerer. They said also that the said inhabitants of Troyes were making strong war upon the people of the said Dauphin, with several other words of bravado; and that on these tidings they of Châlons had the intention to hold and resist with all their powers against the said enemies.\nThe inhabitants of the city of Reims likewise received letter from the said Dauphin, written the fourth day of the said month of July, by which he sends them word that they might well have received tidings of the good fortune and victory which it had pleased God to give him over the English, his ancient enemies, before the city of Orléans, and since at Jargeau, Beaugency and Meung-sur-Loire, in each of which places his enemies had received very great damage; and that all their chiefs, and others to the number of four thousand, were there either dead or remained prisoners: which things having befallen rather by divine grace than by human work, by the advice of his blood and lineage and of his Great Council, he had set out to go to the said city of Reims, to take his unction and coronation there. Wherefore he sent them word that, on the loyalty and obedience they owed him, they should dispose themselves to receive him in the manner accustomed to be done to his predecessors, and without any difficulty being able to be made for things past and for the doubt which might be had lest he still had them in his memory; certifying them that in governing themselves towards him as one ought, he would treat them in all their affairs as good and loyal subjects; and to be further informed in his intention, if anyone of the said city would come to him, he would be most content with the herald he sent, that they might go surely in such number as they should advise, without any hindrance being given them. Given at Brinon-l’Archevêque, the day above said.\nThe lord of Châtillon (1), captain of the city of Reims, during the time of these tidings was not at Reims, but was at Château-Thierry: which was the cause that the inhabitants of the said city sent to him in diligence the Bailiff of Reims (2), on the eighth day of the said month of July, and gave him advice of all that is contained above; and especially that on these tidings they had assembled to conclude on it (which they had not been able to do for the few people who found themselves in the said assembly); and that since they had had the commons assembled by quarter; who had all answered and promised to live and die with the council and notable people of the said city, and according to their good advice and counsel would govern themselves in good union and peace, without murmuring or making answer, save by the advice and ordinance of the captain of the said city or of his lieutenant (3). And the said Bailiff had charge to tell him on the part of the\n(1) Guillaume, lord of Châtillon and of La Ferté in Ponthieu, grand queue of France, an adherent of John of Luxembourg. He held Épernay for the English until 23 October 1435. Rogier, ibid., fol. 152.\n(2) This Bailiff was called Guillaume Hodierne.\n(3) It is seen by the Accounts of the common moneys of Reims that the lord of Châtillon had two lieutenants, to wit Jean Cauchon and Thomas de Bazoches, both squires. Thomas de Bazoches was the only officer present when Charles VII made his entry. Varin, ibid., pp. 910 and 912.\nsaid inhabitants that he would be received into the said city with forty or fifty horses, to communicate on the affairs of the said city, with several other things. Which lord of Châtillon, to answer the above, sent to the said Reims Pierre de la Vigne, bearer of his letters, to whom he had given certain articles advised by him, on which, on the credence he had given the said La Vigne to speak on his behalf to the said inhabitants, he asked that answer be made him, and that, if they would keep and maintain it to him without infringing, he would dispose himself to live and die with them.\nArticles sent to the inhabitants of Reims by the lord of Châtillon, captain of the said city.\nThat the said city be well and hastily supplied.\nThat to guard it, there must be at least three or four hundred fighting men who remain there until the enterprise of the Dauphin has failed in regard of the said city; that he had written to my lords the Regent and the Duke of Burgundy that they should send thither notable knights and squires to resist the said enterprise there: whereof he had no answer; wherefore it was necessary to send into the county of Rethel, and everywhere where they can be found in the places neighbouring the said city, where they may be got.\nItem that, if their will be that he put himself inside the said city, he will not promise it until he has the guard of the said city and of the castle of Porte-Mars, to which he will consent that therein, with him, there be five or six notable persons of the said city. And what he does in it is for fear of the commotion of the people, and because it seems to him it is for their good and surety; and that advice be had of the provisions necessary for him and those who will assist him and come with him, and how they might be governed and contented.\nWhich articles, if they will maintain, he is ready to put himself with them, and he retains the duplicate of the above for his discharge; and let answer be made him hastily, forasmuch as, if the Dauphin came before the said city, he could not thrust himself into it.\nIt may easily be judged by the behaviour of the said lord of Châtillon on the occurrences of this time, that he had recognised that the design of the inhabitants of the said Reims was to admit and receive the said Dauphin into the said city. This is why he will not come there until he is the stronger.\nAfterwards the said lord of Châtillon with the lords of Saveuse and of L’Isle-Adam came to the said city of Reims with a great number of their people; which lords set forth several things to the said inhabitants on behalf of the Duke of Burgundy, and that the army to resist the Dauphin could not be ready for five to six weeks. Which things being heard by the said inhabitants, they would not permit the people of the said lords to enter inside the said city of Reims: which was the cause that the said lords of Châtillon, of Saveuse and of L’Isle-Adam withdrew.\nFrom every side they wrote to the inhabitants of Reims, to encourage them to maintain themselves in the obedience of the King and of the Duke of Burgundy: as Colart de Mailly, Bailiff of Vermandois, wrote on the tenth of the said month of July, that the Duke of Burgundy and Messire John of Luxembourg were to enter\nParis on the day preceding the date of his letters; that the English, to the number of eight thousand fighting men, had come down into the county of Boulogne, and that shortly there would be the fairest and greatest company to resist the enemies that had been for twenty years past in this kingdom; and that the Duke of Burgundy had sent his army to the passages whither the said enemies had come, to hinder their return; and that they would not all return into their places. The inhabitants of the city of Troyes, having received King Charles the Seventh, who has always been called and named the Dauphin until here, into their city, gave advice of it the same day to the said inhabitants of Reims, which was the eleventh of the said month of July; and sent them word that King Charles being arrived before the said city, besides the letter he had written them, which is mentioned above, he had sent them word that they might come to him in all surety; and that the reverend father in God my lord the Bishop of the said city having gone thither, the King showed and set forth to them most highly and most prudently the causes for which he had come to them; saying that, by the decease of the late King his father, he surviving was sole and unique heir of the said kingdom; and for this cause he had undertaken his journey to Reims to be consecrated, and to the other parts of his kingdom to reduce them into his obedience; and that he would pardon all the time past, without reserving aught; and that he would hold them in peace and freedom, such as the King Saint Louis held his kingdom. Which things being reported to them, in a great assembly it was concluded and resolved to render him full obedience, considering his good right, which is a thing every one may know, provided he would grant them general abolition of all cases, and that he would leave them no garrison, and that he would abolish the aids except the gabelle; whereof he and his council were agreed. And for these causes the said inhabitants of Troyes prayed the said inhabitants of Reims to be willing to make the said King full obedience, such as they had made it, that they might together always maintain themselves in one same lordship, and that they might preserve their bodies and their goods from perils. For, if they had not done so, they were all lost in body and in goods, and they would not wish it were to do again; and they were displeased at having tarried so long; and that one will be most joyful when one has done it, forasmuch as he is the prince of the greatest discretion, understanding and valiance that has issued for a long while from the noble house of France.\nJehan de Châtillon, lord of Troissy, brother of the captain of Reims, by his letter written at Châtillon on the thirteenth of the said month of July, sent word to the inhabitants of Reims that he had heard that the King’s entry into the city of Troyes had not been with the consent of the lords of Rochefort and of Plancy, nor of other lords, knights and squires of the said city; and that the said entry had been made by the seduction of the Bishop and of the Dean of the said Troyes, by the means of a Cordelier named Brother Richard; that the commons of the said city went to the said lords, knights and squires, in very great number, to tell them that, if they would not keep the treaty they had made for the public good, they would put the King’s people inside the said city, will they or nill they. The said Châtillon also said that the enemies had made no effort, and that they had naught to eat and were near to passing on; that the said knights and squires had gone out of the said city by treaty, their bodies and their goods safe, and provided that of all the prisoners they had taken they were to have of each a mark of silver; and that the squire who had brought him these tidings certified having seen Joan the Maid, and that he was present when the lords of Rochefort, Philibert de Molan and others questioned her; and that he had affirmed to them on his faith that it was the simplest thing he ever saw; and that in her deed there was neither rhyme nor reason, no more than in the greatest fool he ever saw; and he did not compare her to so valiant a woman as Madame d’Or (1); and that the enemies made naught but mock of those who were in doubt of her. Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims and Chancellor of France, had always assisted the said King Charles the Seventh, even during the time of his regency, so that he had had no part in the affairs which had passed in the city of Reims since the Duke of Burgundy’s entry into it. Being at Troyes with the King, he sent word to the inhabitants of the said Reims by his letters of the twelfth of the said month of July,\n(1) Personage unknown.\nthat they should dispose themselves to receive the King honourably at his unction: to do which he prayed and exhorted them.\nThe inhabitants of the city of Châlons having likewise received the said King Charles in the said city, gave advice of it to the inhabitants of Reims by their letters of the sixteenth of the said month of July, sending them word that King Charles had sent a herald called Montjoye to see them, telling them by the same to dispose themselves to receive him and render him full obedience; and that thereon they had deputed certain ambassadors on their part to go to him at L’Estrée; who were benignly received and favourably heard; and that they being returned into the said city of Châlons, and after having been heard in general assembly, they had all concluded to receive the said King Charles and render him entire obedience, as to their sovereign; and also that they had been to meet him, to bear him the keys of the said city, which he benignly received; and he entered into the said city. By the said letter praising much the person of the King, being sweet, gracious, pitiful and merciful, a fair person, of fair bearing and high understanding; and that for nothing would they have done otherwise; and they counsel the said inhabitants of Reims that the soonest, without delaying, and for the best, they go to meet him, to make him obedience; and that they will receive great joy and honour of it.\nThe inhabitants of the city of Reims being advertised of the setting-out of the said King Charles, sent to meet him as far as Sept-Saulx a number of notable burgesses of the said city, who offered the King plain and entire obedience as to their sovereign, as is seen by the letters patent given the above-said sixteenth day of the month of July of the said year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, at the said place of Sept-Saulx, in form of charter.\nKing Charles the Seventh, since his unction, wrote several letters to the inhabitants of the said Reims, and there are found of them seventy in number, besides the patent ones; by certain of which he asks of the said inhabitants new aids for the maintenance of his armies, as also a great number of war munitions, cannon, bombards, powder, balls, a number of carpenters, masons and workmen, paid and maintained at the expense of the said inhabitants, to assist him in the sieges of Lagny, Meaux, Pontoise and other places. He also tells them the contentment he has of them and of what they have done for his service. And although sinister reports had been made him against the fidelity they owed him, he had not wished to adjoin any faith to it, holding himself too assured of their fidelity; that one named Jean Labbé had said that there were several people who had promised to render the said city of Reims to the Duke of Burgundy; others who had said that on Corpus Christi day it had been undertaken to bring the said Duke of Burgundy into it (1). And he witnesses by all his letters that he had a great care of the said city of Reims, and a great confidence in its inhabitants.\n(1) We shall report in their place letters of Joan of Arc, written at the beginning of 1430 on this affair.\nTHE CLERK OF THE HÔTEL DE VILLE OF ALBI. # Relation of the time in the Romance tongue, extracted from Cartulary no. 4 of the Hôtel de Ville of Albi. There is a copy of it in the Royal Library in tome IX (fol. 287) of the Doat manuscripts. M. Compayré has recently printed it in his Études historiques et documents inédits sur l’Albigeois (4°, Albi, 1841).\nMemorial be it to all present and to come of a marvellous thing which Our Lord God Jesus Christ showed to the noble prince and our sovereign lord the King of France, Charles, son of Charles. To wit, that in the month of March of the year 1428 there came to the said noble King of France a girl, a young Maid of the age of fourteen to fifteen years, who was of the country and of the duchy of Lorraine, which country is in the parts of Germany. And the said Maid was an innocent shepherdess, who had always kept the sheep. And she came to the King, at the time above said, in the town of Chinon, accompanied by her two brothers, and others accompanied her in a small company. And when she was there, she said that she wished to speak with the King, whom she did not call King but Dauphin, because he was not crowned. Whereupon certain knights were shown to her, telling her that that was the King; and she ever said it was not; and when she saw him, she knew him well. And then the King beckoned, and she, as soon as she saw him, knelt down and said to him that God sent her to him, and called him gentle King of France, and that if he would believe that she had come thither by God’s commandment, he would recover all that the English, the King’s ancient enemies, had taken and usurped from him. Which is that they held all the countries of Normandy and of Picardy save Tournai, of Brevois, of Maine and of Artois, of Brie, of Beauce and all Champagne, Paris and all sweet France, the country of Hainault and of Cambresis, as far as the river Loire. For at that time the English held besieged the town of Orléans, in which there were inside five hundred men-at-arms; but that siege was so strong that neither the men-at-arms, nor the people of the town, nor yet all the King’s power was sufficient to raise it; but those inside were in purpose to surrender to the mercy of the English: whereat the King was much troubled, to lose so good a town as that is. And the Maid seeing that the King was troubled, said to him these words: Gentle King of France, what ails you? You are grieved for your city of Orléans. I wish to send them a letter in which shall be made mention that God commands them to raise themselves from before the city and go away; for if they did not, they would have to raise themselves by force. And when the captains had read the letter which the Maid sent them, they said great insults and injuries to her. And the answer of the said letter being had, the Maid told the King to have men-at-arms and of shot; and it was done, and she made her commandment; and she put herself foremost of all, armed in white harness all from head to foot; and she held her standard, in which was Our Lady, and she went to the siege with all that company in which was La Hire and the Bastard of Orléans and other captains; but not in so great company as were the English by ten to one; and they had great fear to set themselves upon them, but the Maid put such heart into them and put herself before the strongest part of the siege, that before they were twenty-four hours they had raised the said siege and slain a great multitude of English, and taken a great store of prisoners.\nMATHIEU THOMASSIN. # Mathieu Thomassin, born at Lyons in 1391, knight of laws, formed in the schools of Orléans and in the Parlement of Paris, was fiscal procurator-general in Dauphiné from the beginning of the reign of Charles VII. He afterwards became auditor then president of the accounts at Grenoble. In 1456 the Dauphin Louis, afterwards Louis XI, charged him, by commission given at Romans on 20 May, to compose a book on the history, the rights and the prerogatives of the Dauphin’s crown. Hence the work called Registre delphinal, whence are drawn the extracts to be read. These extracts have been already published by M. Buchon in 1838, in the volume of the Panthéon littéraire which contains the documents on the Maid. The editor had copied them from the original exemplar of Thomassin’s work, which forms part of the manuscripts of the library of Grenoble.\nThe King (1) being in the hands of the English, died in the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-two. And then my said lord the Dauphin called himself King. And because the enemies held all the places as far as Reims, and Reims also, he was not crowned until the advent of the Maid. And he called himself King of France, Dauphin of Viennois, in the letters which were addressed on this side, until the time when he gave the administration of Dauphiné to my lord (2). And the enemies mocked and japed at him, and called him King of Bourges, because he had withdrawn there and made the most of his dwelling there.\n(1) Charles VI.\n(2) That is, to his son Louis, in 1440.\nAnd it is true that, as well by battles, by encounters, by sieges, by assaults, as otherwise, the kingdom was led to the point that it would have been wholly led and put into the obedience of the English and of their allies, had God not had pity on it, and sent succour by the means of a poor shepherdess called Joan.\nIn the year 1429 the said Maid came; and by her means the siege was raised, as being impregnable, which the English held before the city of Orléans.\nIn the above-said year she led the King to Reims; and there he was crowned on the seventeenth day of July, as by miracle; but afterwards he was still Dauphin until the time here declared.\nThe above-said Maid was of Lorraine, of the place of Vaucouleurs; and she was brought to my said lord the Dauphin by the castellan of the said place, clad like a man; she had her hair short and a woollen hood upon her head, and wore small cloths (1) like men, in right simple fashion. And she spoke little, save when one spoke to her. Her oath was: In God’s name. She called my said lord the Dauphin the gentle Dauphin; and so she called him until he was crowned. Sometimes she called him l’aurillambe. And she said that she was sent on God’s behalf to unchase the English, and that to do this she must be armed: whereat every one was astonished at these tidings. And at first face every one said it was\n(1) Breeches. Jacques du Clercq in his Memoirs: And the petits draps, which are commonly called brayes.\na mockery; and to nothing that she said did they adjoin any faith.\nClerks and other people of understanding thought upon this matter, and among other writings there was found a prophecy of Merlin, speaking in this manner: Descendet virgo dorsum sagittarii et flores virgineos obscurabit (1) (A virgin shall descend the back of the Sagittary, and shall darken the virgin flowers).\n(1) We have already reported (vol. III, p. 15, n. 2) this prediction as it is worded in Ms. 7301 of the Royal Library.\nUpon the said verses were made other verses, of which the tenor follows here below:\nVirgo puellares artus induta virili Veste, Dei monitu, properat relevare jacentem Liliferum regemque; suos delere nefandos Hostes, praecipue qui nunc sunt Aurelianis, Urbe sub, ac illam déterrent obsidione. Et si tanta viris mens est se jungere bello, Arma sequique sua, quae nunc parât alma Puella, Crédit et fallaces Anglos succumbere morti, Marte puellari Gallis sternentibus illos, Et tune finis erit pugnae, tune fœdera prisca, Tunc amor et pietas et cœtera jura redibunt; Certabunt de pace viri, cunctique favebunt Sponte sua régi, qui rex librabit et ipsis Cunctis justitiam, quos pulchra pace fovebit; Et modo nullus erit Anglorum parriger hostis Qui se Francorum praesumat dicere regem (2).\n(A maid, her girlish limbs clad in manly garb, by God’s admonition, hastens to relieve the fallen lily-bearing king, and to destroy his wicked foes, especially those who now are before Orléans, beneath the city, and fright it with siege. And if men have so great a mind to join themselves to war and to follow her arms, which now the kindly Maid prepares, she believes also that the faithless English will succumb to death, the French felling them by maidly war; and then will be the end of strife, then the ancient covenants, then love and piety and the other rights will return; men will contend for peace, and all will willingly favour the King, who as king will mete justice to them all, whom he will cherish in fair peace; and now there will be no parricide foe of the English who shall presume to call himself King of the French.)\n(2) These verses are also found in Ms. 7301 of the Royal Library and in the Scotichronicon. See below the article on William Bower.\nBefore my said lord the Dauphin would put or adjoin faith in the said Maid, as a wise prince, he put this business in council; and the clerks were put together, who, after several disputations, were of the opinion which follows:\nFirst, that my said lord the Dauphin, considering his necessity and the kingdom’s, etc. (1).\n(1) This is the piece reported after the trial of rehabilitation, vol. III, p. 391. Thomassin has paraphrased it in the obscure passages. Thus the passage Non obstant que ces promesses soient seules humaines has been thus interpreted by Thomassin: Non obstant que les promesses et parolles de laditte Pucelle soient par dessus œuvres humaines; which forms a misrendering.\nThis conclusion seen and considered, my said lord the Dauphin had the said Maid armed and mounted. And I have heard say by those who have seen her armed that it was a very good sight to see her, and she bore herself there as well as a good man-at-arms would have done. And when she was upon a deed of arms, she was bold and courageous, and spoke highly of the business of wars. And when she was without harness, she was most simple and little speaking.\nBefore she would go against the English, she said that she must summon and require them, on God’s behalf, to void the kingdom of France. And she had letters written which she herself dictated, in gross and heavy language and ill ordered. I have read the copies, of which the tenor follows. And at the head of the said letters was written: Hear the marvels of God and of the Maid.\nLetter to the King of England (2).\nKing of England, do right to the King of Heaven for his royal blood. Render the keys to the Maid of all the good towns you have forced in France. She is come on God’s behalf to reclaim all the royal\n(2) It will be observed that Thomassin has taken for four letters the summons of the Maid, reported everywhere else as one single document.\nblood. She is all ready to make peace, if you will do right, in that you render France, and pay for what you have held. And if you do not so, I am chief of war; in whatever place I shall attain your people in France, if they will not obey, I will make them issue thence, will they or nill they; and if they will obey, I will take them to mercy. She comes on behalf of the King of Heaven, body for body, to thrust you out of France. And the Maid promises and certifies you that she will make so great a hahay that it is a thousand years since so great was in France. If you do not do her right, believe firmly that the King of Heaven will send her more force than you can bring assaults against her and her good men-at-arms.\nThe other letter to the men-at-arms.\nAmong you others, archers, companions of gentle and valiant arms, who are before Orléans, go into your country, on God’s behalf. And if you do not so, take heed of the Maid, and of your damages be you mindful shortly. Take not your opinion, for you will not hold France, which is the King of Heaven’s, the son of Saint Mary; but the gentle Charles shall hold it. If you believe not the tidings of God and of the Maid, in whatsoever place we find you, we will strike into it with great blows; and we will see who shall have the better right, God or you.\nThe other letter to the captains of the English.\nGuillaume de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, John lord of Talbot, and you, Thomas lord of Scales, lieutenants of the Duke of Bedford, styling himself Regent of\nFrance on behalf of the King of England, make answer if you will make peace with the city of Orléans; and if you do not so, of your damages be you mindful.\nThe other letter to the Duke of Bedford.\nDuke of Bedford, who call yourself Regent of France on behalf of the King of England, the Maid prays and requires you that you let not yourself be destroyed. If you do not right, with your own eyes you may see that in her company (1) the French will do the fairest deed that ever was done in Christendom.\nThe said letters were carried and delivered; of which no great count was made; and for this she resolved to go through with that for which she had come. She set up a standard within which was… (2), and mounted upon a great horse, well armed and clad; and with the men-at-arms that my lord the Dauphin gave her, she went to Orléans where the English had laid the siege very strong and, according to course of nature, impregnable. And there was no hope whatsoever of having succour or human aid, for my lord the Dauphin had very few people to make such an exploit, and was almost wholly down, and in such wise that, when the said Maid came, it had been put in deliberation what should be done if Orléans were taken; and it was advised by the greater part, if it were taken, that no count must be made of the remainder of the kingdom, seen the estate in which\n(1) In the original text there is only: se vous ne faictes raison, elle fera que François feront, etc. See p. 217.\n(2) Lacuna in the manuscript.\nit was, and that there was no remedy, save only to withdraw my said lord the Dauphin into this country of Dauphiné, and there guard him while awaiting the grace of God. The others said that it was more fitting to await the said grace in the kingdom, and that he who should do otherwise would give too great courage to the enemies, and it would be to lose all without any rescue, and that it was better than to hold another way, for the other party was as it were a way of desperation, which much displeases God. My lord the Dauphin was in this estate when the said Maid arrived, in the year above said; and by her means, and by the grace of God, by evident miracle, the very strong and impregnable bastilles which the English had made were most valiantly assaulted and taken, and all the siege raised, to the very great damage and very great confusion of the English. Then were made, by the Maid and by the people of my said lord the Dauphin, deeds of war marvellous and as it were impossible.\nThereafter the said Maid made a very great pursuit against the English, recovering towns and castles; and she did several marvellous deeds; for since the said taking of Orléans, neither the English nor their allies had force or virtue. In this wise the restoration and recovery of France has been most marvellous. And let every one know that God has shown and shows each day that he has loved and loves the kingdom of France, and has especially chosen it for his own heritage, and, by means of it, to maintain the holy Catholic law and set it wholly up again: and for this God wills not to let it be lost. But of all the signs of love that God has sent to the kingdom of France, there has been none so great or so marvellous as this Maid. And for this great chronicles are made of her. And among the others a notable woman called Christine, who has made several books in French (I have often seen her in Paris), made of the advent of the said Maid and of her deeds a treatise of which I will set here only the most especial touching the said Maid; and I have left the remainder, for it would be too long to set here. And I have rather desired to set here the treatise of the said Christine than of others, in order always to honour the feminine sex, by the means whereof all Christendom has had so many good things: by the Virgin Mary, the reparation and restoration of all the human lineage; and by the said Maid Joan, the reparation and restoration of the kingdom of France, which was wholly down, even to taking end, had it not been for her coming. For this, well must she be praised by every one, although the English and the allies have said of her all the evils they could say; but the deeds of the said Maid have rendered and render them all liars and confounded.\nAh! be Thou praised, high God! To Thee to give thanks are we all Bound, etc. (1).\n(1) We refrain from reporting here the extract which Thomassin gives of the verses of Christine de Pisan on the Maid, forasmuch as further on we give the piece complete.\nSeveral other great deeds have been done, as well by assault of towns and castles, by encounters, by takings of towns as otherwise by the said Maid, which would be too long to set here. And albeit what has been done by the said Maid was done only within the kingdom of France, and not within Dauphiné, nevertheless I have wished to set it in this register, at least the most especial, because the deeds of the said Maid were done in the time when my said lord Charles was Dauphin, and were done in his time and under him; also because Dauphiné has been inseparably, as aforesaid, joined to the said kingdom, and if the kingdom had been lost, (1) as efforts were made, as will be declared below. On the other part, the matter of the Maid is so high and so marvellous that it is a thing well to be noted and worthy to enter into all register-books, for perpetual memory, to the glory of God and the honour of the kingdom and of Dauphiné.\nThe English and Burgundians said several defamatory and injurious words of the said Maid, and therewith threatened her that, if they could hold her, they would make her die evilly. She was by some questioned of her power, whether it would last long, and whether the English had power to make her die. She answered that all was at God’s pleasure; and she certified that, if it behoved her to die before that for which God had sent her were accomplished, after her death she would harm the said English more than she would have done in her life, and that notwithstanding her death, all that for which she had come would be accomplished: as has been done by God’s grace, as dearly and\n(1) Supply: the said Dauphiné would have been likewise on the way to perdition, or any other like clause. The following words are an allusion to the expedition of the Prince of Orange, who nearly seized Dauphiné in 1430.\nevidently it appears and is a thing notorious in our time.\nThe said Maid often spoke with my said lord the Dauphin in Paris (1), and told him secret things that few people know.\nThe said Maid was betrayed and delivered to the English before the city of Compiègne, and was led to Rouen, and there a trial was made her of her life, to find something upon her to make her die; and nothing else could they find upon her, but that she had left the habit ordained for woman and taken a man’s habit, which is a forbidden thing. To this and to the other things whereof she was questioned, she answered in such wise that one knew not what to reply. And notwithstanding this, she was condemned to die by fire, only on the occasion of the said man’s habit. She was led to the fire, and there died and was burned.\nIt is said that during her trial and her death marvellous things were done, whereof a trial has been made by the authority of the Church. He who has seen and read it had the copy of it which he was to send me, which I have not yet had: whereat I am displeased, for I would have made mention here of the principal things (2).\n(1) An oversight on the author’s part, who knew as well as any one that Charles VII never entered Paris in the lifetime of Joan of Arc.\n(2) A manuscript of the Royal Library (no. 9624.5.5), which contains other fragments of Thomassin’s work, furnishes me a few more words to the praise of the Maid. This passage forms part of a long argumentation against the English. The author says in proper terms: The English have endeavoured to raise their nation above all other Christian nations, in making such a trial against Joan the Maid, who I believe without doubt is in paradise (fol. 22, v°).\nFRENCH CONTINUATOR OF GUILLAUME DE NANGIS. # A very succinct chronicler whose work is found at the end of manuscript 5696 Latin of the Royal Library. This manuscript is an exemplar of Guillaume de Nangis with the continuations already printed, plus this one, which is unpublished. The hand that wrote the facts relative to the Maid continued the transcription to the year 1462. The chronicle is pursued some years further still, but in another handwriting. This work is the only one that gives in express fashion the date of the day on which the Maid arrived at Chinon. It also draws some interest from the chronograms with which it is accompanied and which are found less complete in other authors of the same century.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-eight, the sixth day of March, the Maid came to the King:\npLaVsa sVbIt FranCos sY’b pIsCIbVs aLMa pVeLLa (1).\n(1) See below, p. 323, the extract of the Dean of Saint-Thibaud of Metz.\nIn the year 1429, the said Maid raised the siege which was before Orléans, where there were some of the most diverse bastilles and other fortifications of all the time of this war.\neCCe pVeLLa VaLens geMInIs JVVat aVreLIanos.\nIn this year the said Maid took Jargeau, where was the Earl of Suffolk and his two brothers, and more than 500 English, and it was the 19th of June. The Saturday following, she came to Beaugency, where there was a great force of English, who surrendered to her forthwith.\nItem, on that same Saturday, Saint Aubert’s day, she pursued the lord of Talbot, Scales and other English, some 4,000, who were discomfited, and the said Talbot taken at Patay:\nIsta pVeLLa, feraM, CanCro fVIt à patei VICtrIX.\nIn the above-said year the said Maid led King Charles VII to be crowned at Reims, who was crowned the 17th day of July.\ngrata pVeLLa, sCIo, karoLI seXtI bone nate, reMIs ad saCrVm te sIstIt In JVLIo.\nThe King and she made great conquests and returned straight to Tours and Chinon and to the marches of that country; whence the Maid departed and returned to the French who were in the country of France, and there she was taken by the Burgundians at Compiègne, in the year 1430:\nnVnC CadIt In geMInIs bVrgVndo ViCta pVeLLa (1).\n(1) See above, p. 273.\nThe Burgundians who had taken the said Maid sold her to the English.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and thirty-one, the penultimate day of May, the English burned the Maid whom they had bought of the Burgundians (2).\n(2) The chronogram which was to accompany this article is wanting in the manuscript. It may be supplied from the Miroir des femmes vertueuses, above, p. 275.\nGUILLAUME GRUEL. # The Gruel family, of a petty nobility of Brittany, was in the service of the lords of Montauban, when in 1420 Jean de Montauban gave Raoul Gruel to the young Arthur de Richemont, which set the Gruels’ foot in the ducal house of Brittany. Guillaume Gruel, Raoul’s brother, was squire to the same Richemont. After the death of his master, in 1458, he wrote his history or rather his apology. This book, introduced almost entire into the Cronicques des Bretons of the canon Pierre Lebaut, was published under its author’s name only in 1622, by Théodore Godefroy; Denis Godefroy gave the second edition in his Histoire de Charles VII. Since then it has been reproduced in all the collections of Memoirs and Chronicles.\nGuillaume Gruel puts himself on the scene several times in his narrative, and notably on the occasion of the battle of Formigny, where he says he was chosen with other gentlemen to guard the Constable’s person. It cannot be doubted that he was witness of many of the things he recounts. He himself declares it thus: He who has dictated this book and put in writing the deeds of the good duke Arthur has seen the most part of them, at least since he was Constable of France. Nevertheless his partiality for his master must put us on our guard against the veracity of his testimony. This reserve will be above all in order touching the details of the first interview of Richemont and the Maid.\nIn the year above said [1428], in March, the Maid arrived before the King; and the English took Janville, Beaugency, Meung-sur-Loire and Jargeau, and set bastilles before Orléans.\nIn the year 1429, my lord the Constable took arms to go succour Orléans, and assembled a very fair and good company, in which were my lord of Beaumanoir, my lord of Rostrenen, and all the garrisons of Sablé, of La Flèche and of Durtal. And of Brittany there were several notable people, as Messire Robert de Montauban, Messire Guillaume de Saint-Gilles, Messire Alain de La Feuillée, and several other knights and squires, without counting those of his household, and a great number of worthy people of his lands of Poitou, to the number of four hundred lances and eight hundred archers. And my said lord took the way to draw towards Orléans. And as soon as the King knew it, he sent my lord of La Jaille to meet him; and he found him at Loudun. And he drew him aside, and told him that the King sent him word to return to his house, and that he should not be so hardy as to pass further; and that if he passed further, the King would fight him. Then my said lord answered that what he was doing was for the good of the kingdom and of the King, and that he would see who would wish to fight him.\nThen the lord of La Jaille said to him: Monseigneur, it seems to me you will do very well. So my lord took the way, and drew upon the river Vienne, and passed it at a ford, then from there drew to Amboise; and Regnault de Bours, who was captain of the said place of Amboise, gave him the passage. And there he learned that the siege was at Beaugency; so he drew straight the way towards Beauce, to come join those of the siege. And when he was near, he sent my lord of Rostrenen and Le Bourgeois to ask lodgings of those of the siege. And forthwith word was brought him that the Maid and those of the siege were coming to fight him; and he answered that if they came, he would see them. And soon the Maid and my lord of Alençon mounted to horse, and several others. Nevertheless La Hire, Girard de La Paglière, my lord of Guitry and other captains asked the Maid what she would do. And she answered them that they must go fight the Constable. And they answered her that if she went thither she would find good to speak to, and that there were some in the company who would sooner be with him than with her, and that they would like better him and his company than all the maids in the kingdom of France.\nMeanwhile my lord rode in fair order, and all were astonished that he had arrived. And towards the Maladrerie the Maid arrived before him, and my lord of Alençon, my lord of Laval, my lord of Lohéac, my lord the Bastard of Orléans, and several captains, who made him great cheer, and were well glad of his coming. The Maid lighted down to foot, and my lord also; and the said Maid came to embrace my said lord by the legs. And then he spoke to her, and said to her: Joan, I have been told that you mean to fight me. I know not whether you are of God or not. If you are of God, I fear you nothing, for God knows my good will; if you are of the devil, I fear you still less (1). Then they drew straight to the siege, and gave him no lodging for that night. So my said lord undertook to keep the watch: for you\n(1) Compare this narrative with those of the Journal of the Siege and of the Chronicle of the Maid, above, pp. 175 and 240.\nknow that newcomers must keep the watch. So they kept the watch that night before the castle, and it was the fairest watch that had been in France for a long while.\nAnd that night the composition was made, and they surrendered in the early morning. And the day before, the lord of Talbot and the lord of Scales, Fastolf and other captains, had arrived at Meung-sur-Loire to come fight those of the siege of Beaugency. And when they learned that my lord the Constable was come thither, they changed purpose, and took counsel to go away. And it was also told my said lord, as soon as he had arrived at the siege, that people must be sent to the bridge of Meung, which held for the French, or else it would be lost. And forthwith he sent thither twenty lances and the archers. Charles de La Ramée and Pierre Baugi conducted them. And in the morning, when the English had departed from Beaugency, the Maid and all the lords mounted to horse to go towards Meung. And then came the tidings that the English were going away, and they began to return straight to the town, each to his lodging. Then came my lord of Rostrenen, who approached my lord the Constable; so he advertised him, and said: If you have your standard drawn forward, all the world will follow you. And so it was done; and the Maid and all the others came after. And it was concluded to draw after the English.\nAnd the best mounted were put in the vanguard, and folk appointed to ride them and halt them, and make them put themselves in battle order. So were among the first Poton and La Hire, Penensac, Girard de La Paglière, Amadoc\n(1), Stevent, and several worthy men on horseback. And my lord the Constable, my lord of Alençon, the Maid, my lord of Laval, my lord of Lohéac, the Marshal de Rays, the Bastard of Orléans and Gaucourt, and a great number of lords came in order through this fair Beauce. They came indeed at a great pace. And when the first had well ridden about five leagues, they began to see the English, and then they galloped at great speed, and the battle behind. And in such wise they rode them that the said English had not the leisure to put themselves in battle order, and were in great disarray, for they had ill chosen according to their case: for the country was too plain. So they were discomfited at a village in Beauce which is called Patay, and thereabouts. And there were there dead some two thousand two hundred, as the heralds and pursuivants said. And it was at the end of the month of May. And the lord of Talbot and the lord of Scales were prisoners; and Talbot was the prisoner of Poton’s archers, and my lord of Beaumanoir had for prisoner Messire Henry Branche, and several other prisoners; and Messire John Fastolf fled, and others whose names I know not.\nMy lord the Constable and the other lords lay that night at Patay in the field, for they were well weary and had had great heat. And soon after, as they thought to draw forward, the King sent word to my lord the Constable to return to his house; and my said lord sent\n(1) Read Amador. It was the Christian name of La Hire’s brother.\nto him to pray that it might be his pleasure that he should serve him, and that well and loyally he would serve him and the kingdom. And he sent thither my lord of Beaumanoir and my lord of Rostrenen; and he prayed La Trémoïlle that it might please him to let him serve the King, and that he would do all that might please him. And he went so far as to kiss his knees, and he would never do anything for him. And the King sent him word to go away, and that he would rather never be crowned than that my said lord should be there. And in effect my said lord had to return to Parthenay with all his fair company: whereof they afterwards repented when the Duke of Bedford offered them battle at Montpilouer. And they also sent away my lord of La Marche, who thought to come serve the King, and had a most fair company: whereof afterwards, as aforesaid, they had enough to do. So my lord the Constable came to Parthenay, and in returning they shut all the towns and passages to him; and they did him all the ill they could, because he had done all the best he could.\nTHE DEAN OF SAINT-THIBAUD OF METZ # The name of this churchman is unknown, who was at once a devoted citizen of the Messine commonwealth and a great admirer of the Maid. It is only known by his own testimony that he was official of Metz and curate of Saint-Sulpice, then of Saint-Eucaire, parishes of the same city, at the same time as dean of the collegiate church of Saint-Thibaud. There remain of him two works in which he dwells with marked pleasure on the account of Joan of Arc. The first of these works was published by Dom Calmet among the proofs of his Histoire de Lorraine (vol. II, col. CC). It is a chronicle of Metz, composed in the Lorraine tongue, which goes from 1337 to 1445. The other writing of the Dean of Saint-Thibaud is unpublished. It consists in a chronological list of the kings of France drawn up as far as Charles VII and ended, under the rubric of this prince, by the curious piece to be read below. It bears the date of 24 January 1460 (old style). We publish it after the Cangé manuscript no. 122, in the Royal Library, which also encloses a copy of the chronicle of Metz. It will be observed that from one to the other of his works the author has modified his opinion on the death of Joan of Arc. In 1445 (probable date of the composition of the chronicle of Metz) he refuses to believe it, and that is conceivable: he had seen the false Joan of Arc, who went to lodge in 1436 in a suburb of Metz. In 1461, without positively going back on his words, he declares that, as for the Maid’s end, he refers himself to the chronicles that are made of her.\nExtract from the chronicle of Metz.\n— You must know of this King Charles, of whom I have spoken, who was more than fifteen years thrust out and chased from his country and kingdom of France by the English, through the comfort and aids of the Duke of Burgundy, who sustained and comforted them to his power with all folk, which was against right and reason, and against his oath: whereof it was great pity.\nIn this year befell a very great marvel, as you shall hear hereafter: for a young girl, native of a poor labourer of the town of Dom-Remy in the diocese of Toul, set herself on the way, and did so much by her journeys that she came to King Charles of France above said, and did so much that the King, accompanied by many valiant people and his loyal friends, set himself on the way to conquer his kingdom of France; and did so much that it happened that in less than three months he conquered such part of his said kingdom that on Sunday the seventeenth day of July in the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine he was consecrated in the city of Reims. And it was in part by the prowess of that girl, called Joan; for she rode in arms most hardily, and carried a very great lance and a great sword, and had borne after her a noble banner pictured with the blessed Trinity and the blessed Virgin Mary. She had also this custom that, each day before she mounted to horse, she heard two or three masses, and confessed herself, and received each week Our Lord Jesus Christ. And many good towns, castles, cities and fortresses she helped to conquer, with the King’s people; but at the last she was taken by the English and by the Burgundians, who were against the gentle fleur-de-lys; and she was very long detained in prison, and then sent to the city of Rouen in Normandy. And there she was scaffolded and burned in a fire, as it is said; but since then the contrary was found. And it was said that it was without cause, and that it had been done to her out of hatred.\nIt was also said for the time that she reigned with the good King Charles that, soon after his unction, she well counselled to go before Paris, and said for truth that they would take it; but a lord called La Trémoïlle, who governed the King, destroyed that thing; and it was said that he was not well loyal to the said King his lord; and that he was envious of the deeds she did, and was guilty of her capture.\n— In that year and at that time the siege which the English held before the city of Orléans was raised; and a great part of them were slain by Joan the Maid. Item, in the preceding year the Earl of Salisbury had been slain by a bombarded shot (1). And it was said that these things had been done by the virtue of a Maid called Joan, who was native of the country near Vaucouleurs; and it was said that these things had been prognosticated by certain verses found in the ancient books of France, the tenor whereof is such:\nGallorum pulli throno bella parabunt. Ecce béant bella, fert tunc vexilla Puella.\n(The chicks of the Gauls prepare wars for the throne. Lo, the wars are blest, then the Maid bears the banners.)\nBy this verse is denoted the number of the year, to wit 1429:\n(1) See p. 327 for the Dean’s error regarding the date of this death.\nbis seX CVCVLLI, bis septeM se soCIabVnt (2).\n(2) This verse, like the two preceding, has been already reported in the memoir of Jean Bréhal. See vol. III, p. 338.\nItem, it was also prognosticated by other verses, to wit 1429:\nCum fuerint anni completi mille ducenti Et decies deni fuerint in ordine pleni, Et duo sex deni fuerint in ordine pleni, Et duo sex deni venient ab œquore remi: Tunc périt Anglorum gens pessima fraude suorum.\n(When a thousand years are complete and two hundred, and ten times ten are full in order, and two six-times-tens are full in order, and two six-times-tens of oars shall come from the sea: then shall perish the worst race of the English by the fraud of their own.)\nIn that year, by the counsel of the said Joan the Maid, Charles, King of France, came into Champagne by force of arms, and took Troyes, Châlons and Reims, and was crowned there in the month of July; and many other towns surrendered to him. And in the month of August, the hosts were one before the other, and did nothing to each other. And on the day of Our Lady in September, the Maid assaulted the city of Paris; but she made nothing of profit there, and was wounded there; but she was not well followed (1): wherefore she sounded the retreat.\n— And in the same year, Philip, Duke of Burgundy, with the English laid the siege before Compiègne; and a little after, Joan the Maid was taken and put into the hands of the English; but the said siege, about Saint Luke’s day soon after, was raised by the people of Charles, King of France, to the great shame and great confusion of Messire John of Luxembourg, captain of the Burgundians, because the Burgundians were more than the others, and they fled shamefully away (2). (1) Followed.\n(2) The extracts of the Dean of Saint-Thibaud on the false Joan of Arc will be reported in the following volume.\nExtract from the Tableau of the Kings of France.\nCharles who reigns at present was crowned at Reims on the seventeenth day of July 1429.\nOf this Charles there must be as fair and marvellous chronicles as of any preceding, except of Charlemagne and of his son Louis; for it is written in his life that he was in two great extremities, to wit, first, in the time of his youth, very poor and chased from his kingdom, or the greatest part of it, by the English. And I have formerly heard say that he was in such poverty, for the time he kept at Bourges, that a shoemaker (1) would not trust him for a pair of boots; and that he had put one of them on, and forasmuch as he could not pay him cash, the man drew the said boot off him again, and he had to take up his old boots again. And in fact his ill-wishers made a song of it in derision, and the beginning of the said song was:\nWhen the King came into France He had his boots anointed, And the Queen asks him: Whither would this youngling go? (2)\n(1) Shoemaker, in the Lorraine dialect.\n(2) M. Michelet had knowledge of these verses and cited them in his Histoire de France.\nAnd several other sufferings and poverties have I heard said and told of him: whereof I refer myself to his chronicles.\nNow it befell in the middle of his age or thereabouts, to wit in the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-eight, that a young girl named Joan, called the Maid, of Domremy-on-Meuse, at two leagues from Neufchâteau in Lorraine, had herself brought before the King by the Bailiff of Chaumont, named lord Robert de Baudricourt; who did it right unwillingly, for it seemed to him that what the said Maid said was naught but folly and derision. And when the said Maid came to the place where the King was, before she spoke to the King, she was very well examined, both as to the faith and as to the cause wherefore she had come. Whereupon she answered very wisely and in such wise that the Bishop, doctors, clerks and captains who questioned her, each on his own matter, were very greatly content with her and reported it to the King. Whereat he was well content and joyful, and had her come before him, and questioned her as the case belonged; and found her so firm and so constant in her words that it was forthwith given to her; for she told him that it was so ordained of God that, as the kingdom of France had been destroyed and lost, it behoved that by a maid (which she was) it should be restored and recovered. And then she told the King first all her affair and the manner it behoved to hold; and if he would believe her and have faith in God, in my lord Saint Michael and my lady Saint Catherine, and in her, she would lead him to be crowned at Reims and would set him back peaceable in his kingdom; and that the deed desired brevity, for it was already more than three years that she ought to have begun; but she had not been able to find any who would conduct or bring her to him. And forthwith the King had her clad and armed and mounted at his pleasure.\nNow the said King was in the greatest perplexity and tribulation he had yet been in, for the English held the siege before Orléans: which siege was marvellously strong. So the said Maid prayed and required the said King that he would find her some of his people, and that, at God’s pleasure, she would undertake to raise the siege, to fight the said English, and that she doubted not that she must have the victory. Whereof the King’s captains made naught but a derision and mockery, saying: Here is a valiant champion and captain to recover the kingdom of France! And they murmured against the King and his counsellors, except the Duke of Alençon and a courageous captain of good will named La Hire, who sprang forward and said and swore that he would follow her with all his company whithersoever she would lead: whereat she was most joyful. And forthwith she had a banner, pennons and standard made ready, and other habit and artillery needful thereto; and they mounted joyously to horse; and came with few people against the said English who held the said siege before Orléans, who were very strongly enclosed in the said siege, and she ran upon them and assaulted them so vigorously and with good courage, reclaiming God, Saint Michael and Saint Catherine, that in a little while she raised the siege and discomfited the said English. And there was slain the Earl of Salisbury, who was the principal captain of the said English; whereat the said English were all afeared and astonished, and from thenceforth it went worse for them from day to day.\nAnd it was the first deed that the said Maid did, which was most profitable and agreeable to the said King and to all his captains and counsellors; and they had perfect trust in God and in the said Maid, and put themselves wholly at her obedience and followed her everywhere she would lead them. And they had several victories against the said English, and gained several places, so that, to be brief, she chased the said English from the greatest part of the kingdom of France, and led the said King to be crowned at Saint-Remy of Reims, on the seventeenth day of the month of July in the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine. And the holy Ampulla was found miraculously filled with oil, as was said. Then there was great triumph and great nobleness, as belongs to such a case.\nAnd from thenceforth it succeeded to the said King better and better, so that today, the twenty-fourth of January for the year sixty, he holds all the kingdom with its appurtenances peaceably; and he holds also the Bordelais, the duchy of Normandy, Dauphiné, the duchy of Allenfort (1), the county of Armagnac and several other countries; and he has reigned and reigns marvellously in his two great extremities, as aforesaid.\nThe rest of his life and of his reign will be found more at large in his chronicle, which will be most high and marvellous, as I hold; for at present I could not write the end of it. God grant it may be good. Of the other affairs of the Maid I also refer myself to the chronicles that are made of her, which is a right marvellous thing.\nThis relation has been made and written faithfully and hastily by me, Dean of Saint-Thibaud, curate of Saint-Sulpice, in the year and (2) above said.\nAnd he was then officer of Metz.\n(1) No doubt Alençon, confiscated from the titular duke in 1456.\n(2) The manuscript has pnt, with an abbreviation.\nTHE CHRONICLE OF LORRAINE. # Dom Calmet first published this chronicle among his proofs to the Histoire de Lorraine (vol. III, col. VJ). He conjectures that it was composed by a servant of Duke René II, an actor in several of the events he relates. This anonymous personage would have written, in the learned Benedictine’s judgment, in 1475, during the war of Charles the Bold against René; but this is an error, of which, without going far, the proof will be found; for at the end of the fragment published below it is said that Charles VII had sons and daughters, whereof the last King Louis was one. Now these expressions carry us into the reign of Charles VIII.\nThe Chronicle of Lorraine does not deserve to be consulted as historical testimony on Joan of Arc; but it is a curious and unique monument of the marvellous which the popular imagination had added to the life of this astonishing girl, in her own country. All the exploits of the reign of Charles VII are there set to her account: she figures there like the Charlemagne of the romances, who had absorbed to himself alone all the glory of his race. They make her besiege and take by turns Bordeaux, Bayonne, Dieppe, Paris, Honfleur, Harfleur, Caen, all the towns of Normandy, save Rouen, under whose walls she disappears without leaving a trace. Two other opinions on her end, given after that one, have all the air of being a later addition.\nThe style of this history is not less strange than the substance. It is full of assonances and of constructions which recall the make of the ancient chansons de geste. It is to such a point that one is permitted to believe the tale was originally in verse and that the chronicler of René II’s court, wishing to appropriate it, has quite simply broken its metre. It is not impossible that under Louis XI a geste was made in honour of the illustrious Lorrainers, and particularly of the Maid. The lord of Croy in his Art and science of rhetoric cites verses which can only belong to a poem of this kind on Charles the Bold:\nSince the Duke lost the day of Nancy, Justice has passed away, strong war was born; The Church has lost its revenues this year; Nobility has been cruelly fortuned of it; And poor folk have had a very hard destiny of it.\nA singular thing: it would be said that the poem whence these verses are drawn was the counterpart of that which served to make the Chronicle of Lorraine.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and seventeen, in the place of Dom-Remys on the Meuse, there was a young girl named the Maid, at eighteen years of age inspired of God. And she was of great strength and power: wherefore this girl said to all that, if she were at Bourges with the King, she would well keep the English from so cruelly persecuting the kingdom. Messire Robert de Baudricourt, who was then captain of Vaucouleurs — the said girl went to him, and said to him: Captain, for your honour and profit, I pray you lead me to Bourges to the King; I promise you by all that I hold of God, before it be a year, all the English out of the kingdom I will put; and I certify you that the power is in me. The said Baudricourt, seeing the girl’s boldness (she was tall and powerful), asked her if she would do what she said. She said ever: Yea.\nWhen my lord de Baudricourt saw this, he said to her: My daughter, to Nancy I will lead you to the Duke Charles, who is your sovereign lord, and take leave of him to bring you away. The said girl was right joyful. When the said Baudricourt with the girl came to Nancy to the Duke Charles, the said Baudricourt presented her to the Duke, telling him how she desired to go to King Charles, to set him back in France, and chase the English out. The Duke asked her if she had that will. She answered yea. Monseigneur, I promise you it irks me much that I am not there. — How! said the Duke, you never bore arms, nor were on horseback! The girl answered that, when she should have harness and a horse, upon it I shall mount; it shall be seen whether I cannot guide it. The Duke (his stables were then where the Piedz-Deschaulx are at present), the Duke gave her harness and a horse, and had her armed. She was light; they brought the horse, and of the best, all saddled and bridled; in presence of all, without putting foot in the stirrup, she flung herself into the saddle. They gave her a lance; she came into the castle place; she ran it. Never did man-at-arms run it better. All the nobles were astonished. Report was made of it to the Duke; he well recognised that she had virtue. The Duke said to Messire Robert: Now, lead her away; may God accomplish her desires to her.\nThe said Baudricourt, without tarrying, led her straight to Bourges. On the way the said Baudricourt talked with her. She said to him: Have no care of me; I will present myself to the King; I know what I shall say to him; he will know that I shall do him good service; I never saw him; but were he among ten thousand, I should know him.\nWhen the said Baudricourt approached within a league of Bourges, he made known to the King how she promised to unchase the English; and that if she saw the King, she would know him. The King and his council sent to meet her three bands. In the first one like to the King; in the second one like; in the third was the King. They came one after the other: each looked at her. She said thus: Here is not the King, nor here either. But when it came to the third band, she knew the King: whereat all were astonished.\nShe said to the King: Make it that all your men-at-arms be all mine, and make them promise they will ask me no dishonour. And make it that I have a sword which is at Our Lady of Chartres. The King had her have all. She said to the King: It is time we departed; those of Orléans are in great danger. The King had his army forthwith made ready, furnished with artillery and other instruments. And when all were ready, he commanded them in general that, upon their lives, they should neither do nor say aught to the maid girl whereby it might displease her; and he commended her most affectionately to the greatest lords. Each promised the King to do well in all these commandments. All, great and small, commended themselves to God and to the King, and all set themselves upon the way. The Maid said to them: Messeigneurs, let us make haste to go. It irks me that I am not already before Orléans. I promise you I will make you all good men there; I have good will to charge well upon these English who do great evils in this kingdom.\nSo far they rode by day’s journeys that they came nigh Orléans. The Maid was ever foremost; she knew everywhere where they must go. She made them pass a ford of the river Loire, which she passed first, and all the army following. When all were passed, she said to them: Messeigneurs, doubt not, have courage; we approach them well nigh; here we must put all in order. And she ranged them each in his place; right well she knew how to do it. She said to them: Let each be valiant; I will be the first to strike into the English. They perceived that folk in arms came against them; they put themselves in battle order strong and powerful. Before Orléans they had made a bastille; they had put folk in it to guard it well. The Maid, when she perceived the army, said: Let us commend ourselves to God and to the Virgin Mary; now, let us strike into them. She, all the first, couched her lance, and all the others also charged in with force and courage; all they attained went to the ground. After her lance-blow she drew her sword; of the blows she gave she put all to death. When a man-at-arms on his helmet she struck, a palm’s depth she thrust it in. The English, seeing they were so sharply assailed, thought to put themselves in defence; naught could avail them; but they took to flight, and they fleeing. The Maid and all the army came to assail them in battle. Their defence availed naught, but they were taken and confounded. They had to abandon the siege, and leave the artillery. Tents and pavilions, all remained there. Those of Orléans began to praise God for the victory the army had given them. Not knowing the Maid, never had they heard speak of her; much were they astonished when they heard her told of. Then when the victory was accomplished, all the army and the lordship well knew that in the Maid was great virtue. Those of Orléans rang the bells, priests in vestments, and all the inhabitants came to open their gate; all the army, they put them inside.\nThe Maid was joyful, well arrayed in arms; fair it was to see her. All those of Orléans looked hard at her; she was prized and dreaded; within Orléans she was lodged right well, as if it had been the King. Those of Orléans made her great gifts, thanking her for having put them out of danger; every one came to her lodging; she held open court; all were received there. When the King heard the tidings, right joyful he was. He praised God for this Maid, who had come into his service. I believe God has inspired her to recover my kingdom. The Maid, who had rested one day, said to all the army: Now let each make ready; to war we must go.\nAll along the river Loire they arrived in Touraine. All the English that were found of them were taken or slain. So far they rode that they came in war before Bordeaux; and being arrived, all of one good will they besieged it; most sharply with artillery and approaches they pressed it close. The English inside were all astonished at it, to see so great a number of folk. At the end of six weeks they surrendered, a staff in their hands. There they left all, horses and harness; and went away. The Maid entered it, and set a garrison to guard it well.\nBefore Bayonne they all went; they besieged it; with a great store of artillery they shot against it, saying: English, surrender, or you shall all die. The English well considered that if they held so long, it would go ill with them. They put themselves to parley, asking all leave, saving their bodies and their goods. All was granted them; so they took it and all went away. The Maid, by her power of war, cast all the English out; all the country praised her much for it, thanked God that to the King all had returned. Those of Paris, hearing these victories, put out the English; they put them back in one day, and on the said day put them back out. The more part of the city was for the King; several would not permit that they should be English.\nThe Maid, seeing that she had warred over all the campaign, conquered Paris, sent word that she would have herself carried thither, and that to Reims alone she would lead him to be consecrated, and in Paris she would have him crowned. The King heard these tidings, he began to praise God: Since she sends me word, to her I must go. The King prepared himself, he and his people; they set upon the way; straight to Bordeaux they arrived. The Maid and all the nobles greeted him. The Maid said to him: Sire, to Reims I will lead you; there you shall be consecrated; then to Paris we shall lead you to be crowned. The King was right joyful at the tidings, and said: Maid, your pleasure be done; let us set ourselves upon the way, and well shall you lead me. They sent word to Reims to my lord the Abbot that King Charles was going to be consecrated. When the Abbot heard it, right joyful he was, he prepared all the church. The King rode so far that at Reims he arrived. The Abbot and all the convent, and all of the city, greeted him. The Maid they looked hard at; all provisions for the King they made ready; before the King honourably in the church they sang mass; the King was nobly consecrated; all the ordinances of the past kings he received, without passing any. The Maid, seeing all accomplished, said to the King: Now, let us go to Paris; there you shall be crowned.\nStraight to Paris they set upon the way. When they presented themselves at Paris, all churchmen and noble folk presented themselves to him, received him in and brought him in, the little children crying: Vive le roi! The Maid all the while near him, by those of Paris was looked hard at, they saying: Here is a Maid; she is much to be praised. God has done her great graces to make herself dreaded. All the nobles led the King to his lodging; near him they lodged the Maid; to serve God and make good cheer they failed not. On the morrow all the princes, Bourbon, Orléans, Nemours and Alençon, took the crown and set it on the King’s head, saying: Vive le roi! So they led him to Saint-Denis. For eight days, jousts, tournaments and great sport, ladies and damsels dancing, it was great pleasure.\nAfter that done, the Maid said to the King: Sire, since these English have all withdrawn into Normandy, now all the army must be ready; we must undertake to chase them and make their return be into England. Said the King: My daughter, since you have made a good beginning, we must make a good finishing. The King ordained to all the army that they should be ready, and thanked them for the obedience and service they had done the Maid. I have trust in you that you will persevere to the Maid; into Normandy she wills to lead you. All the army promised him ever to obey, and all made ready. They commended the King to God; they set upon the way.\nThe Maid mounting before upon her courser, making caracoles before those of Paris, right well she knew how to do it; they took great pleasure in it: What a gentle Maid; God give her good life, and grant her the grace soon to conquer high and low Normandy. The Maid commended them to God, all of them, then they went away; before Dieppe they arrived, besieged it in firm land, warred upon it, gained the battle. The English, seeing it, took boats in plenty; by sea to England they went away. The county of Eu and all the environs, the Maid by power of arms put in subjection. She said to those of the army: Honfleur, Harfleur, Caen, Lisieux, Avranches, Saint-Michel, Alençon and all the country, all we must have; on the return, before Rouen shall our return be. Now, is it well said, let us all go thither. Upon the way they set themselves with powers of arms, all conquered; as far as Saint-Michel she chased them out of it. She was wise and well advised; she cleared the environs of Rouen: At least, when the siege shall be before it, they will make us no hindrance. They came to set the siege to environ it all. Great power was needed; the river Seine runs all before it; hardly could they besiege it without losing many people. It is great and powerful: within there were more than six thousand English, without counting those who were on mount Sainte-Katherine, who did them much harm. The Maid put all in order; she had a great trench made as far as the moats. Those of Rouen, seeing the efforts, sallied out; there was a great skirmish. The Maid, who was valiant, and who in the skirmish was as one proved and hardy, thrust herself into the midst. There she was lost; they knew not what became of her. Several said that the English took her: into Rouen she was led, the English had her burned. Others said that certain of the army had had her put to death, because she attributed to herself all the honours of the deeds of arms.\nWhen the King learned the tidings that the Maid was dead, he was much grieved. If she had been brought back to him, in holy ground he would have had her buried, and would have had made her a rich and honest sepulchre; the Church would have made memory of her for ever; the priests would have had great profit of it. The King and all his army were long in having the said Rouen. It cost much to have, both in men and in money. At last the English had an appointment; saving their bodies and goods, to England they returned frankly. The King, seeing his kingdom in peace, married a girl, a notable daughter of the Duke of Anjou, sister of King Louis, brother of the said lady; the Count of Guise, the Count of Maine, all brothers of the said lady; which brother Louis had the kingdom of Sicily, Anjou and Provence. Which King Charles had of her sons and daughters, whereof the last King Louis was one.\nTHREE ANONYMOUS NORMAN CHRONICLERS. # The first of these authors composed an unpublished chronicle of Normandy which goes no further than Henry VI’s entry into Rouen. This circumstance authorises us to think he wrote in the very lifetime of Joan of Arc, of whom he speaks with favour. That is very notable on the part of a Norman. We publish his testimony after manuscript no. 9859-3 of the Royal Library.\nThe piece which follows is drawn from a manuscript chronicle of the British Museum (Plut. CLVIII. E), of which divers fragments, and notably this one, were recently published by M. Vallet de Viriville in the Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes (vol. II of the second series). The manuscript formed part of the Joursanvault archives. It appears to have been executed in 1439, the year where the chronicle stops, and ends with an armorial of the barons of Normandy, traced by the same hand as the rest. Note the doubt expressed in this testimony on the reality of the Maid’s execution. The apparition of a false Joan of Arc from 1436 to 1440 justifies or at least explains the chronicler’s doubt.\nLastly comes an extract from the Chronique de Normandie, printed so many times at Rouen and elsewhere. This chronicle, which carries the narrative of events to the final reduction of the province in 1450, was written a little after the death of Charles VII, since allusion is made to that event in the narrative. Our text conforms to that of the Rouen edition of 1581.\nManuscript 9859-3, Royal Library.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-eight, before Easter, the siege of the English was laid before the town of Orléans; and there the said English fortified themselves very strongly with moats, boulevards, bastilles, and they were there until the month of June of the year 1429; in which month those within the said city issued out with a great quantity of men-at-arms and a young girl who was called the Maid; and several said that she was sent on God’s behalf to aid Charles the Dauphin, son of the late Charles, King of France, to reconquer his kingdom which the said Henry, King of England, had conquered, of whom mention has been made before. And the said men-at-arms and Maid, thus issued out, assaulted by force the boulevard of the said English and thrust fire into it, and slew a great quantity of English, so that the said English had to raise the said siege and flee; and thus they were all astonished.\nItem, in that same year and in the said month of June, about Saint John’s day, the said English rallied to go against the said French who had thus crestfallen them, and found them sooner than was needful to them; for the said French took two fortresses, one named Jargeau and the other Beaugency, and slew there a great quantity of the said English, and gained there great moneys, cannon, bombards and other war-harness. And forthwith the said French came towards a fortress named Yenville, and found and met the said English in a great company, and there they fell upon them so sharply that the said English knew not how to defend themselves; and there many were slain and the others prisoners, and the French remained masters. And there were taken three great English lords: to wit, the Earl of Suffolk, my lord of Scales and one named Talbot, who was one of the good routiers of the\nEnglish. And there escaped of the English none save one named\nMessire John Fastolf, with about seven or eight hundred English who were on horseback, who fled when they saw the ill part turning; and if they had been on foot like those of the great battle of the said English, none of them would have remained who had not been dead or prisoner. And there were the English very well crushed, more than they had ever been in France; and they would have returned to England and so left the country, if the Regent had suffered them. And the English were then so abashed that one Frenchman would have chased three of them.\nItem, in that same year, both in the said month of June and in the month of July following, the said French took two fortresses, one named Meung and the other Yenville; and also in the said month of July they conquered several fortresses, as Troyes, Auxerre, Reims and several others. And the said Dauphin had himself consecrated at Reims by the Archbishop of the place, who was of his company. And there were many great lords at the unction. And afterwards he conquered several fortresses, as Compiègne, Senlis and several others; and every one dreaded the said Charles; and he conquered in two months what the English had taken more than three years to conquer; and that Maid was much dreaded, for she used summonses and said that if they did not surrender, she would take by assault; and she had with her a great quantity of country-folk (1) on foot, who did their duty right well and had done it in the battles against the English, for the English had threatened to burn them: whereby they were the more indignant against them.\n(1) That is, churchmen and folk of the people without arms.\nIn the month of August of the said year 1429, at the end of the said month of August, came the said Charles with the Duke of Alençon, Messire Charles de Bourbon, the Maid of whom mention has been made before, the Duke of Bar, accompanied by thirty to forty thousand men, both French, Hainaulters, Liégeois and Barrois, and laid the siege before Paris. And they were lodged at Saint-Denis, at Montmartre and other places around Paris, and put the city in such subjection that victuals came to it from no side, and victuals were so dear in the city that it was a great marvel. And they were there well nigh six weeks; and when they saw that they would not surrender, the said Charles and those of his company advised that they should make them an assault. Which was made them so sharp and so marvellous that those within were all astonished; and there was no man who dared show himself upon the wall for the shot of those who assaulted. And the said assailants had a manner of instruments named couleuvres, which cast stones and leaden shot, but made no noise save a little whistling; and they cast as straight as an arbalest. And the assault was so strong that those within had as it were wholly unmanned the wall; and the said assailants were so near the walls that naught was wanting but to raise the ladders wherewith they were well furnished, and they would have been within; but it was advised by one named my lord de La Trémoïlle, on the said Charles’s side, for there was too great a slaying: for the said assailants had the intention, as was said, to slay and burn. And it was also said that my lord of Burgundy had sent a herald to the said Charles, saying that he would hold the appointment he had made with the said\nCharles (1), and that he should cease, he and his people; but if there was an appointment between them, or what it was, I could not say; but nevertheless there was a truce until the following Christmas. And so the said Charles had the retreat sounded at the said assault, and they withdrew; and I believe they would have gained the said city of Paris, had they been let do it. And there were several of the said Charles’s company who were much angered at this, as the Duke of Alençon and especially the Count of Armagnac (2), for he hated those of Paris because they had slain his father long since; and in making the said assault the said Count of Armagnac and his people were on one of the sides where there was no assault, so that if any of the said city would issue or flee, he might take or put him to death. And during the said siege they made a bridge below Paris to guard the Seine. And this done so, the said Charles and his people returned by the means above said, as was said.\n(1) See above, p. 48.\n(2) This could only be the cadet of Armagnac, Count of Pardiac.\nBritish Museum manuscript.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and thirty, after the King had returned from his coronation and arrived in Touraine, the Maid returned to the country of France where a great part of the King’s people had remained, both at Compiègne and in the places he had conquered. And after she had journeyed and seen part of the country, she withdrew to the said place of Compiègne. And she being within, the Burgundians came riding before it; and around it they had laid several ambushes. And at the skirmish the said Maid issued out with several of her people; and she launched herself forward so far that she found herself among the said ambushes, where she was taken and carried off by the said Burgundians.\nAnd after they had long guarded her, they sold her to the English, who bought her right dearly, and after this they led her to the city of Rouen, where she was imprisoned for the space of a long time and questioned by the greatest men, and wisest and greatest clerks of all their party, to know whether (1) her victories, which she had had over them, were made by enchantments, charms (2) or otherwise. Whom they found of so fair answers, giving them solutions so reasonable, that there was never any who for a long time dared adjudge her to death according to right. But at last they had her burned publicly, or another woman in her likeness. Whereof many people have been and still are of diverse opinions (3).\n(1) If the.\n(2) Magic dances.\n(3) This doubt is found expressed by several other authors; among others by that of an abbreviated chronicle executed in Brittany in 1440, whose manuscript is in the Sainte-Geneviève library (no. 1155, formerly L. 2). There one reads: In the year 1431, the eve of the Sacrament, the Maid was burned at Rouen or condemned to be so. Symphorien Champier, in La nef des Dames, printed at Lyons in 1503, still writes: This maid was a woman of great spirit, as much by prowess and nobleness of arms as by subtlety of understanding; and she seemed rather a spiritual than a corporal thing by the arms and prowesses she did; for she bore herself so valiantly against the said English that she virtuously chased them from several towns of France, as from Paris, from before Orléans and several other places. And at last she was taken by treason and delivered to the English, who, in despite of the French, burned her at Rouen; so say they nevertheless — which the French deny. Wherefore she is properly compared to Penthesilea.\nPrinted Chronicle of Normandy.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, the Earl of Salisbury assembled the English at Chartres in great power, and said to Master Jehan de Meun, a magician, that he wished to go lay the siege at Orléans. And Master Jehan told him to keep his head (1). The siege was laid there, so that those of the city, seeing that the English had gained the tower of the middle of the bridge and that no succour came to them, asked truces to parley and compound for their city. During the truces Salisbury was at a window of that bridge-tower, whence he was looking at the city; and a scholar put fire to a piece of artillery which was mounted to shoot at that tower: whereof the stone struck Salisbury through the head, and he died of it. Forthwith the English cried treason, to arms and to the assault, which they gave strongly against the city. But scholars made them strong resistance, and the English were valiantly repulsed. To the succour of the city came the French with the Maid, who then began to reign, and they raised the siege of the English. The English took to flight and Talbot was prisoner. The French outwent the English at Patay, and there was the great discomfiture of the\n(1) The same fact is thus reported by Simon de Phares in his book of celebrated Astrologers: Master Jehan des Builhons, prisoner at Chartres of the English, a great philosopher and good astrologer, predicted to the Earl of Salisbury, to Talbot and others, their misfortune during the siege of Orléans and after what befell; wherefore he was much honoured. And King Charles VII had him delivered by the Bastard of Orléans, lord of Beaugency and Count of Dunois, and retained him of his pension and household honourably, albeit certain folk who are still of the English race say the contrary, and that he died in prison. (Manuscript no. 7487 of the Royal Library.)\nEnglish; and they dreaded the Maid so much that it seemed to them that, wherever she should be, they would never have victory.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and thirty-one, Messire John of Luxembourg, the Earl of Arundel and several English and Burgundians came with a great host to lay the siege before Compiègne; which thing coming to the knowledge of Joan the Maid, then being at Lagny-sur-Marne, she departed from the said Lagny to come succour the besieged at Compiègne; and thereafter from day to day there were great skirmishes between the English and Burgundians on the one part, and those of the city on the other. So it befell one day that the said Maid made a sally valiantly; but the English charged so strongly upon her and her company that she was taken. And this was made to be done by envy of the captains of France, because, if any deeds of arms were done, the renown was such throughout the world that the Maid had done them. And the said Joan the Maid was detained in prison by the people of Messire John of Luxembourg; and then they sold her to the English, who led her to Rouen. And she was preached to at Saint-Ouen, and then afterwards led to the Vieil-Marché where she was burned and the ashes cast to the wind.\nROBERT BLONDEL. # Robert Blondel, a Norman clerk, tutor of prince Charles, son of Charles VII, composed a Latin history of the reduction of Normandy in 1450. It is thence that the passage reported below is drawn. The work, which is not printed and which probably never will be, has been analysed by Bréquigny in the Notices et extraits des manuscrits (vol. VI). There are several manuscripts of it in the Royal Library. The one I have used bears the number 6197. The chapter of the Maid is found at folio 109.\nOf the sacrilegious despoiling of the church of Cléry, and of the Maid’s succour and the miraculous expugnation of the English siege, and of the unexpected coronation of King Charles of France.\nO English race, rapacious race, sacrilegious race, when with eleven monstrous bastilles that city, illustrious in faith and arms, preservatrix of the realm, Orléans, thou wert in grievous labour to hold besieged: the most renowned temple of our Lady the Virgin Mary of Cléry, made famous by divers and infinite miracles, with its sacred gifts and its township, thou didst dare to despoil with profane rapine. Thenceforth all things proceed for thee, sacrilegious one, inauspicious: namely that truculent Earl of Salisbury, director of the raw siege, hidden within a window of the bridge-tower, beholding the splendid composition of the city, by an unknown shooter, though certain say by a youth, cast, is lethally wounded by the blow wherewith he was stricken and fell. This war-leader extinguished, the industry and the bodily vigour of the besiegers wither away. At the last the strenuous Maid, having put on a man’s mind and habit, as the war expedition divinely committed to her necessarily urged, imbued with the military art not by man but by God, came down from heaven to confound thy savage insolence. The monstrous horror of thy bastilles, first that of the Bridge, which, if the power of kings, if the multitude of nations had fought against it, was impregnable by shield and lance; then that other of Saint-Loup, by an unheard-of assault, mightier than mortal strength, the English fighting within being laid low, without French blood, she utterly overthrew. The other keepers of the rest, terrified by so great and unlooked-for a slaughter, leaving their fortifications to be approached by a new attack, basely taking flight, yield to the victorious Maid. This mightily armed Maid, relying on heavenly aid, advancing with hasty step, reaching them in the field of Patay, rushes through the midst of the most ferocious foes. Marvellous! as if they bore useless limbs and severed hands, robust of body and most exercised in war, invaded, they are cut down with little resistance; and others scattered hither and thither through hedges and thickets, in pitiable slaughter like cattle exposed at the shambles, are butchered not by soldiers, nay, but by rustics inexpert in war. This battle finished, against the surpassing strong fortification of Jargeau above the Loire, easy to guard by the enemy with a small band, this most strenuous warrior-woman advances by assault; in which eight hundred barbarians found, most ferocious with bow and sword, all either slain or taken, by incredible and more than human valour of arms she subdued.\nBefore the saving succour of this Maid, so great was the trouble and distrust of adversity that it had shaken down the spirits even of the Dauphin’s faithful, who were to fight for the kingdom’s guard against the most ferocious aggressors; that, the city subdued, all the other cities and strongholds, especially those situated above the Loire, destitute of all hope of succour, would yield to the victorious foe; nor did the counsellors, perplexed by the asperity of so great an evil, deem there any other opportune remedy for the lord Dauphin’s safety, save the deserting of his country. But this Maid, admonished by the Holy Spirit and kindled with divine fervour, repairing the downfall of fortune by her most excellent virtue, through the midst of the ferocity of the thickest foes led over Charles, then Dauphin, to Reims to be consecrated with the heavenly oil. And he who but lately, by the wicked conspiracy of his own, disherited from the kingdom, is attacked by traitors as an enemy of the crown, now by divine providence crowned with the sacred diadem, true and legitimate heir of the sceptre, is raised to be King.\nTHOMAS BASIN. # Thomas Basin, born at Caudebec in 1412 and attached to the English party until 1449, was studying at Paris at the moment when Joan of Arc appeared. Afterwards he became Bishop of Lisieux, acquired a great reputation as a canonist, and in that quality was charged by Charles VII to compose a memoir on the irregularities of the trial conducted by Pierre Cauchon. Parts of this work have been reported as pieces of the Rehabilitation in our third volume (p. 309 and following). Forced to quit France in consequence of quarrels he had with Louis XI, Thomas Basin, after wandering from retreat to retreat, stopped at Trier in 1471, and there composed a Latin history of his time, which has never been printed, but which has often been cited under the name, today recognised as false, of Amelgard.\nThe testimony borne on Joan of Arc in this work is very favourable. It is known in part through citations of Meyer (Annales Flandriae, book XVI), who had appropriated it without making its author known otherwise than by the designation of a contemporary. Thomas Basin’s relation, contained in five chapters of the History of Charles VII, conforms to the version generally adopted. The only circumstances peculiar to him are that he names Dunois as one of those who most engaged Charles VII to make use of the Maid, and that this lord affirmed to him to hold of the King that the secret revealed by her was of such nature that she could not know it save by God’s intervention.\nAs the Société de l’Histoire de France has decided on the publication of the pretended Amelgard, and this work will shortly be delivered to the public, I may dispense with reporting in its whole extent what the historian says of Joan of Arc. I shall confine my borrowings to the two chapters where he speaks of the trial. There will be found the famous passage where he recounts the part he had in the Rehabilitation, a passage on whose faith M. de l’Averdy made so many researches in all the libraries of Europe, imagining that there existed or had existed a justificatory memoir on the Maid by Amelgard. The same place on the contrary helped me to discover that Amelgard was an imaginary author.\nChap. XV. — Compiègne is besieged by the English and Burgundians; where Joan the Maid, rushing out of the town upon the foes, is taken by a Burgundian and sold to the English.\nNow when the English with the Burgundians had already long besieged Compiègne upon the river Oise, and Joan the Maid was in the town with many strenuous French leaders and soldiers: to the same Joan a most unlucky and unhappy omen befell; for on a certain day, issuing out of the town with many armed men to make an attack upon the foes, she was taken by a Burgundian soldier, and redeemed with much gold by the English, who greatly desired her perdition and extinction. Whereat the English, who so many times by the terror of her name alone had been slain and routed, were much gladdened and elated. They led her to the city of Rouen, in which the said young Henry then was with his court and council; where, after it had been long deliberated what should be resolved concerning her, they rested in this sentence: that she, studiously kept in a certain sufficiently harsh prison of the castle of Rouen, before the lord Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, who was one of the foremost of the King of England’s councillors, because she had been apprehended within the limits of his diocese, inquisition and the business of faith should be conducted against her. Which was carried on and agitated long, and through the course of many months, and on divers days and sittings, the inquisitors of heretical pravity sitting with them, and many professors of sacred theology and of divine and human law summoned from Paris for this cause, she was manifoldly questioned; and the interrogations made her were, with each of her answers, most diligently taken down by public notaries, and drawn up into public instruments. Almost all marvelled that to interrogations on the chapters of the faith, difficult enough even for learned and lettered men, such a rustic girl should answer so prudently and cautiously; and whereas the whole intent of the assessors, who were the sharper and more fervent fautors and defenders of the English quarrel, was bent to this: that, caught by cunning and captious interrogations, she might be adjudged guilty of the crime of heresy, and thereby be removed from the midst, yet they could draw nothing valid or efficacious to this end from her sayings or assertions. For in truth she had been, as those who had known her conversation and manners testified, before she had approached the King, and even after she had been conversant among the cohorts of armed men, much devout, frequenting churches and oratories as often as she could. But when she was busied in the field pasturing the flock, if she heard the bell’s sound for the elevation of the divine body and blood, or for the salutation of Blessed Mary, she was wont with great fervour of devotion to bend the knee and entreat God. And also she affirmed she had vowed her virginity to God: of whose violation, although she had long conversed among the flocks of armed men and of unchaste and most depraved men in manners, yet she never endured any infamy. Nay rather, when by expert women, even while in the hands of the English, she had been examined and inspected upon her integrity, they could experience or infer nothing else of her, save that she kept her virginal cloister inviolate. She herself excused the habit and garment of a man’s dress, asserting that the commandment of assuming and using it and arms had been divinely made to her, lest she should draw the men, among whom she had to be conversant day and night in warlike expeditions, to illicit concupiscence of her, had she worn a woman’s garb, which could hardly indeed have been inhibited. But certainly, whatsoever simulacrum or specimen of virtue might have shone out in her, there was hardly a way she could have justified herself before those who held her, since they sought nothing more fervently or eagerly than that she should be destroyed and extinguished. For the one sentence and common voice of all the English was that they could never fight happily with the French, or report victory over them, so long as that Maid, whom they defamed as a sorceress and witch, should live in human form. Yet how could secure innocence escape, or what avail, amid the hands of so many most bitter enemies and calumniators, such as were to the said Maid the English themselves, and very many others who more strenuously defended their party and sat in the judgement, who with all their effort, by whatsoever way, wished her to be destroyed? Now when upon those apparitions of the holy virgins which she affirmed had been made to her, she perseveringly remained in one and the same confession; while she was also wearied by manifoldly repeated examinations, and at the same time wasted and worn by the squalor and want of her long prison (in which she was guarded by English soldiers, both within the prison and without, ever keeping watch beside the door), they say that, the judges promising her impunity and liberation if she should do it, at one time she abjured having had true apparitions or divine revelations of this kind; being at last induced to this, that before those sitting in judgement she abjured that she would say or assert those things further. And when this had been so done, yet she was no less on this account released from the hardness and asperity of the prison, some days having passed, it was noised abroad that she had said she had been gravely reproached therefor, because she had abjured having had such apparitions and revelations, and that again the same Saints had appeared to her in the prison, who had dreadfully rebuked her for this.\nChap. XVI. — The condemnation of Joan the Maid, who was consumed by fire at Rouen.\nNow when this thing had been brought to the judges, she, again publicly exhibited to judgement, as relapsed into the abjured heresy, was judged, and, as such, left to the arm of the secular power. Whom forthwith the executioners and the whole band of English, who in great number were then with their King Henry at Rouen, seized; an almost innumerable multitude of peoples beholding, both of the city itself and of the fields and neighbouring towns (for very many had flocked to the same city as to a public spectacle on this account), the same Joan, ever invoking God her helper and the glorious Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, was consumed by fire. All the ashes also, which the fire had left as well of the wood as of her body and bones, were gathered and cast from the bridge into the Seine, lest aught of her relics might by some superstition be taken away and preserved. And such indeed was the end of this transitory life of Joan.\nThe reader of this history will perhaps expect our judgement of this Maid’s deeds; of whom throughout all Gaul in that season the fame was most renowned. We indeed, as we do not presume rashly to assert that the revelations and apparitions which she said she had were from God, whose signs of her mission she is said to have told to King Charles alone we have in no wise learnt; so we boldly say and affirm that, from the process made against her, which we ourselves saw and examined after the English had been cast out and Normandy had returned as by postliminium under Charles’s sway, it does not sufficiently appear that she was bound by the assertion of any erroneous dogma contrary to the truth of Catholic doctrine, or had unjustly confessed it; and thereby the foundation of heresy and relapse manifestly enough fails. Although also, besides this, such a process could be argued vicious on many heads, being made and held before her capital enemies, often by her recused, all counsel being also denied her, who was a simple Maid: as from the little book which thereupon, at the same Charles’s request for our counsel, we published, if it shall come to the hands of any who has leisure to read it, may more amply appear. For when the English had been driven from Normandy, the same Charles caused the aforesaid process to be diligently examined and discussed by several prelates of his kingdom and men learned in divine and human law; and on that matter several wrote him little books, which, exhibited before certain judges delegated by the apostolic see to take cognisance and judge of such matter, and maturely considered by the same judges, it came down to the sentence we have said, and the sentence given against her under the English dominion was cassated and revoked.\nSomeone will perhaps wonder, if she was sent by God, how she could thus be taken and brought to punishment; but none can reasonably wonder, who without any hesitation believes that the holy Lord and Saviour of the holy ones, the holy prophets and apostles sent by God for the doctrine of salvation and faith and God’s will to be insinuated to men and evangelised, were afflicted with divers torments and punishments and ended this mortal life by triumphal martyrdom: since we also read in the Old Testament that the Israelite people, commanded by God to exterminate the nations of the Canaanites and to fight against their foes and idolaters, both for their own sins, or for even one of them, their foes at times prevailing, fell and were overthrown. For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor? Yet we do not so say these things as to wish to equal the same Joan, in the manner we have said snatched beforehand from this miserable life, to the merits of the apostles or holy martyrs; but we deem it in no wise repugnant or incompatible, both that the said Joan was sent by God to succour the kingdom and people of the French against their foes the English, who then most grievously oppressed the kingdom itself, to crush the pride of the same French and English, and lest any should put the flesh his arm, but that none should glory save in God and in his own strengths alone; and nonetheless that God suffered her to be taken by the foes and thus afflicted with punishment, whether for the demerits of the King or of the people of the French, as being ungrateful for so great benefits as God had wonderfully conferred on them by her, not rendering the due thanks to the divinity, or attributing the victories granted them not to God’s grace but to their own merits or strengths (which merits indeed were then none save evil, since manners were most corrupt), or for some other cause, just indeed, since there is no iniquity with God, albeit least known to us, withdrawing the grace he had freely given to the undeserving from the unworthy and ungrateful. For often what divine goodness gave freely, it took away from the ungrateful; but that God through women sometimes with arms, sometimes without arms, conferred on his own succour and consolations of victories over the foes, the histories of Deborah, Judith and Esther are witnesses, which are inserted in the canon of the divine scriptures.\nHaving then recounted such things of Joan the Maid, of whose mission and apparitions and revelations asserted by her we take away from none the liberty of judging as he will, this or otherwise, according to his capacity and choice: let us return to pursue the course of our narration.\nLIFE OF GUILLAUME DE GAMACHES. # This work must figure here at least for memory, forasmuch as it has been cited by commendable historians of Joan of Arc, such as MM. Le Brun de Charmettes and Jollois. It was printed in 1790 in a collection entitled: la France illustre ou le Plutarque français, by M. Turpin, citizen of Saint-Malo. This M. Turpin did in effect receive letters of burgess-ship of the Malouins for having written the life of Duguay-Trouin, but he was born at Caen. He crawled before all powers, made homages to the ministers of Louis XV, to those of Louis XVI, to Marie-Antoinette and to the Convention. The life of Guillaume de Gamaches has all the air of a speculation on the vanity of the heirs of the name. It is a tissue of false genealogical information and of pretended extracts of chronicle, luckily forged with a clumsiness which at once reveals the cheat.\nGuillaume de Gamaches, according to M. Turpin, would have been the man by whom France was saved. He makes him assist at the councils of war held within Orléans in 1429, and puts him there in open struggle with Joan of Arc. On this matter he lets his chronicle speak, of which here is a sample:\nRiotte is moved, so that he could not rein his ire, saying: Since it is thus, knights, that the advice of a little wench of low place is held better than that of a knight such as I am, I should still rebuff against it. I should make my sword speak in time and place and should perhaps be slain; but so I will it, for the King and my honour, and never since this day have I unfurled my banner and am no more but a poor squire; forasmuch as I like better a noble man for master than a woman who was perhaps — who knows.\nThereupon Guillaume de Gamaches folds his banner and returns it to Dunois; but the other captains by dint of prayers end by calming his anger and by making him kiss the Maid on the cheek: which the two did with a wry face.\nNothing of all this deserves discussion either for the substance or for the form. It suffices to have called attention to this gross pastiche, to spare oneself the trouble of resorting to the book, which is hard enough to meet with.\nENGUERRAND DE MONSTRELET. # After a celebrated academic memoir, due to M. Dacier, Monstrelet would deserve the reputation of an impartial historian. If that be so, it is not in speaking of Joan of Arc that he has shown it. His testimony on her breathes from one end to the other the prejudice of an enemy. It is just to add that this enemy is a sincere man; but in him the love of truth silences neither interest nor passion.\nEnguerrand de Monstrelet was a bastard of a good house, native of the county of Boulogne. All his life he found himself in the dependence of the lords of the house of Luxembourg, and all his life he served them with his sword and his pen. It has been pretended, it is true, that he had never borne arms; but that is an opinion which was ruined some time ago by the discovery of a remission granted in 1424 to Enguerrand de Monstrelet, captain of the castle of Frencq in the pay of the Count of Saint-Pol, guilty of having taken part in a robbery upon peaceful merchants of Abbeville.\nInvested one knows not with what office in 1430, Monstrelet found himself at the camp of Compiègne. He says he saw the Maid there after her capture, and even heard the conversation which the Duke of Burgundy had with her when she was brought to him. About 1440 he was called to the provostship of Cambrai, doubtless by the protection of John of Luxembourg, who had all credit in that imperial city. From that moment until his death, which befell in 1453, he laboured at the redaction of his chronicle. He made of this work the register of John of Luxembourg’s exploits. The least actions of that lord occupy chapters, and all have their place in it. When I say all, I am wrong: the sale of Joan of Arc to the English is not there. It is even plain that the author used a subterfuge to dispense himself from writing that ugly page of the history of his master. Having begun by promising that he would speak later of the Maid’s captivity (see below, p. 402), he arrives at the chapter of the execution without having said a word of it. Of the trial itself he dares not open his mouth. He contents himself with intercalating in his text the apologetic relation which the English government caused to be carried through all Europe after the execution of the sentence. Such is his impartiality.\nThe text to be read is not that of the Monstrelet of the modern editions, which has been corrected, paraphrased, disfigured by Denis Sauvage. It is taken from a good manuscript of the Royal Library (no. 8346 French), a manuscript executed in the novelty of the work, and in which is found again the Picard orthography, which was the author’s.\nOF THE YEAR ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY-EIGHT.\nChap. LVII. — How a maid, named Joan, came before King Charles, at Chinon, where he held himself; and how the said King Charles retained her with him.\nIn the year aforesaid, there came before King Charles of France, at Chinon where he held himself a great part of the time, a maid, a young girl aged twenty years or thereabout, named Joan, who was clothed and clad in man’s guise; and she was born of the parts between Burgundy and Lorraine, of a town named Domremy, fairly near Vaucouleurs; which Joan was for a great space of time a servant in a hostelry, and was hardy to ride horses, and lead them to drink (1), and also to do feats and other exploits that young girls are not wont to do.\n(1) A marginal note of Ms. 8346, written in the time of Charles VII or of Louis XI, thus rectifies this assertion: All her life she was a shepherdess keeping the sheep until she was led before the King; nor had she ever seen a horse, at least to mount upon.\nAnd she was put on the way and sent before the King by a knight named Messire Robert de Baudricourt, captain, on the said King’s behalf, of Vaucouleurs, who gave her horses and four or six companions. And she said she was a maid inspired by divine grace, and that she was sent before the said King to set him back in the possession of his kingdom, whence he was chased and thrust out wrongfully; and he was in a right poor estate. And she was about two months in the hostel of the King aforesaid, whom, several times, she admonished by her words to give her people and aid, and she would thrust back his enemies, and exalt his lordship.\nDuring which time neither the King nor his council adjoined any great faith to her, nor to aught she could say, and she was held as a madwoman strayed from her wits; for, to so great princes and other noble men, such or like words are much doubtful and perilous to believe, as well for the praise of Our Lord principally, as for the blasphemy that might be had of it from the speeches of the world. Nevertheless, after she had been in the estate aforesaid a space, she was aided and people and war-harness were given her; and she raised a standard where she had the representation of our Creator painted. And all her words were of God’s name. Wherefore a great part of those who saw her and heard her speak had great credence and variation whether she were inspired of God, as she said she was. And she was several times examined by notable clerks and other wise men of great authority, to know more at large her intention; but ever she held to her purpose, saying that if the King would believe her, she would set him back in his lordship. And since that time she did certain businesses whereof she acquired great renown, of which more at large will be declared hereafter. And when she came before the King, there was the Duke of Alençon, the King’s Marshal, and several other captains, for the King had held a great council for the business of the siege of Orléans; and thence he went to Poitiers, and the said Maid with him.\nAnd shortly following, it was ordained that the said Marshal should lead victuals and other necessary things to the said place of Orléans, in strength. And Joan the Maid wished to go with him, and made request that harness be given her to arm and clad herself, which was given her. And soon after she raised her standard and went to Blois, where the assembly was made, and thence to Orléans with the others. And she was ever armed in full harness; and, on that same journey, several men of war put themselves under her. And when she was come into the said city of Orléans, she was made very great cheer, and many folk rejoiced at her coming, as you shall hear recorded more at large right shortly.\nOF THE YEAR ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE.\nChap. LIX. — How the Maid Joan and several French captains refreshed the city of Orléans with victuals and men-at-arms, and afterwards raised the siege.\nAfter the captains of the English aforesaid with their people had, for the space of seven months or thereabout, continued their siege around the city of Orléans, and much oppressed and travailled the same, both by their engines and by the fortifications and bastilles they had made in several places, to the number of sixty, the besieged, seeing that by the said continuance they were in peril of being put in the servitude and obedience of their enemies, concluded and disposed themselves to resist it with all their power, and to remedy it in all the manners that could be done. So they sent to King Charles, to have aid of people and victuals. There were sent them from four to five hundred fighting men or thereabout; and afterwards there came some seven thousand with certain victuals, which were in vessels conducted along the water of Loire by the said men-at-arms; and with them came Joan the Maid, of whom mention is made above, and until that day had still done little whereof there was great renown.\nAnd then those of the host endeavoured to conquer the said victuals; but they were well defended by the said Maid and those who were with her; so they were put to safety: whereat those of the city made good cheer, and were right joyful, both for the coming of the said Maid and for the victuals aforesaid. And on the morrow, which was a Thursday, Joan the Maid arose fairly early, and speaking to several captains of the city and other men of war, she induced and admonished them most strongly by her words to arm themselves and follow her, for she wished to go, so said she, to assail and fight the enemies, saying moreover that she well knew without fail they would be vanquished.\nWhich captains and other men of war were all marvelled at her words; whereof the greater part put themselves in arms, and went with her to assail the bastille of Saint-Loup, which was very strong, and had within from three to four hundred English or thereabout. Who were fairly soon conquered, slain and taken, and put to great mischief; and the said fortification was wholly demolished and set on fire and in flame. So the said Maid Joan returned, with her men-at-arms, into the city of Orléans, where she was most greatly and by all folk honoured and feasted. And the morrow, which was the Friday, the said Maid Joan issued again out of the city, with a certain number of fighting men, and went to assail the second bastille full of English, which, like the first, was gained and vanquished, and those within slain and put to the sword. And after the said Maid Joan had had the said second bastille burned and consumed, she returned into the city of Orléans, where she was more than before exalted and honoured by all its inhabitants. And on the Saturday following she assailed with great valiance and great will the so-strong bastille of the bridge-end, which was marvellously and mightily fortified, and within was the flower of the best men of war of England, and right men-at-arms of the élite, who very long and prudently defended themselves; but it availed them little, for by sheer force and prowess of fighting they were taken and conquered, and the greater part put to the sword. Among whom there was slain a most renowned and valiant English captain, called Glasdale, and with him the lord of Moulins, the Bailiff of Évreux, and several other noble men of great estate.\nAfter which conquest Joan the Maid and the French returned into the city, with small loss of their people. And notwithstanding that in these three assaults the aforesaid Maid bore away the common renown of having been the conductress, nevertheless all the captains were there, or at least the greater part, who, during the said siege, had been within the said city of Orléans, of whom mention is made above, at the said assaults. And each governed himself in his place so valiantly as men of war ought in such case, so that in these three bastilles there were, both slain and taken, from six to eight hundred (1) fighting men, and the French lost only about one hundred men of all estates.\nOn the Sunday following, the English captains, to wit the Earl of Suffolk, Talbot, the lord of Scales and certain others, seeing the taking of their bastilles and the destruction of their people, took conclusion together that they would assemble and put themselves all in one single battle order, forsaking their lodgings and fortification; and, in case the French would fight them, they would await them, or if not, they would depart in good order and return to the good towns and fortresses of their party.\nWhich conclusion, as they had advised it, they maintained. For on that Sunday, very early, they abandoned all their other bastilles, thrusting fires into some; then put themselves in battle order, as is said, where they held themselves a good space, awaiting that the French should go fight them; which French had no will to do it,\n(1) City in the editions.\nby the Maid’s exhortation. And then the English, who saw their power in nowise weakened and too much diminished, and also that it was impossible for them to remain there longer, unless they would do worse, set themselves upon the way, and returned in order to the towns and places holding their party. Then was made in all the city of Orléans great joy and great revelling, when they thus saw themselves delivered from their enemies, and the remnant in the air to their confusion, who for a long time had greatly held them in danger. Several men of war were sent into the said bastilles, where they found certain victuals and other goods most abundantly, which were forthwith carried to safety by them. And they made good cheer thereof, for it had cost them little. And the said bastilles were quickly burned and demolished to the ground, so that no men of war could lodge in them any more.\nChap. LX. — How the King of France, at the request of the Maid and of the other captains being at Orléans, sent them a great force of men-at-arms, to go upon his enemies.\nThereafter the French being within Orléans, to wit the captains with Joan the Maid, all of one common accord, sent their messengers to the King of France, to several, to recount to him the victorious deeds they had done, and how the English his enemies had departed and returned into their garrisons, admonishing the said King that without delay he send them the most men of war he could find, with certain great lords, so that they might pursue their enemies, who were all afeared for the loss they had made; and also that he himself in his person should draw forward in the march. Which tidings were to the King and his council most greatly pleasing; and with good reason. So there were forthwith summoned to come before him the Constable, the Duke of Alençon, Charles, lord of Albret, and several other great lords, of whom the greater part were sent to Orléans.\nAnd on the other part, a certain space of time after, the King drew to Gien, and with him a very great number of fighting men. And the said captains who before were at Orléans, and the princes and great lords who were newly come thither, held great councils all together one with the other, to have advice whether they should pursue the English, in which councils the first called was Joan the Maid, who for that time was in great reign.\nFinally the French, about mid-May, the siege having been raised at the entrance of that month, put themselves in the field to the number of five to six thousand fighting men, with carriage and war-harness, and took their way straight towards Jargeau, where was the Earl of Suffolk and his brothers, who already before had sent several messengers to Paris, to the Duke of Bedford, to announce to him the loss and ill adventure which had befallen them before Orléans, requiring him that he would quickly send them succour, or else they were in peril of being thrust back, and of losing several towns and fortresses they held in the country of Beauce and on the river Loire. Which Duke of Bedford, hearing these ill tidings, was much annoyed and displeased; nevertheless, he considering that it behoved to provide for the more necessary things, hastily summoned folk of all the countries in his obedience, and had from four to five thousand of them assembled, whom he had put upon the way, to draw straight towards the Orléans country, under the conduct of Messire Thomas de Rampston, of the Bastard of Thian and certain others; to whom he promised that shortly following he would go after them with a greater power, which he had summoned in England.\nChap. LXI. — How the Maid, the Constable of France, and the Duke of Alençon and their companies conquered the town of Jargeau; and the battle of Patay, where the French discomfited the English.\nNow it is truth that the Constable of France, the Duke of Alençon, Joan the Maid, and the other French captains being all together in the field, as is said above, rode so far by certain days’ journeys that they came before Jargeau, where was the aforesaid Earl of Suffolk, and from three to four hundred of his people with the inhabitants of the town, who forthwith with all diligence put themselves in order of defence; but in brief they were soon enough environed on all parts by the said French. And in fact they began in several places to assail them most sharply; which assault lasted a good space, terrible and most marvellous. Nevertheless the said French continued so sharply in the said assault that, maugre their adversaries, by force of arms they entered within the town, and by prowess conquered it. At which entry there were slain three hundred English fighting men, of whom one was of the brothers of the Earl of Suffolk; which Earl, with his other brother, the lord de la Pole, were made prisoners, and of their other people to the number of sixty men or thereabouts.\nThus then this town and castle of Jargeau being conquered and subjugated, as is said, the said French refreshed themselves wholly at their ease in it, and afterwards, departing thence, they went to Meung, which forthwith made them obedience; and on the other part the English fled, who held La Ferté-Hubert, and thrust themselves all together into Beaugency (1); as far as which place they were chased and pursued by the French, who lodged themselves before them in several places, and ever Joan the Maid in the front before, with her standard. And then, through all the marches thereabout, there was no greater noise or renown than there was of her, and of no other man of war.\nAnd then the principal English captains, who were within the said town of Beaugency, seeing by the renown of the said Maid that fortune was thus wholly turned against them, and that several towns and fortresses were already put in the obedience of their enemies, some by valiance of arms and force of assault, and others by treaty, and also that their people, for the greater part, were much astonished and afeared, and they found them not of such purpose of prudence as they had been wont, but were most desirous to withdraw upon the marches of Normandy: they knew not what to do, nor what counsel to choose, for they could not be certified or assured of shortly having succour. And therefore, having all\n(1) Beaugency.\nconsidered the businesses aforesaid, they treated with the French that they would go away with their goods, saving their bodies and their lives, on condition that they would render the place into the obedience of King Charles or of his deputies. Which treaty thus made, the said English departed, taking their way through Beauce, drawing towards Paris. And the French entered joyously into Beaugency, and took conclusion by the exhortation of Joan the Maid, that they would go to meet the English, who were coming from the parts towards Paris to fight them, as had been given them to understand: which thing was true. So they put themselves again into the open field; and there came to them each day new people from several marches. And there were then ordained the Constable, the Marshal de Boussac, La Hire, Poton and certain other captains to make the vanguard; and the rest, as the Duke of Alençon, the Bastard of Orléans, the Marshal de Rais, were conductors of the battle, which followed the said vanguard fairly near, and they could be from six to eight thousand (1) fighting men. And it was asked of Joan the Maid, by certain of the princes there being, what thing it was to do and what seemed her good to ordain; who answered that she well knew for truth that their ancient adversaries the English were coming to fight them; saying moreover that, in God’s name, they should go hardily against them, and that without fail they would be vanquished. And certain asked her where they would find them; and she said: Ride hardily, we shall have good conduct.\n(1) The editions read from eight to nine thousand.\nThen all the men-at-arms put themselves in battle order, and in good order took their way, having some of the most expert men of war mounted on the flower of coursers, going before to discover their enemies, to the number of sixty or eighty men-at-arms. And thus riding for a certain long space, they came on a Saturday to a great half-league from a large village named Patay; on which march the aforesaid French runners saw a stag issue from before them, which addressed its way straight to go to the battle of the English, who had already put themselves all together, to wit those coming from Paris, of whom mention is made above, and the others who had departed from Beaugency and the marches of Orléans. At whose coming, which stag plunged, as is said, through the said battle, a very great cry was raised by the said English; and they did not yet know that their enemies were so near them. By which cry the aforesaid French runners were certified that it was the English, for they saw them then quite plainly; and for this they sent back certain of them to their captains, to advertise them of what they had found, and made them know that in good order they should ride forward, and that it was time to do business. Who quickly repaired themselves in all points, and rode well and hardily, so far that they perceived and saw quite plainly their enemies. Who, knowing likewise the coming of the French, prepared themselves diligently to fight them, and would descend to foot near a hedge which was fairly near them, so that from behind they could not be surprised by the\nFrench; but certain of the captains were not well content with this, and said they would find a more advantageous place.\nWherefore they set themselves on the way, turning their backs to their enemies, and rode to another place, about a little half quarter of a league from the first, which was fairly strong with hedges and bushes; where, because the French pursued them very near, they put foot to ground, and the greater part of them descended from their horses. And then the vanguard of the French, which was desirous and ardent in courage to assemble with the English, because for a little while past they had essayed them and found them of fairly ill defence, flung themselves with full charge into the said English, and with a hardy courage and great will invaded them so vigorously and so suddenly, before they could be put wholly in order, that even Messire John Fastolf and the Bastard of Thian, knight, with a great number of their people, did not put themselves to foot with the others, but departed fleeing at full course to save their lives. And meanwhile the others, who had descended to foot, were forthwith environed on all parts and fought by the said French, for they had no leisure to fortify themselves with sharpened stakes, in the manner they had been wont to do. And therefore, without their doing great damage to the French, they were in a fairly short term and lightly thrown down, discomfited and wholly vanquished. And there were dead upon the place, of the said English, about eighteen hundred, and there were prisoners from a hundred to six score; of whom the principals were the lords of Scales, of Talbot, of Hungerford, Messire Thomas de Rampston, and several others of the most notable, to the number aforesaid. And of those who were there slain, the principals were, to wit… (1); and the others were all people of small and mean estate, such as they are wont to bring from their country to die in France.\nAfter which business, which was about two o’clock after midday, all the French captains reassembled together, devoutly and humbly thanking their Creator. And they made great joy one with the other for their victory and good fortune; and they lodged that night in the said town of Patay, which sits at two leagues from Yenville, in Beauce; of which town this day bears the name everlastingly. And on the morrow the said French returned with all their prisoners, and the rich spoils of the English who were dead. And thus they entered into the city of Orléans, and the others of their people into the marches round about, where they were greatly rejoiced by all the people. And especially Joan the Maid acquired in these businesses so great praise and renown, that it seemed to all folk that the King’s enemies had no more power to resist against her, and that shortly, by her means, the King must be set back and restored wholly in his kingdom. So she went with the other princes and captains before the King, who was right rejoiced\n(1) Lacuna in the manuscripts and in the editions.\nat their return, and made to all a most honourable reception.\nAfter which, shortly following, it was taken by the said King, with those of his council, the conclusion to summon from all the countries of his obedience the most men of war he could find, so that he might thrust himself forward in the march, and pursue his enemies.\nItem, at the day of the battle of Patay, before the English knew the coming of their enemies, Messire John Fastolf, who was one of the principal captains, and who had fled without striking a blow, assembled in counsel with the others, and made several remonstrances: to wit, how they knew the loss they had made of their people before Orléans, at Yenville, and in certain other places: for which they had the worse; and their people were much astonished and afeared, and their enemies, on the contrary, were much emboldened and revigoured. Wherefore he counselled that they should withdraw into the castles and places holding their party thereabouts, and that they should not fight their enemies in such haste, until they were better reassured; and also until their people had come from England, whom the Regent was to send shortly. Which remonstrances were not well agreeable to certain of the captains, and especially to Messire John Talbot; and he said that if his enemies came, he would fight them. And because, as is said, the said Fastolf fled from the battle without striking a blow, he was for this cause greatly reproached when he came before the Duke of Bedford, his lord; and, in conclusion, there was taken from him the order of the white Garter, which he wore around the leg. But since then, both in part for the above-said remonstrances he had made, which seemed reasonable enough, and for several other excuses he put forward, the said order of the Garter was rendered him by sentence of his peers, albeit there sprang up a great debate afterwards between the said Fastolf and Sir John Talbot, when he was returned from being a prisoner of the aforesaid battle.\nAt this business there were made knights, on the French part, Jacques de Milly, Gille de Saint-Simon, Louis de Marchongnet, Jean de la Haye, and several other valiant men.\nChap. LXIII. — How Charles, King of France, put himself in the field with a great store of chivalry and men-at-arms; on which journey he put several towns and cities into his obedience.\nItem, during the time aforesaid, Charles, King of France, assembled at Bourges in Berry a very great multitude of men-at-arms and of shot; among whom were the Duke of Alençon, Charles de Bourbon, Count of Clermont, and Arthur, Constable of France, Count of Richemont, Charles of Anjou his brother-in-law, and brother to King René of Sicily, the Bastard of Orléans and the cadet of Armagnac, Charles, lord of Albret, and several other high men and puissant barons of the duchies and counties of Aquitaine, of Gascony, of Poitou, of Berry, and several other good countries. With all whom he put himself in the field, and thence came to Gien-sur-Loire; ever Joan the Maid with him, and in her company a preacher named Brother Richard, of the order of Saint Augustine, who not long before had been thrust out of the city of Paris and of other places, where he had made several preachings, in the obedience of the English, because in them he showed himself too plainly to be favourable and to be of the French party.\nFrom which place of Gien he took his way coming towards Auxerre. Nevertheless the Constable, with a certain number of men-at-arms, went into Normandy towards Évreux, to hinder the garrisons of the country from being able to assemble with the Duke of Bedford. And on the other part, the cadet of Armagnac was sent back and commissioned to guard the duchy of Aquitaine and of the Bordelais. On which way, the said King put into his obedience two small good towns that held King Henry’s party, to wit Saint-Florentin and Saint-Fargeau (1): the same promising to do henceforth to the above-said King and to his deputies all that good and loyal subjects must do to their sovereign lord; taking also of the said King surety and promise that he would have them governed and maintained in good justice, and according to their ancient customs.\nAnd thence he came to the said place of Auxerre; and sent to summon those of the city that they would be pleased to receive him as their natural and rightful lord; who at doing this were not content of full accord. Nevertheless several ambassadors were sent from one side and the other. So in the end a treaty was made between the parties; and those of the said city of Auxerre promised that they would make the King such and like obedience as those of the\n(1) Saint-Fargeau.\ntowns of Troyes, Châlons and Reims would make. And, by so, administering to the King’s people victuals and other wares for their money, they remained peaceable; and the King held them excused for this time.\nAnd thence the King came to Troyes, in Champagne, and lodged all round about; and he was there three days before those of the city would receive him for lord. At the end of which, by means of certain promises that were made them, they made him plain opening; and they put him and his people within their city, where he heard mass. And, after the accustomed oaths made on the one part to the other, the above-said King returned to his lodging in the fields, and had it published several times, both in his host and in the city, on pain of the halter, that no man, of whatsoever estate he were, should do any misdeed to those of the city of Troyes, or to the others who had put themselves in his obedience. And on this same journey the two Marshals of France made the vanguard, to wit Boussac and the lord of Rais, with whom were La Hire, Poton de Saintrailles, and certain other captains. During which journey there rendered themselves into the obedience of the said King Charles a very great number of good towns and castles, round the marches where he passed. Of which surrenders to declare each apart, I pass over it for briefness’ cause.\nChap. LXIV. — How King Charles of France, with great and noble chivalry, and with a great number of men-at-arms, came to the city of Reims, where he was consecrated.\nItem, Charles, King of France, being at Troyes in Champagne, as is said above, there came before him certain deputies of Châlons in Champagne, who brought him the keys of their town and city, promising him, on its behalf, to do all obedience. After whose coming the said King came to the said place of Châlons, where he was benignly and in great humility received by the inhabitants. And there likewise were brought him the keys of the city of Reims, promising him, as above, to do all obedience, and to receive him as their natural lord.\nIn which city of Reims there had lately been the lord of Saveuse, on the Duke of Burgundy’s behalf, with a certain number of men-at-arms, to hold the said town in the obedience of King Henry and of the said Duke of Burgundy. Which lord of Saveuse, being come to Reims, was promised by the governor and great number of the inhabitants to maintain themselves in the party and quarrel of King Henry and of the said Duke, unto death; but, notwithstanding this, for the fear they had of the Maid, who did great marvels, as was given them to understand, they rendered themselves into the obedience of King Charles, albeit the lord of Châtillon and the lord of Saveuse, who were their captains, remonstrated to them and would give them to understand the contrary. Which two lords, seeing their will and affection, departed from the said city of Reims; for to their remonstrances those of the said city had been in nowise willing to hearken, but had made them hard and fairly strange answers. Which heard, the said lords of Saveuse and of Châtillon returned to Château-Thierry.\nAnd the said men of Reims had then taken conclusion, one with the other, to receive the said\nKing Charles. Which thing they did, as is said above, as well by the means of the Archbishop of the said city of Reims, who was King Charles’s Chancellor, as by certain others. And the King entered into the said city of Reims on Friday, the sixteenth day of July (1), with a very great number of his chivalry; and on the Sunday following he was, by the said Archbishop, consecrated and crowned King, within Our Lady’s church of Reims, his princes and prelates being present, and all the baronage and chivalry who were there.\nThere were the Duke of Alençon, the Count of Clermont, the lord of La Trémoïlle, who was his principal governor, the lord of Beaumanoir, a Breton, the lord of Mailly in Touraine (2): who were in royal habits, representing the noble peers of France, who were not at the making of the noble unction and coronation aforesaid. And the said absent peers had been summoned and called before the high altar of the said church by the King-of-arms of France, thus and in the manner that is wont to be done.\nAfter which unction made and accomplished, the King went to dine in the archbishop’s episcopal hostel, the lords and prelates in his company. And at his table sat the said Archbishop of Reims; and there served the King at his dinner the Duke of Alençon and the Count of Clermont, with several other great lords. And the King made, the\n(1) And not the sixth, as in the editions, which has given rise to endless dissertations by the critics of the last centuries.\n(2) That is, Mathieu.\nday of his unction, three knights within the church, of whom the damoiseau de Coumardis was one. And at his departure he left in the city of Reims, for captain, Antoine de Hellande, the said archbishop’s nephew. And on the morrow he departed from the said city, and went on pilgrimage to Corbeny, to visit Saint-Marcoul. To which place there came to make him obedience those of the city of Laon, as the other good towns and cities aforesaid had done. From which place of Corbeny the King went to Soissons and to Provins, which, without contradiction, made him plain opening; and he then constituted La Hire new Bailiff of Vermandois, in place of Messire Colart de Mailly, who before was commissioned there on behalf of King Henry of England.\nAnd afterwards the King and his people came before Château-Thierry, where there were within the lord of Châtillon, Jean de Croy, Jean de Brimeu, and certain other nobles of the Duke of Burgundy’s party, with four hundred fighting men or thereabout: who, both because they felt the commonalty of the town incline to make obedience to King Charles, and because they did not expect succour shortly, and were not provided to their pleasure, surrendered the said strong town and castle into the obedience of King Charles, and departed from it safely with their goods. And they went to Paris, to the Duke of Bedford, who was then making a great assembly of men-at-arms to come fight King Charles and his power.\nChap. LXV. — How the Duke of Bedford made a very great assembly of men-at-arms to go fight King Charles; and how he sent him letters.\nAt this same time the Duke of Bedford, Regent, with ten thousand fighting men or thereabout, whom he had assembled from England, from Normandy, and from certain other marches of France, drew from Rouen to Paris; and thence, by several days’ journeys, tending to encounter King Charles to deliver him battle, went through the country of Brie to Montereau-fault-Yonne; from which place he sent his messengers to the said King, bearing his letters sealed with his seal, the tenor whereof follows.\nWe, John of Lancaster, Regent of France and Duke of Bedford, make known to you, Charles of Valois, who used to call yourself Dauphin of Viennois, and now, without cause, say yourself King; forasmuch as you have basely and newly undertaken against the crown and lordship of the most high and excellent prince, and my sovereign lord, Henry, by the grace of God, true, natural and rightful King of France and of England, by giving the simple people to understand that you come to give them peace and surety: which is not, nor can be, by the means you have held and hold, who make the ignorant people be seduced and abused, and aid yourself more with superstitious and reprobate folk, as with a disorderly and defamed woman, being in man’s habit and of dissolute behaviour, and also of a mendicant friar, apostate and seditious, as we are informed; both, according to Holy Scripture, abominable to God; who, by that way and puissance of arms, have occupied, in the country of Champagne and elsewhere, certain cities, towns and castles belonging to my said lord the King, and constrained and induced the subjects dwelling in them to disloyalty and perjury, in making them break and violate the final peace of the kingdoms of France and England, solemnly sworn by the Kings of France and England who then lived, and the great lords, peers, prelates, barons, and the three estates of this kingdom:\nWe, to guard and defend the true right of my said lord the King, and to thrust you and your power back from his countries and lordships, by the aid of the Almighty, have put ourselves up, and hold the field in our person and in the power God has given us; and as you have well known and know, we have pursued and pursue you from place to place to try to find or encounter you: which we have not yet been able to do for the avoidances you have made and make.\nWherefore we, who with all our heart desire the abridgement of the war, summon and require you that, if you are such a prince as seeks honour, and have pity and compassion on the poor Christian people, who so long for your cause has been inhumanly treated and trodden and oppressed, and that it may shortly be out of these afflictions and sorrows, without continuing the war further: take, in the country of Brie, where we and you are, or in the Isle of France which is right nigh to us and you, some convenable and reasonable place in the field, with a brief and competent day, and such as the nearness of the places where we and you are at present may suffer and demand; at which day and place, if you will appear in your person, with the conduct of the defamed woman and apostate aforesaid, and all the perjured, and such other power as you will and can have, we, at Our Lord’s pleasure, will there appear, we for my lord the King in our person. And then, if you will offer or put forward aught regarding the good of peace, we will hear it, and will do all that a good Catholic prince must and can do, and ever are and shall be inclined and willing to all good ways of peace, not feigned, corrupted, dissembled, violated or perjured, as was at Montereau-fault-Yonne, that which, by your fault and consent, was followed by the terrible, detestable and cruel murder committed against the law and honour of chivalry, in the person of the late our most dear and most beloved father, Duke John of Burgundy, whom God pardon. By the means of which peace by you infringed, violated and perjured, there remain and shall remain for ever all nobles and other subjects of this kingdom and elsewhere, quit and exempt of you and your lordship, to whatsoever estate you may have come and may come; and all oaths of fealty and subjection you have absolved and acquitted, as by your letters patent signed with your hand and your seal may clearly appear.\nNevertheless, if, for the iniquity and malice of men, we cannot profit to the good of peace, each of us may well guard and defend with the sword his cause and his quarrel, as God, who is the sole judge and to whom, and to no other, my said lord has to answer, shall give him grace: whom we humbly beseech, as Him who knows and recognises the true right and legitimate quarrel of my said lord, that He dispose thereof at His pleasure; and thereby the people of this kingdom, without such tramplings and oppressions, may dwell in long peace and sure repose, which all kings and Christian princes who have governance must seek and ask.\nAnd let us know hastily, and without delaying or passing time by writings or arguments, what you will do; for if, by your default, greater evils, mischiefs, continuations of war, pillagings, and ransomings and slayings of people, and depopulations of countries befall, we take God to witness, and protest before Him and men, that we shall not be in cause thereof, and that we have done and do our duty, and we put ourselves and will put ourselves in all terms of reason and honour, be it beforehand by the way of peace, or by a day of battle, of right prince, when otherwise between puissant and great parties it cannot be done.\nIn witness whereof we have caused these presents to be sealed with our seal.\nGiven at the said place of Montereau-fault-Yonne, the seventh day of August, in the year of grace one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine.\nThus signed: By Monseigneur the Regent of the kingdom of France, Duke of Bedford.\nChap. LXVI. — How King Charles of France and the Duke of Bedford, and their powers, met each other near Mont Épilloy.\nItem, after the businesses aforesaid, the Duke of Bedford, seeing he could not encounter King Charles and his power to his advantage, and that several towns and fortresses were rendering to him without striking a blow or making any resistance, withdrew with all his power upon the marches of the Isle of France, to obviate that the principal towns should not turn against him, as the others had done. And on the other part, King Charles, who had already come to Crépy, where he had been received and obeyed as sovereign, drew, with all his power, through the country of Brie, approaching Senlis: in which place the two powers aforesaid, to wit of King Charles and of the Duke of Bedford, found each other fairly near Mont Épilloy, beside a town named Le Bar (1).\nAnd great preparations were made on each part, to find advantage to fight one against the other, and the Duke of Bedford took his place in a fairly strong spot; and they backed certain places, behind and on the side, with strong hedges of thorns; and at the front before were set the archers in order all on foot, each having before him sharpened stakes fixed before them; and the said Regent with his lordship and other nobles were fairly near the said archers in one single battle order, where among other ensigns there were two banners, one of France and the other of England. And there was with\n(1) That is, Baron.\nthem the standard of Saint George: which banner bore for that day Jean de Villiers, knight, lord of L’Isle-Adam. And there were then with the said Duke of Bedford from six to eight hundred fighting men of the Duke of Burgundy’s people, of whom the principals were: the lord of L’Isle-Adam, Jean de Croy, Jean de Créqui, Antoine de Béthune, Jean de Fosseux, the lord of Saveuse, Messire Hue de Lannoy, Jean de Brimeu, Jean de Lannoy, Messire Simon de Lalain, Jean, Bastard of Saint-Pol, and several other men of war, of whom certain were on that same day made new knights. And the said Bastard of Saint-Pol was made by the hand of the Duke of Bedford; and the others, as Jean de Croy, Jean de Créqui, Antoine de Béthune, Jean de Fosseux, the Liégeois de Humières, by the hands of certain other notable knights.\nAfter which businesses thus put in array, to wit the English and those of their nation were all together on the side of the said battle, on the left hand, and the Picards and others of the French nation were on the other side. And they held themselves thus in battle order, as is said, for a very long space; and they were set so advantageously that their enemies could not assail them from behind, save at too great damage and danger; and therewith they were provided and refreshed with victuals and other necessaries from the good town of Senlis, whereof they were fairly near.\nOn the other part, King Charles, with his princes and captains, had his battles ordained. And in his vanguard was the greater part of the most valiant and most expert men of war of his company; and the others remained in his battle, except certain who were set on the rear on the side towards Paris, by manner of a rear-guard. And with the said King there was a very great multitude of people, far more without comparison than was in the English company. And there was Joan the Maid, ever having divers opinions, once willing to fight her enemies, and another time not. Nevertheless the two parties, as is said, being one before the other ready to fight, remained thus, without disordering themselves, for the space of two days and two nights or thereabout. During which time there were several great skirmishes and assaults, which to recount each apart would be too long a thing; but among the others there was one, hard and bloody, on the side towards the Picards, which lasted well the space of an hour and a half. And there were, on King Charles’s side, a great part of Scots, and other folk in very great number, who most strongly and sharply fought; and especially the archers of the said parties shot their shot most courageously and in very great number one against the other.\nAnd certain of the most knowing of the said parties, seeing the business thus multiply, thought that they should not depart one from the other until one of the parties were discomfited and vanquished. Nevertheless, they drew back one from the other; but not without there remaining of each part dead and wounded abundantly. For which skirmish the Duke of Bedford was greatly content with the Picards, because that time they had borne themselves valiantly. And after they had withdrawn, the said Duke of Bedford came the length of their battle, thanking them in several places most humbly, saying: My friends, you are very good folk, and have sustained great burden for us, whereof we thank you most greatly, and pray you, if any business comes to you, that you persevere in your valiance and hardiness. In which days the said parties were in great hatred one against the other; and there was no man, of whatsoever estate he were, who was taken for ransom; but they put to death without pity or mercy what they could attain one of the other. And, as I was informed, in all these skirmishes there were dead about three hundred men of the two parties, but I know not on which side there were the more. At the end of which two days aforesaid or thereabout, the two parties dislodged one from before the other, without doing aught more.\nChap. LXIX. — How the town of Compiègne surrendered to King Charles, and of the return of the ambassadors of France, who had gone to the Duke of Burgundy.\nItem, after King Charles of France had returned from the day of Senlis, where he and the Duke of Bedford had been in power one against the other, as is said above, and he was come back to Crépy-en-Valois, there were brought him tidings that those of the town of Compiègne wished to make him obedience; and therefore, without any delay, he went to the said place of Compiègne, where he was received by the inhabitants in great joy, and lodged in his royal hostel.\nTo which place there returned before him his Chancellor and his other ambassadors (1), whom he had before sent to the Duke of Burgundy; with whom and those of his council they had held several parlous parliaments. Nevertheless they had agreed nothing; but in conclusion they had been accorded that the said Duke would send his legation to King Charles, to have, as to the rest, advice and entertainment. And I was then informed (2) that the greater part of the principal councillors of the Duke of Burgundy had a great desire and affection that the said two parties should be reconciled one with the other. Nevertheless Master Jehan de Thoisy, Bishop of Tournay, and Messire Hue de Lannoy, who were newly come from the Duke of Bedford, and had charge from him to make certain remonstrances to the said Duke of Burgundy, admonishing him to cause the oath he had made to King Henry to be kept, were not well content that the said treaty should be made. At whose word the business was tarried, and another day was taken for sending legation to King Charles, as is said. To make which were commissioned Messire John of Luxembourg, the Bishop of Arras, Messire David de Brimeu and certain other notable and discreet persons.\n(1) Christophe de Harcourt, the lord of Dampierre, the lord of Fontaines and Raoul de Gaucourt. The journey of these ambassadors to Arras is recounted in chapter LXVII of Monstrelet, which we do not report here.\n(2) The editions read: si furent alors informés. The reading of our manuscript gives more weight to this passage, since it is Monstrelet himself who speaks on his own authority of the benevolent dispositions of the Burgundian council towards Charles VII.\nChap. LXX. — How the King of France had the city of Paris assaulted.\nItem, King Charles of France, being at Compiègne, was brought certain tidings that the Duke of Bedford, Regent, with all his power, was going into Normandy to fight the Constable, who towards Évreux sorely travailled the country. And therefore the said King Charles, after he had been within the city of Compiègne twelve days or thereabout, departed thence, and left Guillaume de Flavy captain of it; and with all his host went to Senlis, which city surrendered to the King by treaty. And he lodged within it with a great part of his people, and the others lodged in the villages around. In which days also there made obedience to the aforesaid King several towns and fortresses, to wit Beauvais, Creil, Pont-Sainte-Maxence, Choisy, Gournay-sur-Aronde, Remy, La Neuville-en-Hez; and on the other side, Mognay, Chantilly, Saintines and several others. Also the lords of Montmorency and of Moy made him oath. And in truth, had he, with all his power, come to Saint-Quentin, Corbie, Amiens, Abbeville, and several other strong towns and strong castles, the greater part of their inhabitants were all ready to receive him for lord, and desired nothing in the world save to make him obedience and plain opening. Nevertheless he was not counselled to draw so far upon the Duke of Burgundy’s marches, both because he felt him strong in men-at-arms, and for the hope he had that some good treaty might be made between them.\nAnd after King Charles had sojourned certain few days within Senlis, he departed thence and went with all his host to lodge at Saint-Denis, which he found as it were abandoned; and its people had fled to Paris, to wit all the greatest burgesses and inhabitants of the said town. And his people lodged at Aubervilliers, at Montmartre, and in the villages around fairly near Paris. And there was then with the said King Joan the Maid, who had very great renown; who every day induced the King and his princes to have the city of Paris assaulted. So it was concluded that on Monday, the twelfth (1) day of September, the said assault should be delivered.\nAfter which conclusion taken, all men of war were made ready, and on the very Monday aforesaid King Charles put himself in battle order between Paris and Montmartre, his princes with him. And the said Maid with him, those of the vanguard in very great number, went with her standard to the Porte Saint-Honoré, having carried with her several ladders, fascines and other harness of assault. In which place she had several of her people enter the moats all on foot, and began the assault at ten o’clock or thereabout, most hard, sharp and cruel, which lasted continuing four to five hours, or more; but the Parisians, who were within their city, accompanied by Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne and Chancellor of France for King Henry, and by certain other notable knights whom the Duke of Burgundy had sent them, as the lord of\n(1) Error of figure. It was on the 8th that the assault of Paris took place.\nCréquy, the lord of L’Isle-Adam, Messire Simon de Lalain, Messire Waleran de Beauval, and certain other notable men, accompanied by four hundred fighting men, defended themselves vigorously and with great courage. And before the said assault they had ordained by captaincies to each his guard in the propitious and convenable places.\nDuring which assault several of the said French were reversed and abated; and there was a very great number of dead and wounded by the cannon, culverins and other shot that the said Parisians cast at them. Among whom Joan the Maid was very sorely wounded, and remained all the day in the moats, behind a dodenne (1), until evening, when Guichard de Thienbronne and others went to fetch her. And on the other part there were several of the defenders wounded. Finally, the French captains, seeing their people in such peril, considering it was a thing impossible for them to conquer the city by force, seeing that the said Parisians had a common will to defend themselves without having division, had the retreat suddenly sounded; and carrying back the said dead and wounded, they returned to their lodgings. And on the morrow King Charles, sad and doleful for the loss of his people, went to Senlis to heal and medicate the wounded; and the said Parisians, more than before, reconfirmed themselves one with the other, promising that with all their power they would resist unto death against the said King Charles, who wished, as they said,\n(1) This word designates the glacis raised before the moats.\nto destroy them utterly. And it may well be that they believed it, as folk who greatly felt themselves to have offended towards him, having thrust him out of the said city; and they had put to death several of his faithful servants, as is more at large declared elsewhere.\nChap. LXXII. — How King Charles of France returned into Touraine and into Berry.\nItem, Charles, King of France, seeing that the city of Paris, which was the head of his kingdom, would not put itself in his obedience, disposed himself and concluded with those of his council to leave governors and captains on his behalf in all the good towns, cities and castles that were in his obedience, and that he would return to the countries of Touraine and Berry. Which thing concluded, as is said, he constituted principal chief over the parts of the Isle of France and of the Beauvaisis, Charles de Bourbon, Count of Clermont, and, with him, the Count of Vendôme and the Chancellor; which Count of Clermont and Chancellor aforesaid held themselves mostly in the city of Beauvais, and the Count of Vendôme at Senlis; Guillaume de Flavy at Compiègne, Messire Jacques de Chabannes at Creil. And the aforesaid King, with the great lords who had accompanied him at the coming, went from Senlis to Crépy, and thence, by way of Sens in Burgundy, returned to the countries aforesaid. Nevertheless the truces were confirmed between the Burgundians and the French until Easter Day following; and therewith the passage of the Pont Sainte-Maxence, which the French held, was put back into the hand of Renaud de Longueval, to hold it (1).\nSo the march of France and of the Beauvaisis remained in great tribulation, because those who were in the fortresses and garrisons, both of the French and of the English, rode each day one against the other. On the occasion of which ridings the villages thereabouts began to be depopulated, and the good folk and inhabitants to withdraw into the good towns.\nOF THE YEAR ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY.\nChap. LXXXII. — How the Duke of Burgundy, with all his power, went to lodge before Gournay-sur-Aronde.\nAt the beginning of this year the Duke of Burgundy, departing from Montdidier, went to lodge at Gournay-sur-Aronde and before its fortress, belonging to Charles de Bourbon, Count of Clermont, his brother-in-law. At which place he had Tristran de Magneles, who was captain of it, summoned to render him the said fortress, or, if not, he would have it assaulted. Which Tristran, seeing he could not well resist against the power of the said Duke of Burgundy, made treaty with his deputies, on condition that he would render him the said fortress on the first of August next coming, if by that day he were not fought by King Charles or those of his party; and therewith promised that, during the time aforesaid, neither he nor his would make any\n(1) After this word there is in the ms. comme, and the rest of the line blank.\nwar upon those holding the said Duke’s party; and thus he remained peaceable until the said day.\nAnd this composition was made so hastily because to the said Duke of Burgundy and to Messire John of Luxembourg there came certain tidings that the Damoiseau de Commarchis, Yvon du Puis and other captains, with a great number of fighting men, had besieged the fortress of Montagu, which thing was true; for the aforesaid Commarchis, to whom the said fortress of Montagu belonged, had secretly brought thither a great number of fighting men, with bombards, veuglaires and other war-harness, tending to reduce the same, by sudden assault or otherwise by force, into his obedience. Nevertheless it was vigorously defended by those whom Messire John of Luxembourg had commissioned there, in whose government it was.\nAmong whom there were commissioned by him for the guard of it, as principal captains, two men-at-arms, of whom one was of England, and the other named George de la Croix. And they were several times summoned and required to render the fortress: whereof they had no will to do; for they were in no doubt that within a few days they would not be succoured. Finally, the said besiegers, fearing the coming of the said Duke of Burgundy, of which they were already advertised, and that they would be fought, departed from the said place of Montagu as afeared, leaving bombards, cannon and other war-harness; and they departed at midnight or thereabout, and withdrew into their garrisons. Which departure thus made, the said besieged made known hastily to the aforesaid Duke of Burgundy and Messire John of Luxembourg, who in great diligence were preparing to go fight the aforesaid besiegers. After which departure come to their knowledge, the said Duke of Burgundy went to Noyon with all his army.\nChap. LXXXIII. — How the Duke of Burgundy went to lay the siege before the castle of Choisy, which he conquered.\nItem, after the Duke of Burgundy had sojourned in the city of Noyon eight days or thereabout, he went to lay the siege before the castle of Choisy-sur-Aisne, within which fortress was Louis de Flavy, who held it on behalf of Messire Guillaume de Flavy; and the said Duke had several of his engines raised there, to confound and abate the said castle. And it was much travailled by the said engines, until in conclusion the said besieged made treaty with the deputies of the aforesaid Duke of Burgundy, such that they departed, saving their bodies and their goods, rendering the said fortress, which, without delay, after they had departed from it, was forthwith demolished and razed. And the said Duke had a bridge made over the water of Oise, for himself and his people to pass towards Compiègne, on the side towards Montdidier. During which time there had been commissioned the lord of Saveuse and Jean de Brimeu, to guard the suburbs of Noyon, with their people, with the lord of Montgomery and other English captains, who were lodged at Pont-l’Évêque, so that those of Compiègne should not hinder the victuals that went to the said Duke’s host.\nAnd it befell, on a certain day, that the aforesaid men of\nCompiègne, to wit Joan the Maid, Messire Jacques de Chabannes, Messire Théolde de Valperghe, Messire Rigault de Fontaines, Poton de Saintrailles, and certain other French captains, accompanied by two thousand fighting men or thereabout, came to the said place of Pont-l’Évêque, between daybreak and sunrise, where the aforesaid English were lodged; whom they invaded with great courage, and there was a most hard and sharp skirmish, at which there came hastily to the succour of the said English the aforesaid lords of Saveuse and Jean de Brimeu, with their people. At which succour the aforesaid English took great courage in themselves all together. So they thrust back their enemies by force, who were already well advanced into the said lodgings. Finally, of the said English there were, both dead and wounded, about thirty; and likewise of the French, who, after this business, withdrew to Compiègne, whence they had come. And the aforesaid English, from that day forward, fortified their lodgings all round about in great diligence.\nAnd certain few days following, Jean de Brimeu going, with a hundred fighting men or thereabout, to the Duke of Burgundy, in passing through the wood, on the side towards Crépy-en-Valois, was suddenly invaded by certain French, who for this cause had come from Athies in that march, to find adventure; and in brief, without great defence, he was taken and carried off prisoner. And the cause of his said taking was that he and his people rode in a string, and could not assemble until they heard the alarm. Of which taking the said Jean de Brimeu was afterwards kept in the hands of Poton de Saintrailles, who at last delivered him on payment of a great ransom.\nItem, after the Duke of Burgundy had had the fortress of Choisy wholly demolished, as is said, he went to lodge in the fortress of Coudun, at a league from Compiègne; and Messire John of Luxembourg lodged at Clairoix. And Messire Baude de Noyelle was ordained, with a certain number of people, to lodge at Margny on the causeway; and the lord of Montgomery, an Englishman, and his people, were lodged at Venette, along the meadow. And there came then to the said Duke people from several parts of his countries; and he had the intention to besiege the said town of Compiègne, and to reduce it into the obedience of King Henry of England.\nChap. LXXXIV. — How Joan the Maid overthrew Franquet d’Arras, and had his head cut off.\nAt the beginning of the month of May there was overthrown and taken a valiant man-at-arms, named Franquet d’Arras, holding the Duke of Burgundy’s party, who had gone to ride upon his enemies’ marches towards Lagny-sur-Marne, with three hundred fighting men or thereabout; but on his return he was met by Joan the Maid, who had with her four hundred French. And he assailed most courageously and vigorously, the said Franquet and his people, several times; for, by means of his archers (that is, of the said Franquet) which he had, who by very good order had put themselves on foot, they defended themselves all together so valiantly that, at the first and second assault, the said Maid and her people gained nothing upon them. But in conclusion she summoned all the garrisons of Lagny and other fortresses of King Charles’s obedience, who came thither in great number, with culverins, arbalests and other war-harness. And finally the aforesaid holders of the Burgundy party, after they had much damaged their enemies in men and horses, were all vanquished and discomfited, and the greater part put to the sword. And especially the said Maid had the head of the said Franquet cut off, who was greatly mourned by those of his party, forasmuch as in arms he was a man of valiant conduct.\nChap. LXXXVI. — How Joan the Maid was taken by the Burgundians before Compiègne.\nItem, during the time that the said Duke of Burgundy was lodged at Coudun, as is said, and his men-at-arms in the other villages nigh to Coudun and to Compiègne, it befell, on the eve of the Ascension, at five o’clock after midday, that Joan the Maid, Poton, and other French captains, with them five to six hundred fighting men, sallied out, all armed on foot and on horse, out of the said town of Compiègne, by the bridge-gate, towards Montdidier; and they had the intention to fight and overthrow the lodging of Messire Baude de Noyelle, which was at Margny, at the end of the causeway, as is said elsewhere. And at that hour Messire John of Luxembourg was, with him the lord of Créquy, and eight or ten gentlemen, all come on horseback, having with them but few, from his lodging towards Messire Baude’s lodging; and he was looking in what manner the said town of Compiègne might be besieged. And then the said French, as is said, began most strongly to approach the said lodging of Margny, in which the greater part were all unarmed.\nNevertheless in a fairly short term they assembled, and the skirmish began very great, during which the cry to arms was raised in several places, both of the Burgundy party and of the English; and the aforesaid English put themselves in battle order against the French, on the meadow outside Venette, where they were lodged; and they were about five hundred fighting men. And on the other side, the people of Messire John of Luxembourg, who were lodged at Clairoix, knowing this alarm, came, certain of them hastily, to succour their lord and captain, who sustained the said skirmish, and to whom, for the most part, the others rallied: in which the said lord of Créquy was very sorely wounded in the face. Finally, after the said skirmish had lasted a fairly long space, the said French, seeing their enemies multiply in great number, withdrew towards their city, ever the Maid with them, upon the rear, making great show of keeping her people together, and bringing them back without loss; but those of the Burgundy party, considering that from all parts they would shortly have succour, approached them vigorously, and flung themselves upon them with full charge. So, in conclusion, as I was informed, the aforesaid Maid was dragged down from her horse by an archer, beside whom was the Bastard of Wandonne (1),\n(1) The editions read Vendôme, and their testimony was the only one I knew when I discussed this name in my first volume (p. 13, note).\nto whom she surrendered and gave her faith; and he without delay carried her off prisoner to Margny, where she was put in good guard. With whom Poton the Burgundian was taken, and certain others, not in great number. And the aforesaid French re-entered Compiègne, doleful and angered at their loss; and especially they had very great displeasure for the taking of the said Maid. And, on the opposite side, those of the Burgundy party and the English were right joyful at it, more than if they had taken five hundred fighting men: for they dreaded and feared no captain or other chief of war so much as they had ever done, until this present day, the said Maid.\nAnd there came, soon after, the Duke of Burgundy, with all his power, from his lodging of Coudun, where he was lodged, into the meadow before Compiègne. And there the English assembled, the said Duke, and those of the other lodgings, in very great number, making one with the other great cries and revellings, for the taking of the said Maid: whom the said Duke went to see in the lodging where she was, and spoke to her certain words, of which I am not well mindful, albeit I was there present. After which the said Duke and all other folk withdrew, each to his lodging, for that night. And the Maid remained in the guard and governance of Messire John of Luxembourg. Who, within a few days following, sent her under good conduct to the castle of Beaulieu, and thence to Beaurevoir, where she was a prisoner for a long time, as will be declared more at large hereafter.\nOF THE YEAR ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-ONE.\nChap. CV. — How Joan the Maid was condemned to be burned and put to death within the city of Rouen.\nThere follows the condemnation which was made in the city of Rouen against Joan the Maid, as may appear by letters sent on behalf of King Henry of England to the Duke of Burgundy, the copy whereof follows:\nMost dear and most beloved uncle, the fervent dilection that we know you have, as a true Catholic prince, to our mother Holy Church and the exaltation of our holy faith, reasonably exhorts and admonishes us to signify and write to you what, to the honour of our said mother Holy Church, fortification of our faith and extirpation of pestilential errors, has been, in this our city of Rouen, lately solemnly done.\nIt is a sufficiently common renown, now as it were divulged everywhere, how that woman, who called herself Joan the Maid, etc., etc. (1).\nAnd she was led, by the said lay justice, to the Vieil-Marché within Rouen, and there publicly was burned in the sight of all the people.\n(1) The remainder is absolutely conformable to the circular printed after the Trial of Condemnation, vol. I, p. 489; save the last paragraph, which in the circular was a dogmatic and moral summary of the trial, and which has been replaced in the letter to the Duke by the brief mention of the execution reported above.\nWhich thing thus done, the aforesaid King of England signified by letters, as is said, to the aforesaid Duke of Burgundy, so that the said execution of justice might be published by him, as by the other princes, in several places, and that their people and subjects might henceforth be surer and better advertised not to have credence in such or like errors, which had reigned on the occasion of the said Maid.\nJEAN DE WAVRIN DU FORESTEL. # Here is the deposition of a soldier who fought with the English against the Maid. Jean de Wavrin, knight, lord of Le Forestel near Lille, was a natural son of Robert de Wavrin, whom he saw slain beside him at the battle of Agincourt. From that time Jean de Wavrin was a consummate man of war and high in renown in the Burgundian armies. Later he became chief of a company of soldiers, with which he served now the Duke of Burgundy, now the King of England. Sent by the latter to intercept a French convoy during the siege of Orléans, he failed in his enterprise, came to Paris, and there renewed his engagement with the English. He was then incorporated in the army which went to be beaten at Patay. As he had been placed under Sir John Fastolf’s command, he took part in the retreat which was so dearly paid for by that valiant captain.\nJean de Wavrin has left curious memoirs, but under a form which has withdrawn them until now from publicity. Instead of making of them a separate book, he has disseminated them in a vast compilation formed by him with the principal chroniclers of his century, such as Froissart, Monstrelet and Matthieu de Coussy. A good number of these additions concerning England, because of the author’s predilection for that power, he gave his work the title of Chroniques d’Angleterre. He executed it in great part from 1455 to 1460, for the instruction of a nephew of his, legitimate heir, though indirect, of the name of Wavrin.\nAs an addition to Monstrelet’s testimony on Joan of Arc, the narrative of the campaign of June 1429 is the most interesting thing the Chroniques d’Angleterre offer. There are seen openly both the perplexity of the English government, and the faults of its generals, and the superiority of intelligence with which, on the contrary, the French army was directed at that moment. It is regrettable that the lucid and impartial spirit to which we owe this piece let itself be led astray in other places by the spirit of party. Thus Wavrin is the first among all writers to have represented Joan of Arc as the instrument of a political manœuvre: he makes her be indoctrinated by Baudricourt and appear before the King of France instructed in what she had to do. Further on he treats as fools those who believed in her: which he does by means of a little incision slipped into Monstrelet’s text; and by another interpolation he envenoms the already so little favourable conclusion of the same author, adding the epithet of monstrous woman, where his predecessor had put quite simply the said Maid.\nThe fragments printed below represent all that Wavrin has added of importance to Monstrelet’s relation. There will not be found the passages simply interpolated, because, with the exception of the two phrases just pointed out, the differences between the one and the other text bear only on details of form. These pieces were furnished me by manuscript no. 6757 (French fonds) of the Royal Library. In publishing them, I make it a duty to announce that a person exercised in the reproduction of ancient texts and who has already rendered services to history, Mademoiselle Émilie Dupont, will shortly bring out Wavrin’s additions to the fifteenth-century chroniclers, gathered by her into a single body of work.\nChap. VIII (LVII of Monstrelet). — How Joan the Maid came before the King of France at Chinon in poor estate, and of her deception.\nIn that year, which was then counted 1428, the siege being at Orléans, there came before King Charles of France at Chinon, where he then held himself, a young girl who said she was a maid, aged twenty years or thereabout. Who was sent before the King of France by a knight named Messire Robert de Baudricourt, captain of the place of Vaucouleurs, commissioned on the said King Charles’s behalf, which Messire Robert gave her horses and five or six companions. And he introduced and taught her what she must say and do, and the manner she had to hold, calling herself a maid inspired by divine Providence; and that she was sent before the said King Charles to restore and set him back in the possession of all his kingdom generally, whence he was, as she said, chased and thrust out to such a point. And the said maid was in a fairly poor estate at her coming. And she was about two months in the hostel of the King aforesaid, whom several times she admonished by her words, as she was instructed, that he should give her people and aid, and she would thrust back and chase his enemies and exalt his name, amplifying his lordships; certifying that of this she had had sufficient revelation (1).\nAnd when she came before the King, there were at court the Duke of Alençon, the Marshal de Rais and several other great lords and captains, with whom the King had held counsel, touching the business of the siege of Orléans. And the said Maid went soon after with him from Chinon to Poitiers, where he ordained that the said Marshal should lead victuals and artillery and other necessary things to the said place of Orléans in power. With whom Joan the Maid would go, etc., etc.\nWhen the said Maid was come within the city of Orléans, she was made very great cheer. And certain were right joyful to see her be in their company. And when the French men of war, who had brought the victuals into Orléans, returned before the\n(1) The rest as Monstrelet.\nKing, the Maid remained there. And she was required to go to the skirmishes with the others by La Hire and certain captains; but she answered that she would not go unless the men-at-arms who had brought her were also with her. Who were sent for back from Blois and the other places whither they had already withdrawn. And they returned to Orléans, where they were joyously received by the said Maid. And she went to meet them to welcome them, saying that she had well seen and advised the English government, and that, if they would believe her, she would make them all rich.\nAnd she began that very day to issue out of the city and went most keenly to assail one of the English bastilles, which she took by force. And afterwards, continuing, she did things most marvellous, whereof mention will be made hereafter in its order (1).\n(1) This paragraph, like the preceding, is not in its place here, perhaps by a copyist’s error charged with intercalating Wavrin’s additions in Monstrelet’s text, although the last words dont cy aprez sera fait mention may make the fault imputable to Wavrin himself. What is certain is that in transposing these two paragraphs after the narrative of the boats’ entry into the port of Orléans (see p. 410), the narration goes on as well as possible, and the author is spared a double anachronism.\nChap. X (LIX of Monstrelet). — How Joan the Maid was the cause of the siege raised from before Orléans, and of the army which was made by the Duke of Bedford to bring succour to the English.\nThe companions of Orléans then, seeing themselves most strongly oppressed by the besiegers’ diligence, both by their engines and by the bastilles they had made around the city to the number of twenty-two (2), and that by the said continuance they were in peril of being\n(2) Twelve is what must be read, and even so counting in that number the boulevards, which were only enclosures closed with palisades and moats.\nput into the servitude and obedience of their enemies the English, disposed themselves to all perils and concluded to resist with all their power and by all the manners they well could; so that, to remedy it the best, they sent to King Charles to have aid of people and victuals. There were then sent them from four to five hundred fighting men, and afterwards there were sent them a good six thousand with certain boats charged with victuals, coming along the river, under the guide and conduct of the said men-at-arms. In which company was Joan the Maid, of whom mention is made above, who had not yet done things for which she was much commended.\nThen the English captains holding the siege, knowing the coming of the said boats and of those who guided them, quickly and hastily endeavoured in force to resist, to defend them from landing in the city of Orléans. And on the other part the French strove to thrust them in by force of arms. At the landing of the vessels to pass, there was many a lance broken, many an arrow shot and many an engine-blow cast; and there was so great a noise made, both by the besieged and by the besiegers, and defenders and assailants, that it was a horror to hear them; but whatever force or resistance the English could make there, maugre them all, the French put their boats to safety within the city. Whereof the said English were much troubled and the French joyful at their good adventure. And they also entered into the said city where they were welcome, as well for the victuals they brought as for the Maid whom they had brought back with them; making on all parts most joyous cheer for the fair succour which King Charles sent them: in which they plainly perceived the benevolence he had towards them, whereat the inhabitants of the city greatly rejoiced, making such glee that they were plainly heard by the besiegers (1).\nThen when the morrow came, which was a Thursday (2), when every one was reassured, the Maid Joan, risen fairly early, spoke in counsel to certain captains and chamber-chiefs (3), to whom she showed by lively reasons how they were truly come thither to defend this city against the ancient enemies of the kingdom of France, who sorely oppressed it; and so much that she saw it in great danger, if good provision were not shortly administered to it. And she admonished them to go arm themselves, and did so much by her words that she induced them to do it. And she told them that, if they would follow her, she doubted not that she would bring them such damage that it would be remembered for ever, and the enemies would curse the day of her coming.\nSo much the Maid preached to them that they all went to arm themselves with her. And they issued out of the city in most fair order; and at the departing she said to the captains: Lords, take courage and good hope. Before four days are past, your enemies will be vanquished. And the captains and\n(1) See above, p. 408 note 1, the transposition proposed to form the transition from the present paragraph to the next.\n(2) It is sufficiently established by the other testimonies that on the Thursday, which was Ascension day, there was no sortie.\n(3) The chamber-chiefs were the inferior officers in the companies. They had some twenty men under their command. Nothing is rarer than to find mention of this grade in the authors.\nmen of war who were there could not marvel enough at her words, etc., etc.\nSoon after the siege of Orléans was raised, the said French being within Orléans, especially the captains and Joan the Maid; all of one common accord sent their messengers to King Charles to announce to him the victorious businesses by them achieved; and how at last the English, his enemies, had shamefully abandoned the siege from before Orléans; and had withdrawn into their garrisons.\nAt these tidings King Charles was right joyful; and he humbly thanked his Creator for them. And then soon after, the said captains being at the said place of Orléans, wrote to the King conjointly by their letters, that the greatest number of men-at-arms and of shot that he could find, he should send diligently to them, and with them certain great lords to conduct them, so that they might grieve their enemies, who at this hour sorely dreaded them; especially by the rumour of the Maid, of whom there was already great renown throughout the country; and even in the King’s chamber great discourses were made of her, certain saying that the whole exploit was done by her counsels and enterprises. And the wisest knew not what to think of her. And the said captains wrote to the King, besides all this, that he himself in person should draw forward into the country, saying that his presence, to attract the people, would be worth a great number of other men.\nAbout mid-May, the siege having been raised from before the city of Orléans at the entering of the said month, the French put themselves in the field, about five to six thousand good fighting men, all chosen folk most expert and practised in the deed of war; who all together drew towards Beaugency, seated at two leagues from Meung-sur-Loire; and there they laid the siege. In which place were in garrison a Gascon Englishman (1), named Mathago, Messire Richard Guettin and another ancient English knight. There might be there in garrison about five or six hundred Englishmen, who let themselves be besieged and enclosed there: where they were sorely molested and their walls hard beaten by cannon and stone-engines which, night and day, ceased not to bound. And likewise they were served with other divers engines of war and subtle harness, such that it was impossible for them to last long without having succour. And they thrust out of the place, at a sally they made upon their enemies, a messenger, who by great diligence of riding did so much that he came to the lord of Talbot, to whom he carried letters of credence. And he exposed to him the charge he had on behalf of the besieged. Who, hearing the messenger speak, told him he would provide for it the soonest he could, and that he should commend him to the companions who sent him; saying that they should make good cheer and do their devoir to defend themselves, and that they should shortly have good tidings of him, for in truth he much desired to succour them, as well was right, since they were of his people.\n(1) Wavrin’s error; Matthew Gough was a Welshman.\nThe lord of Talbot then, as soon as he could, announced these tidings to the Duke of Bedford, Regent, who promptly had people made ready in the parts holding King Henry’s quarrel. And those who were summoned came thither. And I myself, the aforesaid author, who at that time was newly returned with Philippe d’Aigreville from the marches of the Orléanais, whither by the Regent’s commandment we had gone to divert victuals from those of Orléans, which the Duke of Bourbon and the lord of La Fayette would bring them during the siege the English held there: in which journey we made a fairly small exploit, because of the commons of the country who rose against us to hinder our passages. So we had to return without doing anything, and the lord of Aigreville and I went to Nemours, of which he was captain, and thence I came to Paris to the Regent, with about six hundred fighting men; who then retained me in all points in King Henry’s service, under Messire John Fastolf, grand master of the said Regent’s household, whom he ordained to go into the country of Beauce to bring succour to the aforesaid besieged within Beaugency.\nAnd we departed in the said Fastolf’s company at that time, about five thousand fighting men, as well chosen as I had ever seen in the country of France. In which brigade were Messire Thomas de Rameston, an Englishman, and several other knights and esquires natives of the kingdom of England; who all together departed from Paris and went to lie at Étampes, where we were three days; then we departed on the fourth day and rode through Beauce, until we came to Janville, which is a fairly good little town, wherein is a great tower after the manner of a keep; which tower had, not long before, been taken by the Earl of Salisbury (1). Within which town we were four days still awaiting a greater power which was to be sent us by the Duke of Bedford, for in England, in Normandy and on all sides he had summoned succour and aid.\n(1) On 29 August 1428.\nChap. XII. — How the English being at Janville were advertised of the taking of Jargeau and of Meung and of the coming of the lord of Talbot.\nThe English captains above named being at Janville were advertised that the French, with great power of arms, had newly taken by assault the town of Jargeau, and put the town of Meung in their obedience, still holding their siege before Beaugency. Which tidings were to them a most great displeasure, but they could not amend it for the present. So they put themselves in counsel to have advice all together on what they had to do. And as they were in this counsel, the lord of Talbot entered the town, with about forty lances and two hundred archers; at whose coming the English were right joyful. It was reason, for he was held at that time to be the wisest and most valiant knight of the kingdom of England.\nWhen the said lord of Talbot was come down to his hostel, Messire John Fastolf, Messire Thomas Rameston and the other English lords went to welcome and reverence him, asking him for his tidings; who told them how it was, then they all went to dine together. And when the tables were removed, they entered into a chamber in counsel, where many things were told and debated; for Messire John Fastolf, who was held a most wise and valiant knight, made many remonstrances to the lord of Talbot and to the others, saying how they well knew the loss of their people from before Orléans, Jargeau and other places; for which things those of their party were much dismayed and affrayed, and their enemies on the contrary much rejoiced, exalted and strengthened; wherefore he counselled not to go further forward and to let the besieged of Beaugency do, taking the best treaty they could have from the French; and they should withdraw themselves into the towns, castles and fortresses holding their party, and should not fight their enemies so hastily until they were more assured, and also until their people had come to them, whom the Duke of Bedford, Regent, was to send them.\nWhich remonstrances made in the said council by the said Messire John Fastolf were not well agreeable to certain of the other captains; especially to the lord of Talbot, who said that had he only his people and those who would follow him, he would go fight them with the aid of God and of my lord Saint George.\nThen Messire John Fastolf, seeing that no excuse or remonstrances availed there, nor his words had place there, rose from the council. So did all the others, and went each to his lodging. And the captains and squadron-chiefs were commanded that on the morrow morning they should all be ready to put themselves in the field, and go where their sovereigns would ordain them. And so that night passed; then in the morning all issued out of the gate, and put themselves in the open fields, standards, pennons and guidons. And then, after all were issued out of the said town in order, all the captains drew together again in a troop amid the field, and there Messire John Fastolf spoke to them again, saying and remonstrating several reasons tending to the end of not passing further forward; setting before their understandings all the fears of the dangerous perils they might well incur, according to his imagination; and also they were but a handful of men in regard of the French, certifying that, if fortune turned evil upon them, all that the late King Henry had conquered in France with great labour and long term would be on the way to perdition: wherefore it were worth better to refrain a little, and await their power to be reinforced.\nThese remonstrances were not yet agreeable to the lord of Talbot, nor also to certain other chiefs of the said army. Wherefore Messire John Fastolf, seeing that no remonstrance whatever he could make could profit to withdraw his said companions from their enterprise, willing to persevere, he commanded the standards to take the right way towards Meung. Then you would have seen on all parts through that Beauce, which is ample and large, the English riding in most fair order; then, when they came to about a league from Meung and fairly near Beaugency, the French, advertised of their coming, being about six thousand fighting men, whose chiefs were Joan the Maid, the Duke of Alençon, the Bastard of Orléans, the Marshal de La Fayette, La Hire, Poton and other captains, ranged themselves and put themselves in battle order on a little hill, the better to see and truly the countenance of the English. Who, plainly perceiving that the French were ranged in manner of battle, thinking they must indeed come fight them, express commandment was promptly made on behalf of King Henry of England that every one should put himself on foot, and that all archers should have their stakes fixed (1) before them, as they are wont to do when they think to be fought. Then they sent two heralds to the said French, when they saw that they moved not from their places, saying that there were three knights who would fight them if they had hardihood to come down the hill and come towards them. To whom answer was made on behalf of the Maid’s people: Go lodge yourselves for today, for it is late enough; but tomorrow, at the pleasure of God and Our Lady, we shall see you from nearer.\nThen the English lords, seeing they would not be fought, departed from that place, and rode towards Meung, where they lodged that night, for they found no resistance in the town, save only that the bridge was held for the French. And it was concluded there by the English captains that they would have the said bridge beaten that night by their engines, cannon and veuglaires, to have passage on the other side of the river. And so did the English who had proposed it that night, which they lay at Meung until the morrow.\n(1) That is, their stakes set in rest, presenting the point to the enemy.\nNow let us return to the French who were before Beaugency; and we will speak of the English when place and time shall be.\nChap. XIII (LXI of Monstrelet). — How the French had by composition the castle of Beaugency, which the English held, and of the day the English lost at Patay against the French.\nAs you have heard, the English were lodged at Meung, and the French before Beaugency at siege, where they sorely constrained the garrison within, giving them to understand that the succour they awaited would not come; giving them to understand also that they had returned towards Paris. Which thing seeing and hearing, the said besieged, with other several like words the French said to them, knew not well in which part of counsel to stay themselves for the best and most profitable; considering that by the renown of Joan the Maid the English courages were sorely altered and failed. And they saw, so it seemed to them, fortune turn her wheel rudely against them (for they had already lost several towns and fortresses which had put themselves back into the obedience of the King of France, principally by the enterprises of the said Maid, some by force, the others by treaty); and they saw their people dismayed, and found them not now of such or so firm a purpose of prudence as they were wont; but they were all, so it seemed to them, most desirous to withdraw upon the marches of Normandy, abandoning what they held in the Isle of France and thereabout.\nAll these things considered, and several others which arose in their imaginations, they knew not what counsel to choose, for they were not ascertained of shortly having succour; but had they known it was so near them, they would not have surrendered so soon. Nevertheless finally, all the fears they admitted in their affair considered, they made treaty with the French the best they could, on condition that they should go away safely and carry off all their goods, and the place should remain in the obedience of King Charles and of his deputies.\nWhich treaty thus made, on the Saturday morning the English departed, taking the way towards Paris right through Beauce, and the French entered into Beaugency. Then they took conclusion, at the Maid Joan’s exhortation, that they would then go seeking the English until they had found them in open Beauce, to their advantage, and that there they would fight them; for there was no doubt that the English, when they should know the surrender of Beaugency, would return through Beauce towards Paris, where it seemed to them they would have good market of it.\nNow then the said French, to attain their enterprise, put themselves in the open fields. And people new from divers places flowed to them and came to them each day. And there were then ordained the Constable of France, the Marshal de Boussac, La Hire, Poton and other captains, to make the vanguard; and the surplus, as the Duke of Alençon, the Bastard of Orléans, the Marshal de Rais, were the conductors of the battle and followed the said vanguard fairly near. And the said French might be in all from twelve to thirteen thousand fighting men. And the Maid was then asked by certain of the princes and principal captains there present, what thing seemed to her at present good to do. Who answered that she was certain and knew verily that the English, their enemies, awaited them to fight them; saying moreover that, in God’s name, they should ride forward against them, and that they would be vanquished. Certain asked her where they would find them: to whom she made answer that they should ride surely and they would have good guidance. So the French battles put themselves on the way in good order, having the most expert, mounted on the flower of horses, to sixty or seventy men, set before to discover. And thus riding a long space that Saturday, they were fairly near their enemies the English, as you may hear hereafter.\nWhen then the English who had lodged at Meung, as has been said above, with the intention of winning the bridge, to refresh the garrison of Beaugency with victuals, who from the evening before had surrendered to the French (whereof the said English knew nothing, for that Saturday, about eight o’clock in the morning when the captains had heard mass, it was cried and published through the host that every one should prepare and put himself in order, garnished with pavises, doors and fire ready, with other necessary harness, to assail the said bridge which the night before had been rudely beaten by our engines): so it befell, as we were all garnished with what we needed for the assault and ready to depart to begin, that right at that hour there arrived a pursuivant, who came straight from Beaugency. And he told the lords, our captains, that the said town and castle of Beaugency were in the hand of the\nFrench, and that, from the moment he departed, they were putting themselves in the field to come fight them.\nThen commandment was promptly made in all quarters by the English captains, that all manner of men should leave the assault; and draw to the fields; and that, as they issued to the fields out of the town, every one should put himself in order of fair battle. Which thing was done most agreeably. The vanguard first put itself on the way, which was conducted by an English knight who bore a white standard; then between the vanguard and the battle were put the artillery, victuals and merchants of all estates. After came the battle, whose conductors were Messire John Fastolf, the lord of Talbot, Messire Thomas Rameston and others. Then rode the rear-guard, which was of pure Englishmen. When this company was in the open fields, the way was taken, riding in fair order, towards Patay, until they came within a league of it; and there they stayed, for they were in truth advertised by the runners of their rear-guard that they had seen great numbers of men coming after them, whom they hoped to be French. And then, to know the truth of it, the English lords sent certain of their people riding; who soon returned and made relation to the said lords that the French were coming after them, riding hard, a very great power: as soon after they were seen to come. And it was ordained by our captains that those of the vanguard, the merchants, the victuals and the artillery should go before to take place all along the hedges which were near Patay. Which thing was done so. Then the battle marched until they came between two strong hedges by which the French must pass. And then the lord of Talbot, seeing the said place fairly advantageous, said he would dismount on foot with five hundred chosen archers, and there he would hold himself, keeping the passage against the French, until the battle and the rear-guard should be joined. And the said Talbot took place at the hedges of Patay, with the vanguard which awaited them there. And so the lord of Talbot, keeping this narrow passage against the enemies, hoped to come back and join with the battle by skirting the said hedges, would the French or no; but it fell out altogether otherwise.\nMost swiftly came the French after their enemies, whom still they could not descry, nor knew the place where they were, until by adventure the fore-runners saw a stag start out of the woods, which took its way towards Patay and went to plunge amid the English battle: whereat they raised a most high cry, not knowing their enemies were so near them. Hearing which cry the aforesaid French runners, they were ascertained it was the English, and also saw them soon after quite plainly. So they sent certain companions to announce to their captains what they had seen and found, letting them know that in good order they should ride forward, and that it was time to do the work. Who promptly prepared themselves in all points and rode until they saw the said English quite plainly.\nWhen then the said English saw the French approach them so near, they hastened the most they could, to join themselves at the hedges before their coming; but they could not so far exploit that, before they were joined together at the said hedges to their vanguard, the French had flung themselves upon the narrow passage where the lord of Talbot was. And then Messire John Fastolf drawing and riding towards the vanguard to join with them, those of the said vanguard thought all was lost and that the battles were fleeing. Wherefore the said captain of the vanguard, thinking in truth it was so, with his white standard, he and his people took to flight and abandoned the hedge.\nThen Messire John Fastolf, seeing the danger of the flight, knowing all went most ill, took counsel to save himself. And he was told, I the author being present, that he should look to his person, for the battle was lost for them. Who in all ways would have re-entered the battle and there awaited such adventure as Our Lord would send him; saying he would liefer be dead or taken than shamefully flee and so abandon his people. And before he would depart, the French had overthrown the lord of Talbot, taken him prisoner and slain all his people. And the said French were already so far into the battle that they could at their will take or slay whom they thought good. And finally the English were discomfited there with little loss to the French. And there died of the said English party a good two thousand men, and two hundred prisoners.\nAs you hear went this business. Which thing seeing, Messire John Fastolf departed thence most unwillingly and with most small company, making the greatest dole I ever saw made by man. And in truth he would have thrust back into the battle, had it not been for those who were with him, especially Messire John, Bastard of Thian, and others who hindered him from it. So he took his way towards Étampes, and I followed him as my captain, whom the Duke of Bedford had commanded me to obey and even to serve his person. So we came about midnight to Étampes, where we lay, and on the morrow at Corbeil.\nAs you hear, the French obtained the victory at the said place of Patay where they lay that night, thanking Our Lord for their fair adventure. And on the morrow they dislodged from the said place of Patay, which stands at two leagues from Janville; for which place thus called, this battle shall perpetually bear the name, the day of Patay. And thence they went with all their prey and prisoners to Orléans, where they were generally feted by all the people.\nAfter this fair victory, all the French captains who were there went, with them Joan the Maid, before King Charles, who much feted them and greatly thanked them for their good service and diligence. Who told him that, above all, he owed thanks for it to the said Maid, who from that hour was retained of the King’s privy council. And there it was concluded to assemble the greatest number of men of war that could be found through the countries obeying the said King, so that he might thrust forward into the country and pursue his enemies.\nTHE CLERK OF THE CHAMBER OF ACCOUNTS OF BRABANT. # The Maid, questioned by her judges on the wound she received at Orléans, answered that she had had revelation of it long beforehand and that she had told it to Charles VII (Trial of Condemnation, vol. I, p. 79). If this prediction, despite the respectable authority under which it presents itself, could still be the object of a doubt, here is what may set it among the best-proved facts. It was consigned in a register of the Chamber of Accounts of Brabant, by the clerk of the court, as a piece of information extracted from a letter which had been written at Lyons on 22 April 1429, fifteen days before the event.\nTo the summary of this letter, sent to Brussels by a chargé d’affaires who had conversed at Lyons itself with an officer of the house of Bourbon, the Brabant clerk has joined a subsequent note to advertise that the announced facts had been accomplished. He has moreover introduced into his register a relation in French of the last days of Joan of Arc’s life, a relation written after her judgement and her execution. M. Le Brun de Charmettes knew and cited this testimony after the extracts, today deposited at the Royal Library, of the Registres noirs of the Chamber of Accounts of Brabant (Collection d’Esnans, vol. I, p. 110 and 116). From the same source I have taken the text printed here for the first time.\nSequitur incidens de Puella. — There follows an incident concerning the Maid.\nItem, it is true that the aforesaid lord of Rotselaer, being in the city of Lyons upon the Rhone, on the relation made to him by a certain knight, councillor and master of the household of the lord Charles de Bourbon, wrote to certain lords of the council of the aforesaid lord Duke of Brabant (1), for news, that the King of the Franks with the aforesaid lord Charles and his other princes and friends made a great gathering of people, who were to meet together on the last day of the month of April of the present year 1429, with the mind and intention of setting out towards the city of Orléans, to deliver it from the English siege. He wrote further, on the same knight’s relation, that a certain Maid born in Lorraine, aged eighteen years or thereabout, is with the aforesaid King; who said to him that she will save the Orléanais and put to flight the English from the siege, and that she will be wounded by a dart before Orléans in the conflict, but will not die of it; and that the King himself will be crowned in the coming summer in the city of Reims; and many other things which the King keeps secret with himself. Which Maid indeed rides armed daily with lance in fist, like the other men-at-arms being beside the King. In the same Maid indeed the aforesaid King and his friends have great confidence, as is more fully contained in the letter of the aforesaid lord of Rotselaer, which was written at Lyons upon the Rhone, on the twenty-second day of the aforesaid month of April (2).\n(1) Philip, then Duke of Brabant, was first cousin to the Duke of Burgundy Philip the Good, who succeeded him after his death, which befell on 15 August 1430.\n(2) This whole paragraph, translated into French by M. Le Brun de Charmettes, forms part of his Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc, vol. I, p. 424.\nAnd whatever is said of the aforesaid Maid, the things she foretold came to pass so; for the siege before Orléans was raised and the English there were either taken, or slain, or put to flight; the King was crowned at Reims and well-nigh all the cities, castles, towns and fortresses of that region, the English being put to flight, he reduced to his obedience in the summer aforesaid. Whence of the same Maid there are the following verses:\nVirgo puellares artus induta virili Veste, Dei monitu, properat relevare jacentem, etc., etc. (1)\nHow the aforesaid Maid came to her end, the reader may see in the following schedule, whose tenor is such:\nTrue it is that one named Joan, calling herself the Maid, who for two years past had come into the company of the Armagnacs and of those who held the Dauphin’s party; in whom the said Dauphin and those of his said party adjoined great faith, and made the people understand that God had sent her to them for the recovery of the kingdom of France; and howbeit the said Joan the Maid bore arms and all war-harness like the boldest and best knights of the company, and that she slew and struck with the sword the men-at-arms and others: notwithstanding this, the greater part of the people of France and other folk of estate believed and adjoined full faith and credence in the said Maid, thinking and firmly maintaining it was a thing from God; and so much that she was captain and chief of war of the greater part of the greatest lords and other chiefs of war of the said Dauphin’s company; and with them she made several armies for the space of a year and a half or thereabout. Finally my lord the Duke of Burgundy with all power went, in the month of May, in the year fourteen\n(1) It is still the same piece, given by Thomassin, above, p. 305.\nhundred and thirty, to besiege the town of Compiègne, in which town the said Maid was with several other captains holding the said Dauphin’s party; and as the said siege was being set and laid before the said town of Compiègne, the said Maid, mounted and notably armed, with a huke of scarlet velvet over her harness, accompanied by several men-at-arms and shot of her party, sallied out of the said town of Compiègne to skirmish against the vanguard of my said lord, which was lodged before the said town, thinking to overthrow the said vanguard; but the business fared so that the said Maid was taken by the people of my said lord of Burgundy, who, after several questionings, gave her in guard to Messire John of Luxembourg, lord of Beaurevoir. And a little time after, the King of France and of England sent to my said lord ambassadors to have the said Maid, to send her to Paris, to make her trial there by the University of Paris. Which thing my said lord of Burgundy liberally did.\nLEFÈVRE DE SAINT-REMI. # Jean Le Fèvre, a native of Abbeville, councillor of the Duke of Burgundy and king of arms of the Order of the Golden Fleece, was sixty-seven years old in 1460, when he set himself to write what it is agreed to call his Memoirs. It is properly speaking a chronicle, a succinct chronicle, and one which, from the Burgundian point of view, represents exactly what Berry’s is for the French party. There are found in it on the Maid pieces of information that can only emanate from an eyewitness. The relation of the sortie from Compiègne is one of the most complete and best there is. As for the captivity, the same lacuna in Jean Le Fèvre as in Monstrelet. Of the judgement there is likewise no question, and one may believe the chronicler would not have spoken at all of Joan of Arc’s death, had he not needed, in one place, a transition to bring on the narrative of a new reverse of the French. Here indeed is the wholly incidental form under which he mentions this fact, at the beginning of his 172nd chapter: You have well heard tell how certain folk of light and idle credence thrust themselves to believe that the Maid’s deeds were miraculous things permitted by God, and right many were inclined to believe it. Now it befell after the death of the said Joan the Maid, that, etc., etc.\nWe owe to M. Buchon the part of Jean Le Fèvre’s memoirs which corresponds to the first fourteen years of the reign of Charles VII, that in which Joan of Arc is spoken of. He gave its text for the first time in his Collection des chroniques nationales, after manuscript 9369-3 of the Royal Library.\nChap. CLI. — How the Maid Joan came into renown and was brought to the siege of Orléans. How she sallied with the French upon the English and the siege was abandoned.\nNow it behoves to speak of an adventure which befell in France, the like whereof, as I believe, never befell there. True it is that in a village on the marches of Lorraine there was a man and a woman, married together, who had several children, among whom they had a daughter who, from the age of seven to eight years, was set to keep the sheep in the fields and long did that craft. Now it is true that she could say, from the time she had or might have eighteen or twenty years, that she often had revelation from God, and that there came to her the glorious Virgin Mary accompanied by several angels, saints and sainted women, among whom she named my lady Saint Katherine and David the prophet (1), with his harp, which he played marvellously; and finally she said that among the other things she had revelation from God, by the mouth of the Virgin Mary, that she should set herself up in arms, and that by her Charles, Dauphin of Vienne, should be restored to his land and lordship, and that she would lead him to be consecrated and crowned at Reims.\nThese tidings came to a gentleman of the march, who armed and mounted her and led her to the siege of Orléans, against the English who held the siege. And he had the Bastard of Orléans and several\n(1) The chronicler’s error. There is no question of this either in the trial or in the French authors, any more than of the apparition of the Virgin Mary mentioned above.\nother captains assemble, to whom he recounted what the said girl named Joan the Maid said. And in fact she was questioned by several sound and valiant men, who put themselves in faith to believe her and adjoined in her so great faith that they abandoned and put their bodies in all adventure with her. And it is true that one day she told them she would fight the English, and assembled her people and set herself to assail the English by the strongest bastille they held, which was guarded by a knight of England named Cassedag (1). The said bastille was by the said Maid and the valiant men assailed and taken by fair assault, and there Cassedag was slain: which seemed a miraculous thing, seeing the strength of the bastille and the people who guarded it.\nThe rumour ran through the English host of the taking of the said bastille, and finally, when they heard tell that the said Maid had done this enterprise, they were much afeared at it; and they said among themselves that they had a prophecy which contained that a Maid must thrust them out of France and in all points undo them. So they raised their siege and withdrew into certain places of their obedience about the said city of Orléans. Among which English, the Earl of Suffolk and the lord of La Pole, his brother, held themselves at Jargeau; but they were scarcely there before the said town was taken by assault, and there the said lord of La Pole was slain, and several English. The powers of the aforesaid English assembled to return to Paris to the Regent; but they were so closely\n(1) He whom the French chroniclers call Classidas.\nfollowed by the Dauphinois that they found themselves in battle one before the other near a village in Beauce, which is called Patay. Now it befell that they thought to take a more advantageous place than that where they were, and departed from their place. But the Dauphinois struck into them so that they undid them and in all points discomfited them. There were taken the Earl of Suffolk, the lord of Talbot and all the captains, save Messire John Fastolf, who went away: whereof he afterwards had great reproach because he was a knight of the Garter. Nevertheless, he excused himself much, saying that had they been willing to believe him, the thing would not have befallen so on their part. Thus were the English discomfited, and the said battle was named the battle of Patay.\nChap. CLII. — How the Dauphin was crowned King of France at Reims. Of several towns which rendered to him. How the Duke of Bedford went to meet him and presented battle. Of the deeds of the Maid who led the King before Paris.\nYou have heard how Joan the Maid was in such renown among the men of war that really they believed she was a woman sent from God, by whom the English should be thrust out of the kingdom. The said Maid was led before the Dauphin, who willingly saw her and who, like the others, adjoined great faith in her and made a great summons where there were a great number of princes of his blood, to wit the Dukes of Bourbon, of Alençon and of Bar, Arthur, Constable of France, the Counts of Armagnac, of Pardiac, and Vendôme, the lord of Albret, the Bastard of Orléans, the lord of La Trémoille and several great lords of France and of Scotland. And the Dauphin’s power was right great, with which all he drew straight to Troyes in Champagne; and the town was promptly rendered to him, and they made him obedience; so did those of Châlons and of Reims. In which town of Reims he was consecrated, anointed and crowned King of France. Thus was Charles, seventh of that name, consecrated at Reims as you have heard.\nAfter the King had sojourned a little time in the town of Reims, he went to an abbey where Saint Marcoul is adored, named Corbeny, where it is said he takes the dignity and privilege of healing the king’s evil. These things done, he passed the river Marne and found himself at Crépy-en-Valois. When the Regent knew that the King had been consecrated at Reims and that he marched in the country to draw straight to Paris, he assembled a great company of English and Picards, among whom were Messire John of Créquy, Messire John of Croy, the Bastard of Saint-Pol, Messire Hue de Lannoy, a wise and valiant knight, Jean de Brimeu and others, who found themselves in great power in a village named Mitry in France, and the French and their power were in another village named (1), two leagues from Crépy-en-Valois, and there were the Duke of Alençon, the said Maid and several other captains. The Regent who desired battle against the French approached them as far as an abbey which is called La Victoire, which is not far from a tower called\n(1) Lacuna of the manuscript. Supply Thieux after Berry.\nMontépilloy, and there arrived about mid-August in the year fourteen hundred and twenty-nine.\nThe King heard mass at Crépy, then mounted on horseback armed with a brigandine and drew to the fields, where he found a fair and great company which awaited him. Nevertheless the Duke of Alençon and the Maid were already forward and found themselves right near the English, before the King came. And when the King was arrived, he and his people ordained a fair great battle on horseback, and with that two other companies in manner of two wings; and therewith there was a great number of foot. And as for the English, they made but one battle and all on foot, save the Bastard of Saint-Pol, Messire John of Croy and certain others in small number, who, when they saw the French, who as for men-at-arms did not dismount to foot, mounted on horseback, as is said.\nThat day it was great heat and marvellously great dust. Now it befell that at one of the ends of the English battle, the French had most of their shot shoot with a company of horse and assailed the English. And there were many arrows shot there, both on one side and the other. And to reinforce the people where the battle had begun, the Regent sent a company thither, without the battles ever leaving their order, neither French nor English. And when the French saw that the English and Picards held foot and valiantly fought, they withdrew, and never thenceforward approached together one against the other, save by skirmishes. And, as I heard say, he of all who shewed himself that day the most a man-at-arms and who broke most lances there, was the Bastard of Saint-Pol. Messire John of Croy was there crippled in a foot, so that all his life he remained crippled. The said day passed thus as you have heard, without doing other thing. And when it came towards sunset, the King withdrew into the town of Crépy, and the others withdrew into the villages thereabout.\nNow must we speak of the English. True it is that certain saw well the French retreat; and certain would have pursued them; but the Regent would not suffer it for the fear of ambushes; for, as I heard the French counted, they were from five to six thousand harnois de jambes (1). When the French were thus departed, the English lodged in an abbey thereabout and sent to fetch victuals from Senlis. On the morrow the King and all his power put themselves in fair order near the town of Crépy, with them all carts and baggage; and these things done, he put himself in the fields and turned his back on the English, and went into the town of Compiègne, which then held the English party; but, without any contradiction, they made opening to the King and received him with great joy. And there the King sojourned five days and there held counsel of what he had to do. And when the Regent knew that the King had entered Compiègne without contradiction, he much doubted that several towns which were then in their obedience would not turn to the King’s party: for which cause, with his power he returned\n(1) By this phrase, the author designates only the knights and men-at-arms equipped at all points.\nto Paris, and there left Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne and Chancellor of France for the English, the lord of L’Isle-Adam, then Marshal of France, and also several lords of England, to whom he gave the said city of Paris in guard, and went into Normandy to provide for the guards of the good towns and fortresses. When the King had sojourned at Compiègne, as is said, he took his way with all his power to come straight to Paris; for the Maid had promised him she would put him within, and that of this he should not doubt. Nevertheless she failed there, as you shall hear.\nAt departing from Compiègne the King drew straight to Senlis, which town made him obedience, then to Saint-Denis, and entered within. And afterwards it was ordained, by the remonstrances the Maid made, that the city of Paris should be assaulted. When it came to the day of the assault, the Maid armed and arrayed, with her standard, was among the first assailants, and went so near that she was wounded by shot. But the English defended the city so well that the French could do nothing there, and withdrew into the city of Saint-Denis. After the King had been in the city of Saint-Denis several days, seeing that the city of Paris was too strongly guarded, he retired beyond the river Seine, and gave leave to the most part of his people; who put themselves in garrison in several towns, both at Beauvais, Senlis, Compiègne, Soissons, Crépy and several other towns this side of Seine, towards Picardy; who made sore war both upon the English and upon the Duke’s people.\nAnd so that year (1) passed, as you have heard, with several other things which would be too long to recount.\n(1) Shapeless abbreviation of the Royal Library manuscript, which is only a sixteenth-century copy. M. Buchon read aventure. It is rather année that should be conjectured.\nChap. CLVIII. — How the Duke of Burgundy besieged the town of Compiègne, where the Maid Joan was taken by a sally she made, and of several other deeds of war.\nIn the month of May 1430, the Duke laid the siege before a fortress seated on the river Aisne, near the town of Compiègne, named Pont-à-Choisy, and one must pass a great river named Oise, and it was passed at a village named Pont-l’Évêque, fairly near the city of Noyon; and the said passage was guarded by two valiant knights of England. And at the said place the Duke’s adversaries had assembled in great number to fight the Duke; and there was Joan the Maid, who was as chief of the war of the King, for the time the Duke’s adversary; and the adversaries believed she would bring the wars to an end, for she said it was revealed to her by the mouth of God and of certain Saints. And the said adversaries concluded to go overthrow those who guarded the said bridge; and in fact they went to assail them most swiftly; but the knights aforesaid defended themselves so valiantly that the enemies could not grieve them. And also the lord of Saveuse and others of the Duke’s people came to aid and succour them in all diligence; and there was great plenty of wounded on one side and the other; and the said adversaries did nothing else for the hour; but each returned to their towns and fortresses, and the knights remained guarding the said bridge until the Duke was before the said Pont-à-Choisy, where he was ten days; and those of the said place fled away. And soon after the Duke had taken the said Pont-à-Choisy, he repassed the said bridge and river, and lodged at a league from Compiègne, and his host in the villages near the said town. And as the Duke was ordaining his people to lay his siege before the said town of Compiègne, which is a fat and great town, with a great tower, and enclosed in part by two rivers, Oise and Aisne, which assemble before the said town or fairly near (and the captain of the said town of Compiègne was an esquire named Guillaume de Flavy, who did great evils in the Duke’s countries): then the Maid came into the town of Compiègne by night and was there two nights and a day; and on the second day she said she had had revelation from God that she would put the Burgundians to discomfiture. So she had the gates of the said town closed, and assembled her people and those of the town and told them the revelation made to her, as she said; to wit that God had had Saint Katherine tell her she should issue out that day against her enemies and she would discomfit the Duke; and he would be taken in his person and all his people taken, slain and put to flight; and that of this there was no doubt. Now it is true that, by the credence the people of her party had in her, they believed her. And that day the gates were closed until about two hours after midday, when the Maid issued out, mounted on a most fair courser, most well armed in full harness and over it a rich huke of cloth of gold of scarlet; and after her her standard and all the men of war being in the town of Compiègne; and they went in most fair order to assail the people of the Duke’s first lodgings.\nThere was a valiant knight, named Bauldot de Noyelle, who was afterwards knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece; who, he and his people, defended themselves most valiantly, notwithstanding they were surprised. And during the assault, the Count of Ligny, in his company the lord of Créquy, both knights of the Order of the Golden Fleece, with right few people, set themselves to approach the Maid and her people; who, for the resistance she had found at the said Bauldot de Noyelle’s lodging, and also for the great number of the Duke’s people who from all parts arrived where the noise was, began to withdraw. So the Burgundians struck into them so most rudely that several of them were taken, slain and drowned. And the Maid thus sustained all the last the burden of her adversaries; and was taken there by one of the Count of Ligny’s people; and the Maid’s brother and her master of household. Which Maid was led with great joy before the Duke, who was coming in all diligence to the aid and succour of his people. Who was right joyful at her taking for the great name she had; for it did not seem to several of his party that her works were other than miraculous.\nGEORGES CHASTELLAIN. # In the prologue of his memoirs, Jean Le Fèvre says that after having finished their redaction, he sent them, by way of information, to the noble orator Georges Chastellain, to employ them in some wise at his good pleasure and according to his discretion in the noble histories and chronicles that he makes. What remains to us of Chastellain’s testimony on Joan of Arc proves that he used largely the communication of the old herald of the Golden Fleece. His narrative of the sortie from Compiègne is the same, save certain additions, borrowed most of them from Monstrelet. It is further to be noted that his chapter on Joan of Arc’s death is the repetition of Monstrelet’s, that is to say a pure and simple reproduction of the manifesto launched by the Duke of Bedford. Thus although Chastellain followed the wars of the Maid’s time, although he had occasion to see her herself several times, as is attested by Pontus Heuterus, it is demonstrated today that what he could know of particular on her did not concern the last year of her life.\nGeorges Chastellain, although born in the county of Alost, in the depth of Flanders, was none the less considered in his time as the most skilful writer who had ever handled the French tongue. Philip the Good, with whom he had been brought up, attached him to the service of his person by divers offices of court, to which he added the charge of historiographer or indiciaire, a new word which was created expressly for Georges Chastellain, the consecrated title of chronicler having appeared unworthy of his talent. Only shreds remain of the colossal history the illustrious Burgundian writer composed in the exercise of his literary functions. The sole reign of Duke Philip the Good occupied six great volumes. All of it is lost, save about two hundred chapters which belonged to the beginning and the end of the work. M. Buchon collected them and gave them to the public in the Panthéon littéraire in 1838. Since then I found at the library of Arras and made known by extracts a new manuscript fragment (no. 256 of the Arras manuscripts) of which the Laurentian library of Florence possesses the duplicate (no. 176). It is from this fragment that the piece reproduced here is drawn conformably to the Arras text.\nNow, as I tell you, the Duke was come to lodge at Coudun, the Count of Ligny at Clairoix, Messire Baude de Noyelle at Margny on the causeway, and the lord of Montgomery with his English at Venette, at the end of the meadow, there where the people of divers nations, Burgundians, Flemings, Picards, Germans, Hainaulters, came to render themselves to this Duke in reinforcement of his power: who were all received and welcomed there, howbeit there was largely lordship there and people of great deed, as the Count of Ligny and the lord of Croy, Messire John, his brother, the lord of Créquy, the lord of Santes, the lord of Comines, the lord of Mamines, the three brothers, Messire Jacques, Messire David and Messire Florimond de Brimeu, Messire le Bègue de Lannoy, all knights of the Order, without the others, great number, whose names are not set down, and of whom it is good to think there was largesse with such a prince, sovereignly in such a place where they were to shew his power and effort.\nAnd I now remember how a little before the Maid had come to the succour of Compiègne, one day a gentleman-at-arms, named Franquet d’Arras, holding the Burgundian party, had gone riding towards Lagny-sur-Marne, well accompanied by good men-at-arms and archers, to the number of three hundred or thereabout. So his adventure would have it that this Maid, of whom the French made their idol, met him on his return; and she had with her four hundred good fighting French; who, when they both espied each other, there was none who could or would for honour flee the battle, except that the Maid’s name was already so great and so famous that every one looked askance at her as a thing of which one knew not how to judge, neither in good nor in ill; but she had already done and brought to a head so many businesses that her enemies dreaded her, and those of her party adored her, principally for the siege of Orléans, where she wrought marvels; likewise for the journey of Reims, where she led the King to be crowned, and elsewhere in other great affairs, whereof she predicted the adventures and the events.\nNow this Franquet was a courageous man and dismayed at nothing he saw, forasmuch as remedy might be put to it by fighting, and the Maid on the other side was ill-famed against the Burgundians, and ever sought only to incite the French to battle against them. So the two parties struck into each other and fought together a long while, without the French carrying off anything from the Burgundians, who were not so strong (1) however as the others, but of great valour and good defence, because of the archers they had with them, who had put foot to ground.\n(1) The French chroniclers say the contrary; but here Chastellain seems to have conformed rather to Monstrelet’s testimony.\nWhich thing when the Maid saw, that nothing was being done and still they had no greater power with them, she hastily summoned to Lagny all the garrison. So did she of all the places thereabout, to come aid to overthrow this little handful of people of whom she could not be master. Who, come in haste, took up the third battle against Franquet, and there, not seeking to save himself by flight, but ever hoping to escape and save his people by valiance, he was finally taken, and all his people slain for the most part and discomfited; and he, led prisoner, was afterwards beheaded by the cruelty of this woman who desired his death: whereof complaint enough was made in his party, for a valiant man he was and a good warrior (1).\nNow I return to the Duke’s lodging, principal of our matter, where he was at Coudun, pushing ever his approaches nearer and nearer, to set his siege close and stayed as appertained; in which he put sense and understanding, all to do it well and convenably and most to his honour. Now it is true that the Maid, of whom so much mention is made above, had entered Compiègne by night. Who, after having rested there two nights, the second day after gave to know several foolish phantom-fancies; and put forward and said she had received certain divine revelations and announcements of great cases to come: whereby, making a general assembly of the people and of the men of war, who had very foolishly put credence and faith in her, she had\n(1) Cf. Monstrelet’s narrative, above, p. 399.\nall the gates kept closed from the morning until well after dinner, and told them how Saint Katherine had appeared to her, sent by God, to signify to her that on that very day He would have her set herself in arms, and that she should issue out against the King’s enemies, English and Burgundians; and that without doubt she would have victory and would discomfit them, and the Duke of Burgundy would be taken in person, and all his people, the greater part, slain and discomfited.\nAnd the French adjoined faith to her sayings, and the people of light credence to her foolish delusions, because in like case they had sometimes found truth in her sayings, which however had no foundation of certain goodness, but rather the appearance of the Enemy’s deception, as appeared in the end. Now all manner of folk of the party yonder were thrust into the opinion that this woman here was a holy creature, a divine and miraculous thing, sent for the relieving of the French king; wherefore now, in this town of Compiègne, putting forward such high terms as to discomfit the Burgundian duke and carry him off prisoner, even in proper person, there was none who in so high a business as this would not gladly be found, and who would not willingly thrust himself all joyful into so high a recovery whereby they would be above all their enemies. Wherefore all, of one common assent, and at the said woman’s request, recurred to their arms all of them, and making joy of that whereof they found the contrary, offered her ready following when she would.\nSo she mounted on horseback, armed as a man would be, and over her harness clad in a huke of rich cloth of gold of scarlet. She rode a grey courser, most fair and most proud, and bore herself in her harness and in her manners as a captain leading a great host would have done; and in this estate, with her standard raised high and fluttering in the air of the wind, and well accompanied by many noble men, about four o’clock after midday, she sallied out of the town, which had been closed all day, to make this enterprise, on an eve of the Ascension. And she brought with her all that could bear staves, on foot and on horse, to the number of five hundred armed; and she concluded to come strike upon the lodging which Messire Baude de Noyelle held, a right hardy and valiant knight and chosen (for his high deeds he has since been a brother of the Order); which lodging, as you have heard, was at Margny, at the end of the causeway.\nNow adventure so gave it that the Count of Ligny, the lord of Créquy and several other knights of the Order had departed from their lodging, which they held at Clairoix, intending to come to Messire Baude’s lodging. And they came all unarmed, not advised to have anything to do with their bodies, as captains often go from one lodging to another. Who, as they came devising, saw a right great cry and noise at the lodging whither they tended to go; for the Maid was already entered within and began to slay and cast people to the ground fiercely, as if all had already been hers. So the said lords sent hastily to fetch their harness, and, to give succour to Messire Baude, summoned their people to come, and with those of Margny, who were moreover unarmed and unprovided, began to make all sharp and proud resistance against their enemies. Whereof sometimes the assailants were stiffly thrust back, sometimes also the assailed compressed to suffer right hard, because they were surprised, scattered and unarmed. But the rumour which rose everywhere and the great noise of crying voices made folk come from all sides, and succour flow towards them more than was needed. Even the Duke and those of his lodging who were far from it perceived it soon enough and put themselves in readiness to come to the said Margny, and in fact came there; but before the Duke could ever arrive there with his people, the Burgundians had already thrust the French well back from their lodging, and the French with their Maid began to withdraw quite softly, as folk who found no advantage over their enemies, but rather peril and damage.\nWhereat the Burgundians seeing this, and moved to blood, and not content only to have chased them out by defence, unless they brought them greater grief by pursuing them close, struck into them valiantly on foot and on horse, and brought much damage to the French. Whereat the Maid, passing woman’s nature, sustained a great burden, and put much pain to save her company from loss, remaining behind as chief and as the most valiant of the flock; where fortune permitted, for the end of her glory and for her last time, that never more should she bear arms: for an archer, a rough man and right sour, having great despite that a woman of whom he had heard so much talk should be the repulser of so many valiant men, as she had undertaken, took her from the side by her huke of cloth of gold, and dragged her off the horse all flat to the ground, who could never find rescue or succour in her people, for the pains they put to it, that she might be remounted. But a man-at-arms, named the Bastard of Wandonne, who came up as she let herself fall, so pressed her with threats that she gave him her faith, because he said he was a nobleman. Who, more joyful than if he had a king in his hands, brought her hastily to Margny, and there kept her in his guard until the end of the business. And there was taken after her also Poton the Burgundian, a gentleman-at-arms of the French party, the Maid’s brother, her master of household, and certain others in small number, who were led to Margny and put in good guards.\nWhereat the French, seeing the day against them and their adventure of small gain, withdrew the best they could, doleful and confounded. The Burgundians and English, joyful on the other side at their taking, returned to the lodging of Margny, where now the Duke arrived with all his people, thinking to come in time to the slaughter, when all was already done and brought to a head that could be done of it. Then they told him the gain that had been made there, and how the Maid was a prisoner with certain other captains; whereat who was right joyful? It was he. And he went to see and visit her, and had with her certain speeches which have not come down to me: so I enquire no further into it; then he left her there, and put her in the guard of Messire John of Luxembourg, who sent her to his castle of Beaurevoir, where she long remained a prisoner.\nPONTUS HEUTERUS. # Pontus Heuterus (Heviter), a Hollander born at Delft in 1535, author of a Latin history of the Dukes of Burgundy which appeared only in 1583 (Rerum Burgundicarum libri VI), figures here only to complete Georges Chastellain’s testimony, whose work he declares he had before his eyes. His book, unfortunately too succinct, presents only the skeleton of Joan of Arc’s history. We reproduce the single passage where he appears to have used the anecdotal part of Chastellain’s narrative. This passage has moreover the merit of containing a description of the first monument that was raised at Orléans in the Maid’s honour. Pontus Heuterus speaks of it from having seen it on a journey he made into France to perfect his instruction, in 1560.\nThere are those who deem what we write of the Maid Joan a fable; but besides that the memorial is recent and the books of all the writers who then lived make famous mention of her, I saw with my own eyes, on the Orléans bridge built across the Loire, an erect bronze image of this Maid, her hair flowing comely down her back, leaning on both knees before a bronze image of Christ crucified, with an inscription, set up at that time by the work and cost of the maidens and matrons of Orléans in memory of the city delivered by her from the English siege (1). Moreover I had, while I wrote these things, a history written by hand in the French tongue by Georges Chastellain, who elegantly and exactly wrote the life of Philip the Good, and testifies in several places that he lived at this time and saw the Maid Joan; who, from an unknown and rustic girl, arrived by warlike deeds so far that King Charles furnished her expenses whereby she equalled a count’s household, lest she should grow cheap among the men of war for want’s sake. For there were seen in her train, besides noble maidens, a steward of the house, a master of the stable, noble young lads for the hands, the feet, the chambers; and she was worshipped by the King; and she was held by the nobles and especially by the people like a goddess.\n(1) This monument was destroyed almost entirely by the Calvinists in 1567. Symphorien Guyon affirms that it had been erected under the reign of Charles VII, a little time after the rehabilitation sentence. The words hoc tempore which Pontus Heuterus uses are perhaps the sole foundation of this assertion, which has been repeated by all the historians of Orléans. There is ground to call it in doubt after the circumstance of the long hair the sculptor had given the Maid. Besides, it is only at the end of Louis XI’s reign that the art of casting raised statues began to be practised in France. It would therefore be wiser to refer to that reign the execution of the bronze raised in memory of Joan of Arc by the ladies of Orléans. Let us note however that this work must have been in place before the end of the fifteenth century; this results from the form of the armour on the undestroyed parts which were employed in the restoration of the monument in 1570. Paulus Aemilius, who wrote under Louis XII, as is known, says, without indication of date: Aurelianenses Puellae statuam posuere (De rebus gestis Francorum, lib. 10). That is the earliest text we have on this object.\nCLÉMENT DE FAUQUEMBERQUE. # No one has yet named Clément de Fauquemberque among the authors to consult on Joan of Arc; but his testimony has been invoked more than once. Clerk of the Parliament of Paris during the English domination, this personage consigned on one of the registers entrusted to his care historical notes which, independently of the extreme merit of having been written under the very impression of the events, have still that of furnishing us with most particular details on divers points and notably on Joan’s execution. To gather these fragments seemed to me a useful thing. Without confining myself exclusively to the articles where the Maid is named, I have collected the mention of all the facts which seemed to me capable of shewing the anguish of the English government during Charles VII’s journey to Reims. There will be found right strong strokes to add to the picture already traced in the Journal of a Bourgeois of Paris.\nThe author’s character shews itself bare in one of the protocols of the register kept by him. Here are his own words: Per quem reges regnant et justi conditores justa decernunt, invocato nomine, incipit registrum conciliorum causarum civilium parlamenti inceptum nona die mensis decembris anno millesimo quadringentesimo tricesimo ab incarnatione Domini, et anno XV° quo ego, Clemens de Fauquemberque, in utroque jure licentiatus, ecclesiae Ambianensis decanus, regis protonotarius, dicti parlamenti grapharius, hujusmodi officium exercui, intermisso jus dicentis officio, juxta illud\nVirgilii: Maluit et mutas agitare inglorius artes.\nTo prefer to remain a simple clerk rather than aspire, when one could by one’s position and one’s degrees, to the high offices of the magistrature, is to give proof of a wise spirit assuredly. In effect, the opinion that Master Clément lets be glimpsed in his notes is that of a moderate. More than once he softens, by reflections in Latin, the official harshness of his redaction. His last word on Joan of Arc is a prayer for her salvation.\nClément de Fauquemberque’s register belongs today to the judicial section of the Archives of the kingdom (Conseil no. 15). It is famous for containing what it has pleased some to call a portrait of the Maid. It is a little sketch of a woman half-length, seen in profile, holding a sword in one hand and in the other a banner with the monogram of Jesus. Nothing less deserves the name of portrait than this fancy escaped from the clerk’s pen on the day he registered the news of the deliverance of Orléans. The gown and the long hair he has given his personage prove to what point he was still ill-informed at that moment.\nTuesday the 10th day of May, it was reported and said publicly at Paris, that on Sunday last past, the Dauphin’s people in great number, after several assaults continually maintained by force of arms, had entered into the bastide which William Glasdale and other captains and English men-at-arms held on the King’s behalf, with the tower of the issue of the bridge of Orléans beyond Loire; and that that day the other captains and men-at-arms holding the siege and the bastides on this side of Loire, before the city of Orléans, had departed from the said bastides, and had raised their siege to go comfort the said Glasdale and his companions, and to fight the enemies who had in their company a maid, alone bearing a banner among the said enemies, as was said. Quis eventus fuerit, novit Deus bellorum dux et princeps potentissimus in praelio (1).\n(1) The clerk afterwards added the following note: Vide infra in re-\n— Tuesday the 13th day of this month [of June], the Dauphin’s men-at-arms, after several continual assaults maintained since the preceding Saturday, recovered by force of arms and took the town of Jargeau on Loire, into which had withdrawn in guard and garrison the Earl of Suffolk and other English men of war, who were taken by assault at the enemies’ will, who had had in their company a maid bearing a banner, as was said; who had been present to make the men-at-arms then in the bastides before Orléans rise.\n— This day [18th of June] Messire John Fastolf, the lord of Scales, Messire Thomas de Rampston and other captains, men-at-arms and English archers, who had assembled to conduct victuals and bring succour to the lord of Talbot and other captains and English men-at-arms, being lately in the guard and garrison of the towns and fortresses of Meung and of Beaugency on Loire, were met in the fields between Janville and Beaugency, and by mischance were discomfited by the enemies being in almost equal number. In whose company was the Maid who had been with them, on the 10th day of May, to raise the siege before Orléans and on the 13th day of this month at the taking and recovery of Jargeau by the said enemies; who, at the meeting aforesaid, took among the others their prisoners the said Talbot, Rampston and Scales, as was said. And the said Fastolf withdrew and returned to the Duke of Bedford being then at Corbeil. Et tunc succubuerunt Anglici absque defensione, ut fertur.\ngistro xxv. dicii maii sequentis, de captione hujus puellae per gentem ducis Burgundiae. — This piece was printed by M. De l’Averdy, Notices et extraits des manuscrits, vol. III, p. 324.\n— This day [19th of July] it was said publicly at Paris for news, that Messire Charles de Valois, on Sunday last past, the 17th day of this month, had been consecrated in the church of Reims, in the manner that his father and the other Kings of France have been consecrated heretofore.\n— Monday, the 25th day of July, the Cardinal of Exeter, who was newly passed the sea with great number of men-at-arms and archers of England, to the number of five thousand or thereabout, intending to go against the Bohemians and other heretics, came and entered Paris with the Duke of Bedford, his nephew, Regent, accompanied by the said men-at-arms and archers and others; awaiting the coming, aid or assistance of the Duke of Burgundy, who had made and was making great summons of men-at-arms, his subjects and allies, intending to resist and fight Messire Charles de Valois and his men-at-arms who had lately been received at Troyes, at Châlons, at Reims, at Laon and in several other towns of this kingdom, lately disobedient to him, as was said. De intentione judicet Deus.\n— This day [mid-August], the Cardinal of Exeter departed from Paris, accompanied only by his familiars and domestics, to go and be at Rouen. And he left at Paris a great number of men-at-arms and of shot, whom he had lately brought to Paris, who on the morrow departed with the Duke of Bedford, the said Cardinal’s nephew, Regent, to accompany him and to fight the enemies who were in the country of Brie and thereabout, in several towns and fortresses which they had newly recovered, and there had found ready enough obedience, without making assault or effort of arms or of war there.\n— Friday, the 26th day of August, Messire Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne and Chancellor of France, came into the parliament chamber where were the presidents and councillors of the three chambers of the said parliament, the masters of requests of the household, the Bishop of Paris, the provost of Paris, the masters and clerks of accounts, the advocates and procurators of this place, the Abbot of Châtillon, the Prior of Corbeil, Master J. Chuffart, Master Pasquier de Vaulx (1), the Dean of Saint-Marcel, the Commander of Saint-Antoine, the Treasurer of Saint-Jacques de l’Hôpital, the Prior of Sainte-Katherine, the Prior of the Jacobins (2), the Prior of the Carmelites, the Prior of the Celestines, the curate of Saint-Nicolas-des-Champs, the curate of Saint-Médard, the curate of Sainte-Croix, the farmers of the cure of Saint-André-des-Arts, the curate of Saint-Laurent, etc., and several others. Who, following what had been sworn\n(1) One of the assessors at the trial of condemnation.\n(2) He who excused himself from taking part in the trial and delegated Jean Vayistri in his place. His name was Graverent or Le Graverent, as has been seen by the trial of condemnation (vol. I, p. 2).\nby several inhabitants of this city of Paris, in the presence of the Dukes of Bedford, Regent, and of Burgundy, being then in the hall of this place on Seine, one day before the last departure of the Duke of Burgundy from this city of Paris (1); and what since had been sworn by several of the said inhabitants in the presence of the said Bedford, before his last departure from Paris: made oath in effect to live in peace and union in this city, under the obedience of the King of France and of England, according to the treaty of the peace (2).\nThis day, the said Chancellor, in the presence of the people of the King’s council being then in the said parliament chamber, commissioned Master Philippe de Rully, treasurer of the Sainte-Chapelle and master of requests of the household, and Master Marc de Foras, archdeacon of Thérache, master of the King’s accounts, to receive the like oaths, as is said, of the churchmen of Paris, secular and regular. And on the morrow and the days following, the said deputies went to the chapters, convents and churches of this city, to do what is said. And since, the court has been vacant for several sessions and the presidents and councillors have not been assembled here to hear the pleadings nor to attend to the despatch of causes and trials, in the accustomed manner; but only certain of them have come into the parliament chamber to hear requests of urgent and necessary causes, and to provide for the cases\n(1) The ceremony here in question took place on 14 July. It is described by the Bourgeois of Paris.\n(2) The treaty of Troyes.\narising on the occasion of the men-at-arms of Messire Charles de Valois, being in several towns and cities around Paris (1).\n— Wednesday, the 7th day of September, the relation of Messire Philippe de Morvillier and of Messire Richard de Chancey, presidents, being heard, it was appointed that the sum of eleven hundred livres parisis, put in deposit in the hands of Master Jean Coletier by Jaquet Vivian, should be delivered to the receiver of Paris commissioned to receive deposits, etc., as is more at large contained in the register of the pleadings. And it is true that then all deposits were being taken and levied on the King’s behalf and loans made to the churches and ecclesiastical persons, burgesses and inhabitants of the city of Paris, to pay and maintain the men-at-arms being at Paris to guard the city and its inhabitants, against the men-at-arms of Messire Charles de Valois being at Saint-Denis and in several places around Paris (2).\n— Thursday, the 8th day of September 1429, feast of the Nativity of the Mother of God, the men-at-arms of Messire Charles de Valois, assembled in great number close to the walls of Paris, towards the Porte Saint-Honoré, hoping by commotion of people to grieve and damage the city and the inhabitants of Paris, more than by power or force of arms; about two\n(1) This article was printed by M. Le Brun de Charmettes, Hist, de Jeanne d’Arc, vol. II, p. 395.\n(2) Printed by M. Le Brun de Charmettes, ibid., p. 404.\nhours after midday, began to make show of wishing to assault the said city of Paris. And hastily several of them being on the Place aux Pourceaux and thereabout near the said gate, carrying long faggots and bundles, descended and thrust themselves into the first moats, in which there was no water, and cast the said faggots and bundles into the other moat next to the walls, in which was great water. And at that hour there were within Paris folk affected or corrupted, who raised a cry in all parts of the city on this side and beyond the bridges, crying that all was lost, and that the enemies had entered into Paris and that every one should withdraw and make diligence to save himself. And at that cry, at the very hour of the said enemies’ approach, all the people then at the sermons departed from the churches of Paris, and were much afeared, and most withdrew into their houses, and shut their doors. But for all that there was no other commotion in fact among the said inhabitants of Paris. And there remained at the guard and defence of the gates and of the walls of the said city those who were deputed, and to their aid there came up several others of the said inhabitants who made very good and strong resistance to the people of the said Messire Charles de Valois, who held themselves within the said first moat and outside on the said Place aux Pourceaux and thereabout, until ten or eleven o’clock at night, when they departed to their damage. And of them there were several slain and wounded by shot and by cannon. And among the others there was wounded in the leg, by shot, a woman called the Maid, who conducted the army with the other captains of the said Messire Charles de Valois, who looked to grieve Paris more by the said commotion than by assault or force of arms; for, had they had for each man they then had, four or more, as well armed as they were, they would not have taken the said city of Paris by assault or by siege, so long as there should be victuals within the city, which was then well provided with them for a long time; and the inhabitants were well united with the men-at-arms of the said city to resist the aforesaid assault and enterprise. And especially because it had been said and was said publicly at Paris, that the said Messire Charles de Valois, son of the King Charles VI last deceased, whom God pardon, had abandoned to his people the said city of Paris and its inhabitants, great and small, of all estates, men and women, and quod erat sua intentio redigendi ad aratrum urbem Parisiensem, christianissimis civibus habitatam; quod non erat facile credendum (1).\n— Thursday the 25th day of this month [of May 1430], Messire Louis of Luxembourg, Bishop of Thérouanne, Chancellor of France, received letters from Messire John of Luxembourg, knight, his brother, making among other things mention that, on Tuesday last past, at a sally made by the captains and men-at-arms of Messire Charles de Valois, being then in the town of Compiègne, against the people of the Duke of Burgundy who had lodged and approached the said town intending to besiege it, the people of the said Valois were so constrained to return that several\n(1) Piece printed by Félibien, Histoire de Paris, vol. IV, p. 590.\nof them had no leisure to re-enter the town. And certain of them thrust themselves into the river adjoining the walls, in peril of their life; the others remained prisoners of the said Messire John of Luxembourg and of the said Duke of Burgundy’s people who, among the others, took and hold prisoner the woman whom the said Messire Charles’s people called the Maid, who had chevance in arms with them and had been present at the assault and discomfiture of the English who held the bastides before Orléans, and who held the town of Jargeau and other towns and fortresses, ut supra in registro x diei mensis maii m cccc xxix (1).\n— The thirtieth day of May 1431, by trial of the Church, Joan, who called herself the Maid, who had been taken at a sally of the town of Compiègne by the people of Messire John of Luxembourg being with others at the siege of the said town, ut in registro xxvae diei mensis maii m cccc xxx, was burned and burnt in the said city of Rouen. And there was written on the mitre she had on her head the words which follow: Heretic, relapsed, apostate, idolatress. And on a board before the scaffold where the said Joan was, were written these words: Joan who has had herself named the Maid, liar, pernicious, abuser of people, divineress, superstitious, blasphemeress of God, presumptuous, miscreant of the faith of Jesus Christ, boasteress, idolatress,\n(1) Piece printed by De l’Averdy, Notices et extraits des manuscrits, vol. III, p. 342.\ncruel, dissolute, invokeress of devils, apostate, schismatic and heretic. And the sentence was pronounced by Messire Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, in whose diocese the said Joan had been taken, as is said. And he called to make the said trial several notable churchmen of the duchy of Normandy, graduated in science, and several theologians and jurists of the University of Paris, as is said to be more at large contained in the said trial. De gestis hujus Johannae vide supra in registro diei decimae maii m cccc xxix, etc. Et fertur quod in extremis, postquam fuit relapsa, ad ignem applicata, poenituit lacrimabiliter, et in ea apparuerunt signa poenitentiae. Deus suae animae sit propitius et misericors (1).\n(1) This article has never been printed entire; but the historians of Joan of Arc have known and cited the inscriptions of the mitre and of the attachment-post; notably M. Le Brun de Charmettes, vol. IV, p. 202.\nTHE ALLEGED BOURGEOIS OF PARIS. # Usage obstinately persists in designating by the quality of burgess a man who says of himself somewhere, speaking of a learned stranger: He disputed among us, at the College of Navarre, who were more than fifty of the most perfect clerks of the University of Paris. The learned, it is true, gave birth to the usage. Fragments of a Parisian journal of Charles VI’s time having fallen into Denys Godefroy’s hands, that editor believed he recognised in them the work of a burgess and gave them to the public under that attribution. Later De la Barre published in his Mémoires pour l’Histoire de Bourgogne another copy of the same journal which embraced, besides the reign of Charles VI, that of Charles VII until the year 1449. In the new part was found the passage reported above, and De la Barre saw it well; but this passage destroyed Godefroy’s hypothesis as to the author, and De la Barre would not admit it. To accord things, he had recourse to the desperate means of distinction, gave two authors to the chronicle: one, a burgess who would have kept a register of events until the year 1432; the other, a creature of the University, and continuator of the work from 1432. That is not tenable. The Paris Journal has but one style, one spirit and one author. This author, he must be believed when he declares himself a member of the University, and above all one must not, like De la Barre, take in mockery what he says of the eminent rank he occupied in science. It is possible that one day, his name being discovered, he will be recognised as one of the famous revolutionaries of the fifteenth century. His trivial, coloured style, full of whimsies and strokes, rare for a clerk escumant latin, betrays the habit of popular assemblies. As a political man, his persistence in his opinions is no less significant. Attached to the party which was vanquished in 1414, he detests all the regimes that have been in vigour since that of the butchers, though the English are less odious to him than the Armagnacs.\nIt is not astonishing that the testimony of such a man on Joan of Arc should be hostile, the most hostile that remains to us from the fifteenth century; yet nothing will be found in it approaching the calumnies imagined in modern times. The grievances alleged reduce to a paraphrase of the famous twelve articles transmitted by Pierre Cauchon to the University of Paris. Moreover, though the author may well avail himself both of the Faculty’s conclusions and of the recitals preached to the Parisians by the inquisitor of the faith, beneath the party man’s hatred the theologian’s fear shows through. He is much less sure of his case than he strives to appear concerning ceste chose en forme de femme; and he lets himself go so far as to say at last that she was burned, quelque mawaiseté ou bonté qu’elle eust faite.\nThe original of the Paris Journal passes for being at Rome among the manuscripts of the Queen of Sweden; we have in France only modern copies, and De la Barre’s edition which has been reproduced in all the collections of Memoirs.\n1429. — Item. In this time there was a Maid, as was said, on the river Loire, who said she was a prophet, and said: Such a thing will come to pass for true. And she was contrary to the Regent of France and to his aiders. And it was said that, maugre all those who held the siege before Orléans, she entered the city with great plenty of Armagnacs and great quantity of victuals, without those of the host meddling with them; and they saw them pass within a bowshot or two of them; and they had such great need of victuals that a man would have well eaten three blancs’ worth of bread at his dinner. And several other things of her recounted those who liked the Armagnacs better than the Burgundians, or than the Regent of France. They affirmed that, when she was quite little, she kept the sheep, that the birds of the woods and fields, when she called them, came to eat their bread in her lap as tame things. In veritate apocryphum est.\nItem, in this time the Armagnacs raised the siege, and made the English depart by force from before Orléans, but they went before Vendôme, and took it, as was said (1). And everywhere went this Maid armed with the Armagnacs, and bore her standard, whereon was only written Jesus. And it was said she had told an English captain to depart from the siege with his company, or ill and shame would come to them all; who defamed her much with language, calling her ribald and whore; and she told him that maugre them all they would depart quite soon; but he should never see it, and so should a great part of his people be slain. And so it befell, for he drowned the day before the slaughter was done; and afterwards he was fished up and cut in quarters, and boiled and embalmed, and brought to Saint-Méry; and he was eight or ten days in the chapel before the cellar, and night and day four tapers or torches burned before his body; and afterwards he was carried into his country for burial (2).\nItem, the first week of September, the year fourteen hundred and twenty-nine, the wardens, each in his quarter, began to fortify Paris at the gates with boulevards; on the houses which were on the walls, to mount cannon and queues (3) full of stones\n(1) They took only the castle, which was taken from them again almost at once.\n(2) In all this it is William Glasdale who is in question.\n(3) Cadi, vats or barrels. One still says a queue of brandy.\non the walls, to redress the moats outside the city and to make barriers outside the city and within. And in that time the Armagnacs had letters written sealed with the Count of Alençon’s seal; and the letters said: To you, provost of Paris and provost of the merchants and aldermen (1); and named them by their names, and sent them greeting in fair language at large, to hope to move the people one against the other and against them; but their malice was well perceived, and they were answered to cast their paper no more for that purpose, and no account was taken of it.\nItem, on the eve of the Nativity of Our Lady in September, the Armagnacs came to assault the walls of Paris, and thought to take it by assault; but little they conquered there, if it were not pain, shame and mischief; for several of them were wounded for all their life, who before the assault were all whole; but a fool believes nothing until he takes it. For them I say it, who were full of such great misfortune and such ill credence. And I say it for a creature which was in form of woman with them, whom they called the Maid. What it was, God knows.\nOn the day of the Nativity of Our Lady, they made a conjuration, all of one accord, to assault Paris that day, and assembled a good twelve thousand or more; and\n(1) The provost of the merchants then in office was called Guillaume Sanguin; the aldermen were Imbert des Champs, mercer and upholsterer, Colin de Neuville, fishmonger, Jean de Dampierre, mercer, Remon Marc, draper. These magistrates were created revolutionarily by the Burgundian faction in the first days of July, when Charles VII’s departure for Reims was learned. The city body they replaced was suspect to the Duke of Bedford. Have recourse for more details to the very editions of the Journal.\ncame about high-mass time, between eleven and twelve, their Maid with them, and very great plenty of wains, carts and horses, all charged with great faggots in threes (1), to fill the moats of Paris. And they began to assault between the Porte Saint-Honoré and the Porte Saint-Denis; and the assault was very cruel; and in assaulting they said many villainous words to those of Paris. And there was their Maid, with her standard, on the verges of the moats, who said to those of Paris: Surrender, in Jesus’ name, to us quickly; for if you do not surrender before it be night, we shall enter by force, will you or no, and you shall all be put to death without mercy. — Indeed, said one, harlot! ribald! And shot his arbalest straight at her, and pierced her leg right through, and she fled away. Another pierced right through the foot of him who bore her standard. When he felt himself wounded, he lifted his visor to see to draw the quarrel from his foot, and another shot him, and struck him between the two eyes, and wounded him to death: whereof the Maid and the Duke of Alençon afterwards swore they would liefer have lost forty of the best men-at-arms of their company.\nThe assault was most cruel on one side and the other, and lasted until about four hours after dinner, without it being known who had the better. A little after four o’clock, those of Paris took heart in themselves; and so they larded them with cannon and other shot, that perforce they had to draw back and leave their assault, and go away. He who could best get away was the\n(1) Faggots of three bands.\nluckiest; for those of Paris had great cannon which cast from the Porte Saint-Denis to beyond Saint-Ladre at large, which they cast at their backs; whereat they were much afeared. Thus were they put to flight; but no man issued from Paris to follow them, for fear of their ambushes.\nThey going away, thrust fire into the barn of the Mathurins, near the Porcherons; and put into the said fire great plenty of their people who were dead at the assault, which they had trussed on their horses, as the pagans did at Rome of old; and they cursed their Maid much, who had promised them that without any fault they would win at that assault the city of Paris by force, and that she would lie there that night, and all of them, and that they would all be enriched with the goods of the city, and that all who should put any defence would be put to the sword, or burned in his house. But God, who changed the great enterprise of Holofernes by a woman named Judith, ordained by His pity otherwise than they thought; for the next day they came to fetch their dead by safe-conduct, and the herald who came with them was asked by the captain of Paris how many of their people had been wounded; who swore they were a good fifteen hundred, of whom a good five hundred or more were dead or wounded to death. And it is true that in this assault there were as it were no men-at-arms, save about forty or fifty English, who did their devoir there right well, for the greatest part of their waggonry, in which they had brought their faggots, those of Paris took from them; for it was not fitting good should come to them for wishing to make such slaughter on the day of the holy Nativity of Our Lady.\n1430. — On the twenty-third day of May, there was taken before Compiègne Dame Joan, the Armagnacs’ Maid, by Messire John of Luxembourg and his people, and a good thousand English who were coming to Paris; and there were a good four hundred of the Maid’s men, both slain and drowned.\nItem, the third day of September, on a Sunday, there were preached at the Puits Notre-Dame two women, who, about half a year before, had been taken at Corbeil and brought to Paris; of whom the elder, Pierronne (and she was of Brittany, Breton-speaking), said and held true proposition that Dame Joan, who went to war with the Armagnacs, was good, and what she did was well done and according to God.\nItem, she confessed to have twice received the precious body of Our Lord in one day.\nItem, she affirmed and swore that God often appeared to her in humanity, and spoke to her as friend does to friend, and that the last time she had seen Him, He was long clad in a white robe, and had a scarlet huke underneath: which is as it were blasphemy. And she would never revoke from affirming in her proposition that she saw God often clad thus; wherefore, the said day, she was judged to be burned, and died in that proposition the said Sunday. And the other was delivered for that hour.\n1431. — On the eve of the Blessed Sacrament in that year, which was the thirtieth day of May of the said year fourteen hundred and thirty-one, Dame Joan, who had been taken before Compiègne, whom they called the Maid, on the said day a preaching was made at Rouen, she being on a scaffold where every one could see her right clearly, clad in man’s habit; and there were shewn to her the great dolorous evils which by her had befallen Christendom, especially in the kingdom of France, as every one knows; and how on the day of the holy Nativity of Our Lady she had come to assault the city of Paris with fire and blood, and several great enormous sins she had done and had done; and how at Senlis and elsewhere she had made the simple folk idolise, for, by her false hypocrisy, they followed her as a holy maid; for she gave them to understand that the glorious archangel Saint Michael, Saint Katherine and Saint Margaret, and several other saints and sainted women appeared to her often, and spoke to her as friend does to friend, and not as God has sometimes done to His friends by revelations, but bodily and mouth to mouth, as one friend to another.\nItem, true it is that she said she was aged about twenty-seven years (1), without shame that in despite of father and mother and kinsfolk and friends, she often went to a fair fountain in the country of Lorraine, which she named the Good Fountain of the Fairies of Our Lord; and in that place, those of the country, when they had fever, went to recover healing; and there the said Joan the Maid often went, under a great tree which shaded the fountain; and Saint Katherine and Saint Margaret appeared to her, who told her to go to a captain whom they named to her; who went there without taking leave of father or mother.\n(1) An error of transcription no doubt. Correct: seventeen.\nWhich captain clad her in man’s guise, and girt the sword on her, and gave her an esquire and four valets, and in that state was mounted on a good horse; and in that state she came to the King of France, and told him that by his commandment she was come to him, and that she would make him be the greatest lord of the world, and that it should be ordained that all who should disobey him should be slain without mercy; and that Saint Michael and several angels had given him a right rich crown for him; and she had a sword in the earth also for him; but she would not render it to him until his war was ended. And every day she rode with the King, with great plenty of men-at-arms, without any woman, clad, laced and armed in man’s guise, a great staff in her hand; and when any of her people did ill, she struck great blows upon him with her staff, in manner of a right cruel woman.\nItem, she said she is certain of being in paradise at the end of her days.\nItem, she said she is all certain that it is Saint Michael, Saint Katherine and Saint Margaret who speak to her often, and when she wills, and that she has very often seen them have crowns of gold on their heads; and that all she does is by God’s commandment; and more strongly, she said she knows a great part of things to come.\nItem, several times she took the precious sacrament of the altar all armed, clad in man’s guise, her hair rounded, a slashed hood, a jupon, scarlet hose laced with plenty of points. Whereat certain great lords and ladies told her, reproaching her for the derision of her vesture, that it was to prize Our Lord little to receive Him in such habit, woman that she was; who answered them promptly that for nothing would she do otherwise, and that she would liefer die than leave the man’s habit for any prohibition; and that if she would, she could make it thunder and other marvels; and that once they would have done her body displeasure, but she leapt from a high tower to the ground, without hurting herself in any way.\nItem, in several places she had men and women slain, all in battle, as of voluntary vengeance; for who did not obey the letters she made, she had them die forthwith without pity when she had power of it. And she said and affirmed that she did nothing at all save by the commandment that God sent her right often by the archangel Saint Michael, Saint Katherine and Saint Margaret, who had her do this, and not as Our Lord did to Moses on the mount of Sinai, but properly they told her secret things to come, and they had ordained and did ordain all the things she did, whether in her habit or otherwise.\nSuch false errors and worse had Dame Joan enough; and they were all declared to her before all the people: who had right great horror, when they heard recounted the great errors she had had against our faith, and still had; for whatever shewing was made to her of her great misdeeds and errors, she was not affrayed or dismayed at it, but answered boldly to the articles proposed before her, as one who was all full of the enemy of hell. And it well appeared, for she saw the clerks of the University of Paris, who so humbly prayed her to repent and revoke from that ill error, and all would be pardoned her by penitence, or if not, she would be burned before all the people, and her soul damned in the depth of hell; and there was shewn her the ordinance and the place where the fire must be made to burn her soon, if she did not revoke.\nWhen she saw it was for certain, she cried mercy, and revoked by mouth; and her robe was taken off, and she was clad in woman’s habit; but as soon as she saw herself in that estate, she began her error again as before, demanding her man’s habit. And forthwith she was judged by all to die; and she was bound to a stake which was on the scaffold, which was made of plaster, and the fire upon her; and there she was soon extinct and her robe all burned, and then the fire was drawn back; and she was seen by all the people all naked, and all the secrets that can be or must be in a woman, to take away the people’s doubts. And when they had seen her enough to their liking all dead bound to the stake, the executioner put the great fire again on her poor carcass, which was soon all consumed, and bone and flesh put to ash. There were enough there and elsewhere who said she was a martyr and for her right lord; others said no, and that he had done ill who had kept her so long. So said the people; but whatever evil or good she had done, she was burned that day.\nItem, on the day of Saint-Martin-le-Bouillant (1) a general procession was made at Saint-Martin-des-Champs; and a preaching was made; and it was made by a brother of the order\n(1) The 4th of July.\nof Saint Dominic, who was inquisitor of the faith (1), master in theology; and he pronounced anew all the deeds of Joan the Maid. And he said she had said she was daughter of right poor folk, and that about the age of fourteen she had so kept herself in man’s guise, and that her father and mother would fain have had her die from then, if they could without hurting conscience; and therefore she departed from them accompanied by the enemy of hell; and afterwards she lived a homicide of Christendom, full of fire and blood, until she was burned. And he said that had she revoked, penance would have been given her, to wit four years in prison on bread and water: whereof she never made a day; but had herself served in the prison like a lady; and the enemy appeared to her a third time, to wit Saint Michael, Saint Katherine and Saint Margaret, as she said, who had right great fear lest she be lost, to wit the said enemy or enemies in the form of those three saints, and said to her: Wicked creature, who for fear hast left thy habit, have no fear, we shall keep thee right well from all. Wherefore, without waiting, she stripped herself, and clad herself again in all her robes she wore when she rode, which she had thrust into the stuffing (2) of her bed; and she trusted in the enemy so that she said she repented of having ever left her habit. When the University, or those on its behalf, saw this, and that she was so obstinate\n(1) No doubt it was Master Jean Graverend, who had found means to absent himself for the trial, delegating Jean Lemaitre in his place.\n(2) In the palliasse.\n, she was delivered to the lay justice to die. When she saw herself at that point, she called the enemies who appeared to her in guise of saints; but never, after she was judged, did any appear to her for any invocation she could make. Then she bethought herself, but it was too late.\nHe said further in his sermon that they were four, of whom three had been taken; to wit this Maid, and Peronne and her companion, and one who is with the Armagnacs, named Katherine de la Rochelle (1); who says that, when the precious body of Our Lord is consecrated, she sees marvels of the high secret of Our Lord God. And he said that\n(1) To the information given on this woman in the Trial of Condemnation (vol. I, p. 106), I add the following fact, consigned in the register of Accounts and ridings of the town of Tours, for the year 1430. I owe the communication of it to M. Vallet de Viriville: To a religious and honest man, Brother Jean Bourget, of the order of St Augustine, the sum of ten livres tournois which is due him and which by deliberation of the churchmen, burgesses and inhabitants of the said town has been ordained him for his pains and salary and expenses of having gone from this town to Sens, to the King our lord, the Queen of Sicily, my lord the Bishop of Seez and my lord of Trêves, principal councillors of the King our said lord, to bring them letters making mention of certain words charging the good and honour of the churchmen, burgesses and inhabitants of this said town and of the town of Angers, which had been said and sown by a woman of devotion named Katherine, who is of La Rochelle; which words were that, in this said town there were carpenters who carpentered not for lodging, and, unless watch were kept, the said town was on the way to take shortly an ill end, and that in the said town there were folk who knew it well. Which letters he carried and presented, and thereon brought back letters of answer of the lords above named, to which these presents are attached; and they make mention that of this they had in no wise heard speak, nor the King either, to whom they spoke of it; that the King trusts well in the said churchmen, burgesses and inhabitants of the said town. Which journey the said brother made in the month of August last past, and for this here he must have the said sum of x l. t. This sum was paid on 10 September 1430.\nall these four poor women, Brother Richart the Cordelier, who afterwards had so great a following when he preached at Paris at the Innocents and elsewhere, had thus governed them all, for he was their beau-père (1); and that on Christmas Day, in the town of Jargeau, he gave to this Dame Joan the Maid three times the body of Our Lord: whereof he was much to be blamed; and had given it to Peronne that day twice, by the witness of their confession and of certain who were present at the hours when he gave them the precious sacrament.\n1440. — In this time there was right great news of the Maid, of whom mention has been made before, who was burned at Rouen for her demerits; and there were then many persons who were much deceived about her, who firmly believed that by her saintliness she had escaped from the fire, and that another had been burned, thinking it was she. But she was verily burned indeed, and all the ashes of her body were truly cast into the river, for the sorceries which might have ensued (2).\n(1) That is to say, their father by affection.\n(2) The chronicle adds very great details on the pretended Maid who presented herself in 1440. We shall reproduce them elsewhere.\nWILLIAM WYRCESTER. # There is no English chronicler for the beginnings of Henry VI’s reign. The only one, William Botoner called Wyrcester (or of Worcester), consigned certain chronological notes on that epoch, which was that of his adolescence. The five lines reported below contain all he had to say, not only on Joan of Arc, but on the revolution of which she gave the signal.\nBrought up at the University of Oxford by the munificence of Sir John Fastolf, William Wyrcester later wrote his benefactor’s life. This work appears lost, unfortunately for the object which occupies us. The author could not do otherwise than expose at length in it the period over which he has skipped so completely in his notes.\nHearne first published, at the end of the Liber niger scaccarii (2 vols. 12mo, Oxford, 1728), Wyrcester’s chronological notes, which have a great importance for the civil wars of the two roses.\nmccccxxx. — This year, on Saint George the martyr’s day, King Henry VI went out of England as far as Calais, with great array, to receive the crown in France. And this year, on the 23rd day of May, a certain woman, called Pucelle de Dieu (1), was taken by the English at the town of Compiègne.\n(1) Conformably to this denomination found only in the English historians, Polydore Vergil (Anglica Historia, lib. XXIII) calls Joan Puella Dei vates.\nWILLIAM CAXTON. # William Caxton, celebrated English man of letters and printer, was born in 1412, the same year as Joan of Arc; but he was a mercer in London until the age of thirty, and a resident in trade in Flanders until nearly sixty, consequently very little occupied, during all that time, with things passing outside his sphere. When therefore, having improvised himself a man of letters, he would endow his country with a chronicle in its national tongue, he confined himself to compiling and translating from Latin into English certain bad abridgements made before him. From this may be judged the value of the work entitled The Cronicles of England, which Caxton printed himself in his Westminster workshop in 1480. This book, of excessive rarity, does not appear to exist in France, but its later editions are found easily enough, into which has been fused the work of a monk of Saint Albans, composed in 1483 under the title of Fructus temporum. These amplified editions of Caxton’s chronicles contain on the Maid a passage written perhaps with knowledge of William Wyrcester’s, but much more complete and instructive. Homage is there rendered to Joan’s valour; her chastity itself is not contested; but it is pretended that after having been condemned to the fire, she feigned to be with child to obtain a respite of her execution. Two things are to be noted on this falsehood: first that it was repeated by the little-judicious Polydore Vergil with intent to draw a pathetic effect from it; then that it appears to be one of the thousand rumours put in circulation at the judgement, to justify in the eyes of the English people the slowness of the procedure.\nThe cronycles of Englonde with the Fruyte of tymes. (London, Wynkyn de Worde, 1528). Pars 7, fol. clij v°, col. 2.\nThis year, on Saint George’s day, King Henry passed over the sea to Calais towards France. About this time and before, the realm being in great misery and tribulation, the Dauphin with his party began to make war, and won certain places, and made distresses upon Englishmen, by the means of his captains, that is to say, La Hire and Poton de Saintrailles, and especially a maid whom they named la Pucelle de Dieu. This maid rode like a man and was a valiant captain among them, and took upon her many great enterprises, in so much that they had a belief to have recovered all their losses by her. Notwithstanding, at the last, after many great feats, by the help and prowess of Sir John of Luxembourg, who was a noble captain of the Duke of Burgundy’s, and many Englishmen, Picards and Burgundians, who were of our party, before the town of Compiègne, the 23rd day of May, the foresaid Maid was taken in the field, armed like a man, and many other captains with her. And were all brought to Rouen, and there she was put in prison, and there she was judged by the law to be brent. And then she said that she was with child; whereby she was respited a while (1); but in conclusion, it was found that she was not with child, and then she was brent in Rouen. And the other captains were put to ransom and entreated as men of war are accustomed.\n(1) Polydore Vergil, in book XXIII of his Historia Anglica: But the unhappy Maid, before she was affected with that punishment, mindful of the humanity inborn in every one, feigned herself to be with child, that she might either break the enemies by mercy or make them ordain a milder punishment. But after she had for that cause been kept nine months for the birth, and the thing appeared vain, none the less she is cremated.\nWALTER BOWER. # This writer, a Scot by nation and graduated in canon law of the University of Paris, was born in 1385. He was Abbot of Saint-Colm from the year 1418. King James I used him on divers occasions for affairs concerning the administration of his finances. He undertook in 1441 to complete and continue Fordun, who at the end of the fourteenth century had begun, under the title of Scotichronicon, a history or general chronicle of his country. Bower carried this work as far as the death of James I (1437), and dedicated it to the lord David Stuart of Rosyth. In his fifteenth book (chap. 36) he speaks of Joan of Arc, on whom he had had information from an eyewitness. This circumstance, the friendly relations of Scotland with France in Charles VII’s time, the knowledge the author had of our country: all this gives value to his words, even where he articulates only errors.\nThe best editions of the Scotichronicon, augmented by Bower, are those of Oxford by Hearne, 5 vols. 8vo, 1722, and of Edinburgh by Goodall, 2 vols. fol., 1759.\nDe victrici Puella Franciae et de morte ejus. — Of the victorious Maid of France and of her death.\nAbout the same time there came from Lorraine a certain young maid, Lady Joan, who said she had been sent by the Most High to repel and enervate the English enterprises. Who, having received from the King of France two thousand armed men, drew near to Orléans with victuals, sending before her a herald with a letter and enjoining the besiegers, on the part of Almighty God, to withdraw from the city and from France, else she threatened them with wondrous pains. Who, despising the messenger with deaf ear, deigned to send him no answer. She, bearing manlike arms everywhere, let victuals into the city by boats and conquered the bastille, and slew Glassdale himself with six hundred and more, and entered the city and comforted the citizens humanely.\nThence she withdrew to Tours to the King, and, a greater power gathered, with the Duke of Alençon and the Constable of France returned to Orléans, and raised the siege. Whence the English withdrew to the town of Meung-sur-Loire; whom she followed in the rear, and joined with them in open battle; where there were slain of the English three thousand, and of the French and Scots twenty persons; where the lord of Talbot and the lord of Scales were taken.\nThence she proceeded and besieged the town of Jargeau, and took it by assault; where the Earl of Suffolk was taken with his two brothers. And consequently, by the Maid’s counsel, the King drew near to the city of Reims in Champagne, and there was crowned and anointed with the unction of the ampulla sent by an angel to Charlemagne.\nAt this time there presided over the church of Orléans the bishop John Kirkmichael (1), a Scot.\nWhich Maid, leaving garrisons there, drew near to the city of Senlis, which was rendered to her; thence to Saint-Denis, which was rendered to her freely. And there, leaving the King, the Maid drew near to Paris with ten thousand, and assaulted it; where many of the King’s army, by the shooting of slings, arbalests, stones and arrows, died wounded. Where also the Maid\n(1) In French, Jean de Saint-Michel. See above, p. 130.\nwas transfixed through both thighs by the stroke of a garald (1). Which known, the King removed himself to Orléans, and she was carried to the Valois, where, cured, she was translated to Compiègne; and there, betrayed and taken by the English and Burgundians, she was sent to Rouen where, by the judgement of the lord John, the Regent (2), enclosed in a cask (3), she was incinerated. For she conferred many good things on the kingdom of France and struck terror for a time into the English; but by what spirit she presumed the premises, He knows who is ignorant of nothing. For she wore on the finger of her left hand a ring which she was wont to gaze on as it were continually, as he who saw these things related to me (4).\n(1) A garot or strong bolt.\n(2) Thus in Scotland Bedford passed for the true instigator of Joan of Arc’s death. Polydore Vergil, a much later historian, as is known, also names the Duke of Somerset: in veneficii crimen vocata, primo jubente duce Somersetensi, diligenter examinata est (Hist. Angl. lib. XXIII).\n(3) This singular assertion can only be the result of a misunderstanding. I would willingly conjecture that our author had before his eyes a relation of the execution where were the words in dolio vestita, clad in mourning, which he will not have understood. The condemned of the inquisition were in effect dressed in black. As for the word dolium meaning mourning, though Du Cange collected only one example of it belonging to antiquity, since it is from the poet Commodian, it is found used also in the middle ages. Subbatum non illud fuit, sed Saturni dolium, one reads in a song composed on the battle of Fontenay (ap. Bouquet, vol. VII, p. 304).\n(4) This is one of the heads of the accusation sustained by the promoter in 1431. See all that was said of it at the trial of condemnation, vol. I, p. 236 and 237.\nThis is she perchance of whom Merlin in his secrets writes thus, saying:\nGloria sublimis, rutilans ab aggere solis, Megeros ebulliet mersos in Aurelianis. Moeror magnificus Anglorum stigmata terit, Frendens anuli quae magica mira satis, Corruet ab alto, sublimi tacta nitore, Perget et ad pelagus; pace sua perit hic (5).\nOf whom also, as is said, it was prophesied thus:\nVis cum vi, culi bis septem se sociabunt; Gallorum pulli tauro nova bella parabunt; Ecce beant bella, portat vexilla Puella. Virgo, puellares artus induta virili Veste, Dei monitu, properat relevare jacentem, etc. (1).\nHere Bridget of the Franks, to whom Our Lady appeared, saying: That never will there be so firm and tranquil peace in France that the dwellers in it may in any wise rejoice in full security and concord, before the people of the kingdom have appeased God, my Son, by certain great works of piety and humility, whom by their many sins and offences they have hitherto provoked to indignation and wrath (2).\nThis Maid was captain at Meung, where three thousand English were slain, and the lords of Talbot, Willoughby and Skelby (3) were taken.\n(5) We give this tirade as it stands in the editions, and without making any effort to understand its sense.\n(1) The first three of these verses are reported and have already been the object of a remark, vol. III, p. 338. See also at page 323 of the present volume. The two others begin the tirade which is reported in Thomassin’s register, above, p. 305.\n(2) See vol. III, p. 129, note 3.\n(3) Read Scales.\nTHE MONK OF DUNFERMLINE. # Another Scottish monk continued Fordun, at the request of the Abbot of Dunfermline, his superior. This writer, who speaks also of Joan of Arc, has over Walter Bower the advantage of having been in France in her time, of having followed her in all her campaigns, and even of having assisted at her last moments. Unfortunately his testimony has failed me. I can only speak of him after a translation of his chronicle where precisely the chapters devoted to the Maid are wanting. This translation exists in manuscript at the Sainte-Geneviève library (no. 1492, formerly O F, 2). It is seen by the dedication that it was undertaken in 1519 by a certain Gremond Domat, attached to the person of John Stuart, Duke of Albany, Regent of the kingdom of Scotland, who happened to be at the same time, in right of his wife, Count of Auvergne, of Boulogne and of La Marche. A note in modern writing, placed at the head of the manuscript, apprises that the Latin text of the chronicle exists among the manuscripts of the Bodleian library at Oxford; that it is attributed to William Elphinstone, who was Bishop of Aberdeen after having been a monk of Dunfermline; but that it is necessarily the work of another monk of the same abbey, since the author’s words, saying himself contemporary of Joan of Arc, cannot suit William Elphinstone, who was born in 1437 and died in 1514.\nI hold from M. Francisque Michel that the dedicatory epistle and prologue of Domat, transcribed by him, have been printed by a Scottish scholar, M. Joseph Stevenson, in a book published in 1837 for the Maitland Club, under the title of The Life and Death of King James the First of Scotland. Not having been able to procure this work, it is after the Sainte-Geneviève manuscript that I reproduce Gremond Domat’s prologue, where is found all I know of the authority of the monk of Dunfermline as a witness on Joan of Arc. The steps I have taken to procure the very text of the Oxford manuscript have not yet come to anything. I hope they will have borne fruit soon enough for me to make the result known in my next volume.\nAs to the ordinance of the laudable chronicles and deeds, elucidated truth should be favourable, and expressly to new things; and the ears of several hearers, princes and prelates and other famous men, in several arduous conversations and worldly businesses be occupied: which they cannot without great pain tolerate; and that pain engenders weariness in the heart of those who have desire to hear and understand; and because prolixity often wearies: the author’s intention is to take from the great and spacious chronicles the most useful and fruitful matter, and doing it briefly, as the honey-bee which from the flower extracts the good substance, even so the author deliberates, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to draw the most and the best, and briefly, without great process, which engenders weariness and confusion.\nThen, by the good commandment of the high and puissant lord, the most illustrious and magnanimous prince, my lord John Duke of Albany, at present peaceful and well-deserving Regent of Scotland (1), obeying, I have willed, following my noble author, compiler of the Latin, who says thus: By the commandment of the reverend father in God, by divine permission the Abbot of Dunfermline, at present governing and ruling the said monastery, I have deliberated to adjoin several accidents lately come in our time, in the best form and manner I can, and according to truth shall enquire, and all prolixity shall leave to my power. I am also deliberated to insert, says our ancient author, several marvellous deeds which I, the author, have known outside the kingdom, which I have seen and heard. Item lately of a girl worthy of memory, who was the cause of the recovery of the kingdom of France from the hands of Henry, tyrant King of England; whom I have seen and known, and with her have been in her conquests and recoveries, and at her life have ever been present, and at her end.\n(1) It was in 1514, during the minority of James V, that John Stuart, though settled in France for several years and married to Anne de La Tour, was called to the honour of governing Scotland. He accepted only by duty, and remained as little as he could beside his pupil. On his return to France, Francis I made him superintendent of his galleys. He died in 1536 at Mirefleur in Auvergne. (Baluze, Histoire de la maison d’Auvergne, vol. I, p. 356.)\nEBERHARD DE WINDECKEN. # M. Guido Görres is the first to have made Eberhard de Windecken figure among the witnesses on the Maid, by introducing, partly in the text, partly in the appendix of his book, Die Jungfrau von Orléans, a curious chapter of the old German chronicler, which the preceding editors had neglected to reproduce as foreign to the history of their country. It is after a manuscript of the Royal Library of Munich that this restitution was made. The text I give here is M. Görres’s own. It will easily be recognised that it has been brought to modern orthography, save in the title.\nEberhard de Windecken, treasurer of the Emperor Sigismund, wrote the history of his master’s reign after the information he had gathered at his court. His chapter on Joan of Arc is the evident reproduction of official relations sent from France to the Emperor. Hence divers circumstances reported by him, which are wanting in our chroniclers and are none the less worthy of faith for that. There is in this regard a right conclusive proof of his authority. Alone of all the contemporaries, he recounts an embassy sent to Joan of Arc by the Duke of Brittany, an embassy of which Dom Lobineau and Dom Morice, who spoke of it, must have found by chance the mention in a document of the Chamber of Accounts of Nantes.\nEberhard de Windecken’s narrative ends almost immediately after the consecration of Charles VII with a conclusion which would give one to believe that the author returns no more to this subject. But how explain that he spoke neither of the trial nor of the execution? M. Görres should have given some elucidation thereon.\nThe French translation which I join to the German text is the work of one of my friends, who made it seeking to keep as near as possible to the original.\nChapter CCLII. — Here the King of France sends his excellent message to the Maid, who accomplished in France many marvellous things.\nIn those same times, as the King of France and the English were at war, there arose in Lorraine a young girl who wrought miracles in France; whereby the English were greatly weakened and the King of France greatly succoured to recover his land: as thou wilt hear.\nFirst, when the Maid came to the aforesaid King, she made him promise to do three things: the first, to divest himself of his kingdom, to renounce it and give it back to God from whom he held it; the second, to pardon all those of his who had been against him and had ever done him hurt; the third, that he should so much humble himself that all who should come to him, poor or rich, and ask graces of him, he should receive into grace, be it friend or foe.\nThe following was given by those whom the King had sent to examine the Maid, whether she should be believed or not, and they were masters of Holy Scripture and others who were judged apt for it (1):\nThe King, in consideration of his own distress and that of his kingdom, and having regard to the assiduous penitence and prayers of his people to God, must not send back nor reject this girl, but lend her ear, even were her promises only human promises. He should not however believe her too soon nor too lightly;\n(1) What follows is a fairly exact translation of the piece printed at the end of the Trial of Rehabilitation, vol. III, p. 391. The reproduction of this piece in the German chronicler’s text establishes the official character of the documents he used.\nbut, after the precept of Holy Scripture put in the mouth of the apostle Saint Paul: Try the spirits whether they are of God, her manners and works should be examined and with devout prayer a sign be asked of God, whereby may be known what comes from God.\nSo has the King done in regard of the Maid. First he had the maid examined on her life and her birth, her manners and her being and will, and kept her with him a good six weeks. He had her examined by old, experienced folk, by the learned, clergy and lay, by women and men, openly and secretly. And no evil was found in the aforenamed maid, but all goodness: humility, maidenhood, spirituality, honesty, sobriety; and of her life and her birth many things were said which were held for true. The King also asked a sign of the things she gave herself out to do. Then the Maid answered the King and said: before the city of Orléans she would give a sign and not sooner, because God had so ordained it. When then the King had heard the examinations, as much as was possible, that no evil was found in her, and also heard that she would give a sign before Orléans, and when her constancy was seen and she begged without ceasing that she might be let go before Orléans, there would be seen a sign of the divine help: the King was counselled not to hinder her from going before Orléans with her people and to have her worthily conducted, in hope in God. For if she were driven off or rejected without evil, that would be resistance against the Holy Spirit and one might make oneself unworthy of the help of God (1).\nWhen all this was done, the Maid rode from Chinon from the King and rode to Blois and waited for the stores and the war-power she would lead before Orléans, until Thursday the 28th of April. The maid marched with the banner which was made of white silk, and therein is painted Our Lord God, as He sits upon the rainbow and shews His wounds, and on each side an angel who had a lily in the hand.\nAnd so the maid marched with the banner and led with her the Marshal of Boussac, the lord of Gaucourt, the lord of Rais (2) and many other\n(1) M. Görres warns here that he suppresses the translation of the letter to the English, inserted in Eberhard de Windecken’s narrative, a translation, says he, which accords exactly with the French text.\n(2) Read Raif or Rais.\nlords and captains, with all manner of folk on horse and also on foot, a good three thousand. She also carried all her stores, sixty waggons and four hundred head of cattle. And from Orléans folk came on the water and fetched the stores into ships and as they otherwise could, because the English who lay before it were more than they who came against them.\nAnd when the maid saw that she was being brought along the water and not towards the English who lay before the city, she was thereat right grieved and sad at her guides and began to weep much. Yet she sent back to Blois, to fetch the stores there and bring them also to Orléans. She herself rode in thither in a small company and said to those who rode with her that they should not fear, for no ill would befall them. As also it befell.\nWhen they brought the stores before Orléans, the English assembled, a good fourteen hundred. But they dared not shew themselves. When then they were come with the stores, the maid took her banner in her hand and stormed the bulwark where the English were within. They won it quickly, and a hundred and seventy English remained dead and thirteen hundred were taken, and many guns, and stores and other things needful. It is thought also that the Maid lost no more than two men of her people.\nThereafter on a Friday, the maid took the banner in the hand and made as if she would storm a bulwark. When she saw that the English would put themselves on defence, she drew back, and the English after her, and fell fresh upon her people. When the maid saw that, and her lords, who yet had few people with them, they turned hard against the English and hunted them so sorely that they came not again. There remained of the English a good thirty dead, and there was won a strong bulwark by the Augustins, with many stores. When the English saw that the Maid had won three bulwarks, they all stood to the bulwark before the bridge. There the Maid remained with her friends at night in the field on the same side.\nOn the Saturday thereafter, the eighth day, in the morning, the maid set herself with her people to storm the bulwark where the English had fled in by night. The bulwark was strong and unassailable, and many English were within, who had well provided for its guard, so that they well meant to keep the bulwark, because they had also much good artillery therein. They defended themselves hard. The Maid stormed the whole day with her people until vesper-time, when she was shot a little under the right breast through the body. She gave but little heed to it, had a little olive-oil put thereon and armed herself again and said to her people: The English have no more power. For she had foretold she would be wounded before Orléans. Then she stepped aside, leaned upon her knees and called on the heavenly Father. Thereafter she turned to her people and shewed them where they should storm. Her people obeyed her with whole faith and good will, and so they won the bulwark that hour. Therein were taken and slain a good five hundred.\nThere lay dead Classidas, a mighty captain; and so the maid rode in the evening late, joyful with her people, into Orléans, and praised God, and of the maid’s people there remained dead not more than five men and few were wounded. Several would say that two white birds were seen upon her shoulders the while the said storm lasted. The English who were taken said surely that it had seemed to them the maid’s people were much stronger and more than theirs, and so they could make no resistance against them. Of the English some thirty had fled upon a bridge, where they thought to be safe; then a sign from God befell, for the bridge broke, and they all fell into the water and drowned.\nOn the Sunday early, on the other day, the other English who were on the yonder side drew away, and delivered up the bulwark, since they saw they were so wondrously overcome. Of them there were three thousand fighting men. Then the people would have followed after them and cast them down, which the Maid would not suffer, because it was Sunday, and they also drew away so peaceably.\nThus was Orléans relieved, and the host raised, and all the bulwarks won, with great store, and so the English drew into Normandy and left of their people to lie at Meung (1), at Beaugency and Jargeau (2).\nWhen this was now done, the Maid rode with her people from Tours into Touraine (3); there the King was to come, and the maid was there before the King, and she took her banner in her hand; and rode towards the King, and when they came together, the maid bowed her head towards the King as much as she could, and the King made her rise at once, and it was thought he would have kissed her for the joy he had. This befell on the Wednesday before Whit Sunday (1), and she remained by him until after the 23rd day of May. Then the King went to counsel what he would do; for the maid would ever lead him to Reims and crown him and make him King. Then the King turned, and set himself on the way, and hoped to make Meung and Jargeau subject to him. God would have it so too. When this had befallen,\n(1) I correct M. Görres’s text, which gives Melun.\n(2) Here ends the extract inserted in the nineteenth chapter of M. Görres’s work. What follows is found relegated to his Appendix.\n(3) Copying fault in the Munich manuscript. Is it Tors in Torene that should be conjectured? In any case the sense would require zu instead of von.\n(1) This date corresponds to 11 May.\nthe Duke of Brittany sent his confessor (1) to the maid to learn whether she was come by God’s doing to help the King. Then the maid said: Yea. Then the confessor said: Since it is so, my lord the Duke will gladly come to help the King with his service, and named the Duke his right lord. But with his own body he may not come, for he is in a great sickness; yet he shall send him his eldest son with great power. Then the maid said to the confessor: The Duke of Brittany were not his right lord, for the King were his right lord, and he should rightly not have waited so long to send his people to help him with service.\nAfter that time the English came one day with great power; when the maid saw that, she bade the captains sit on their strong steeds and said to them: Follow, shall we ride against them? Then they asked what they should hunt; then the Maid said: You shall hunt the English, and so they all mounted and rode with the maid and her people. But as soon as the English caught sight of them, they took flight; and the bowmen threw away their bows and arrows, and the most part were slain. Thereafter she set on the way to lead the King to Reims, and the towns which had nothing wherewith to set against the Maid and her people all became obedient to her. And a part brought the King the keys a good two miles to meet him, as Troyes, Châlons and sundry other towns, and so the King came to Reims, and was there consecrated.\n(1) It was a monk called Brother Yves Milbeau. Lobineau, Hist. de Bret., vol. I, p. 580.\nThe maid also thought to bring the King into Paris, and feared no power of the Duke of Burgundy nor of the Regent, for she had said: Our Lord God has more power than they, and He should further her, and should the Duke of Burgundy and the Regent bring more folk against her, more of them shall be slain; which she would thus fain warrant, provided no one took anything from any one nor did violence to the poor folk. There was also victual enough with her, and as long as she rode in this riding, victual did not run dry in the land.\nFirst in the year 1429 the certain tidings came into France, how that a maid was come from Lorraine to the Dauphin of France and had spoken with him, that the English lay with great power, and that the maid drove them thence, with the help of Almighty God and of the Virgin Mary, as thou hast read above, how foresightful she was, and what she did by God’s ordinance.\nJEAN NIDER. # Jean Nider, an Alsatian, doctor of theology of the University of Vienna, was prior of the Dominicans of Nuremberg, then of Basle. The very year he was called into that city, the famous council opened, and he assisted at it. About 1439 he had the honour of reading before the assembly a treatise of discipline bearing the bizarre title of Formicarius, the Ant-hill, which he had composed to direct the religious of his order in confession and in the search for heresy. The Maid is mentioned in this work with little enough favour: which is not surprising, seeing the authorities after whom Jean Nider speaks of her. He alleges in effect the circular sent by the English government to the Emperor Sigismund, and the oral testimony of Nicole Lami, ambassador of the University of Paris to the council. This Nicole Lami, a humanist and distinguished theologian, does not figure in Joan’s trial; but he had been rector of the University at the end of 1429, sufficient proof of his animosity against Charles VII and his adherents. Finally our Alsatian doctor himself was in a sufficiently evil disposition of mind to approach the chapter of Joan of Arc, for he was a rigid inquisitor and had burned quantities of witches, muliercularum quas maleficas vulgus appellat acerrimus investigator, says Abbot Trithemius.\nThe Formicarius has been published several times and notably at Douai in 1602 (12mo). It is from this edition that the following extract is drawn, found there in chapter VIII of the fifth book.\nThere was moreover, within the space of ten years, lately in France a certain maid, of whom I have premised (1), Joan by name, illustrious, as was thought, both for prophetic spirit and for power of miracles. For she ever used man’s vesture, nor could she be softened by any persuasions of learned men whomsoever to put off such garments, contenting herself with woman’s, especially as she openly protested herself to be maid and woman. Under this man’s habit, says she, in sign of future victory, that I may preach both by word and by habit, I am sent by God to help the true King of the Franks Charles and to establish him in his kingdom, whence the King of England and the Duke of Burgundy strive to drive him. For then these two joined together pressed France most heavily with slaughters and arms.\nTherefore Joan rode continually with her lord as a soldier, foretold many things future and favourable, was present at certain warlike victories and perpetrated other such marvels, whereat not only France but all the kingdoms of the Christians were astonished. At last Joan came to such presumption that, not yet having won France, she already threatened the Bohemians, where there was then a multitude of heretics, by letters (1). Thereupon secular and ecclesiastical, regular and monastic folk doubted by what spirit she was ruled, diabolic or divine. Certain most lettered men accordingly wrote treatises on her behalf, in which they held not only diverse but even adverse opinions of the Maid. But after she had helped King Charles in many things and established him in the kingdom, for certain years, at last by divine will, as is believed, she was taken by an armed band of the English and imprisoned. And a great multitude of masters, both of divine and of human law, being summoned and called,\n(1) He spoke of it only to announce her in the paragraph preceding this one.\n(1) See this letter in our fifth volume.\nshe was examined many days. And as I heard from Master Nicole Amici, licentiate in theology, who was ambassador of the University of Paris, at last she confessed she had a familiar angel of God, who by the judgement of the most lettered men was judged to be a malign spirit, from many conjectures and proofs. Through which spirit she being rendered as it were a sorceress, they suffered her to be consumed by fires through public justice, and as the King of England made the history known to our Emperor Sigismund by a writing sufficiently at large.\nAt the same time two women arose near Paris, saying publicly they had been sent by God to be in aid to the Maid Joan; and as I heard from the aforesaid Master Nicole by the organ of his living voice, they were thereupon taken by the inquisitor of France as it were sorceresses or evil-doers, and examined by several doctors of sacred theology, and at last found deceived by the deliriums of a malign spirit. Whence, when one of the said women perceived herself seduced by an angel of Satan, by the information of the masters she came back from her undertakings, and her error, as she ought, forthwith revoked. The other indeed abiding in pertinacity was consumed by fires (1).\n(1) See on these two women the narrative contained in the Journal of a Bourgeois of Paris, above, p. 467.\nLORENZO BUONINCONTRO. # Muratori made known as historian Buonincontro, an author who until then had been cited only because of his works on astrology. He was a Tuscan refugee, who after having served in Francesco Sforza’s armies went to seek an asylum at the court of the King of Naples, Alphonso I. He finished in 1458, at the age of forty-eight, a book entitled De ortu regum Neapolitanorum et eorum inclita gesta. Muratori suppressed the whole part of this history anterior to 1360 and gave the rest under the title of Annales Sanminiateses, because San Miniato was the author’s country. The passage where Joan of Arc is in question has its place here only because Bedford is named in it as the sole author of her death: an opinion which must have been, in all countries, that of the clear-sighted men of that time.\nMuratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. XXI, col. 136.\nA certain maid Joan, albeit rustic, being in her fourteenth year, said to Charles King of the Franks that she was sent by God to be made princess of the war against the English; which if he did, he would be victorious. The King therefore, according to her petition, constituted her princess of his militia. Who afterwards overcame the English in several wars: for when the war burned most between the Britons and the Gauls, and the Britons’ affairs had hitherto flourished superior, there was stirred up by God the spirit of the Maid, who counselled the King in what manner the war should be administered and the battle arrayed. And she discoursed it with such force of mind and eloquence that the King made her princess. When therefore the Britons besieged the city of Orléans, to possess themselves the more easily of the river Loire, the Earl of Salisbury being stricken by a mural engine which they call a bombard, who was said to be the bravest of all men (and among the Gauls his name was formidable), the Maid with part of the Gauls’ army, attacking the Britons, overcame them. Several captains in that fight were slain or taken. By that victory the city was freed from the siege. Then, under her leadership, several towns were recovered which had been occupied by the Britons. At last after two years, having ever borne herself prosperously, she was taken by a certain man in a tumultuary fight at the town of Compiègne, and at Rouen by the Duke of Bedford was consumed by fire (1).\n(1) A testimony almost contemporary with Buonincontro’s and still less instructive is that of Antonino de Forciglioni, a Dominican, who died Archbishop of Florence. However, Edmond Richer, Hordal and other ancient authors have attached importance to his words, because the Church has placed him in the rank of the saints. The opinion he emits reduces to these few words: Multa admiratione digna agebat: quo autem spiritu ducta, vix sciebatur. Credebatur magis Spiritu Dei. Hoc patuit ex operibus suis; nihil enim inhonestum in ea videbatur, nihil superstitiosum, in nullo a veritate fidei discrepabat. (Sancti Antonini Opus Historiarum, pars III, tit. 22, c. 9, sect. 7.)\nPOPE PIUS II. # The true author of the Memoirs of the time of Pius II, published under the name of his secretary Jean Gobelin, has been no longer in question for a long time. The Italian critics have established that they are the work of the Pope himself. Without entering here into all the reasons they give for it, let it suffice to refer to Tiraboschi who sums them up (lib. III, cap. I, par. 23). These memoirs, written in a most elegant style, begin with a genealogy of the Piccolomini, of whom was Pius II, retrace the general history of the fifteenth century, and end at the year 1463 with this declaration designedly placed to cover the apostolic person: Haec habuimus quae ad annum sextum pontificatus sui nondum exactum, de rebus ejus scriberemus, in libros digestis XII, quorum ultimus pridie kalendarum januarii finem accepit, anno ab incarnato Verbo MCCCCLXIII.\nIn the sixth book, which treats of the affairs of France, is reported the history of Joan of Arc. As narrative and as appreciation, this piece may pass for the best that was written abroad in the fifteenth century. The scholastic spirit shews itself nowhere in it. The opinion is that of a man used to affairs, who admits the diversity of sentiments on so extraordinary a fact, but who shews how much those who would reduce it to the proportions of an intrigue are refuted by the greatness of the results. As for the order of events, it is well observed and betrays the author’s care in taking his information. It is even to be remarked that certain circumstances relative to the arrival and sojourn of Charles VII at Reims are met with only there, either that the Pope drew them from a particular relation, or that he gathered them from the mouth of the Archbishop of Reims or another witness, at the conferences for the peace of Arras (1435), where he had assisted as secretary of the legation sent by the council of Basle.\nAmong the historians and collectors of texts on Joan of Arc, Denys Godefroy is the only one who thought of Pius II’s memoirs.\nHe reported of them, it is true, only a passage of little enough interest. Those who came after him contented themselves, to allege the same pontiff’s opinion, with a phrase of his State of Europe under Frederick III, which he published in 1458, being still only Cardinal Aeneas Sylvius. This phrase has value only in so far as it is brought near to the corresponding piece of the Memoirs, of which one would say it served as the theme. Here it is: Regnum Franciae nostra aetate Joanna, virgo Lotharingensis, divinitus, ut credunt, admonita, virilibus indumentis et armis induta, Gallicas ducens acies, ex Anglicorum manibus magna ex parte, mirabile dictu, prima inter primos pugnans, eripuit.\nHere now is the text of the Memoirs:\nThe affairs of the Franks being well-nigh desperate, a Maid sixteen years old, Joan by name, daughter of a poor husbandman, in the field of Toul, while she was keeping swine, inspired by a divine spirit, as her deeds demonstrate, leaving the flock and putting her parents second, betook herself to the prefect of the neighbouring town, the only one of that region which had remained in the faith of the Franks, and asked for guides to shew her the way to the Dauphin. The prefect asks the cause of the journey; she says she has divine commands which she must bear to him, salutary to himself and to the kingdom. The prefect laughs, and thinking her mad spurns her. He tries her insistence in many ways; a delay of several days is made, in case the Maid should haply change her purpose, or something unworthy be found in her. But when she was found constant and immutable and conscious of no turpitude: What know I, says the prefect, whether this be God’s will? Often have divine protections saved the kingdom of France; perchance in our days too something is ordained in heaven for our salvation, which may be made manifest through a woman. And choosing three servants of approved faith, he commends the Maid to be led to the Dauphin.\nA journey of about ten days had to be made, and through the midst of lands which either the enemy held, or the friend of the enemy. The maid passed all difficulties unharmed, clad in man’s garments, and drew near to the Dauphin sojourning among the Bituriges, who, broken in spirit by so many disasters received, anxious now not for guarding the kingdom but for seeking a place where he might lead a secure life securely. In Spain the King of Castile and Leon had flourishing wealth in that age, and he was joined with the Dauphin both by the bond of consanguinity and of friendship. Him he had determined to ask that, taking on him the care and crown of the kingdom of France, he would grant him some corner of land wherein he might lurk in safety. The Maid met him meditating such things, and the prefect’s letters delivered, asked to be heard. The Dauphin, moved by the novelty of the thing and fearing delusion, commits the Maid to be examined to the Bishop of Castres, his confessor, a man chiefly learned among theologians, and gives her to noble matrons to keep. Questioned on the faith, she answered the things which suit the Christian religion; examined on her manners, she is found chaste and most honest; the examination lasts several days: nothing feigned is found in her, nothing deceitful, nothing excogitated by malign art; on her habit alone the difficulty remains. Asked why she had put on man’s garments forbidden to a woman, She says she is a maid; to a maid either habit suits; it was enjoined her by God to use man’s garments, since man’s arms also were to be handled by her.\nSo approved, she was rendered again into the Dauphin’s sight: I am come to thee, says she, blood of kings, by God’s command, not by my own counsel. He commands that thou follow me. If thou obeyest, I shall restore to thee thy throne, and at Reims ere long shall set the crown on thy head. The Dauphin said the thing promised was most difficult: The city of Reims, in which kings are wont to be crowned, is most remote, and held by enemies, nor is any way open safe; Orléans, which is a mid-city, is besieged by the English, nor have the French forces whereby succour may be brought to the wretched besieged; much less can pains be taken for a coronation. Moved in nothing by these things, the maid said:\nNot vain things do I promise. If thou believest God, believe me also; I come His messenger; I shall minister thee arms divinely and with invisible steel shall open the way. The peoples shall obey whithersoever thou goest, and the nobles shall follow thy banners of their own accord. Nor shalt thou cast the siege of Orléans at me; this I shall before all things dissolve, and shall give the city free; only grant me these horsemen who are here with thee.\nThe matter was for some time agitated in council with diverse opinions; some thought the Maid taken in mind, others deluded by a demon, others full of the Holy Spirit. And these related that Bethulia and other cities of old had been saved through women, and the kingdom of France often divinely aided; that now also it could be defended through a maid whom God would send; and the Maid was in no wise to be thought mad, whose counsels were full of sense. This opinion prevailed, and they entrusted the province of Orléans to the Maid. The woman was made captain of the war. Arms were brought, horses led; the Maid mounted the fiercer, and burning in arms, brandishing a lance, made the horse leap, run and wheel, no otherwise than the fables tell of Camilla. Every noblest man, taking arms, followed the maid most eagerly; who, all things prepared, committed herself to the journey.\nA most difficult approach lay open through the land to\nOrléans. The English had foreclosed every way and had set three camps against the three gates of the city, and had fortified them with moat and rampart. The Maid, not ignorant that the Loire river runs beside the city walls, loads ships in a hidden place with corn and enters them with her forces, and the besieged being warned of her coming, using swift rowing and the course of the rapid river, she was seen in sight of the city before the enemies knew she would come. The armed English ran up, and embarking in boats, strove in vain to delay the maid’s entrance, and receiving many wounds turned tail. She, entering the city and received with the utmost alacrity of the citizens, imported stores of every kind to them now perishing of famine. Nor delaying, on the following light she invades with great fury the enemies’ camps which besieged the principal gate, the moats being filled and the mound and rampart cast down, throws the English into confusion; and possessing the fortifications, burns the towers and bulwarks the enemies had prepared; and the townsmen’s spirits being confirmed, issuing by other gates, effects the same in the other camps. Since the English were divided in several places, nor could camp succour camp, in this wise the siege of Orléans was dissolved and utterly destroyed, the enemies being slain whosoever had come to it, so that scarce a messenger of the disaster survived. Nor was the glory of this thing given to another than the Maid, albeit most strenuous and expert warriors, and such as had often led the ranks, were present.\nSo great a disaster and ignominy of his people Talbot bore with an unequal mind, among the English captains most illustrious in fame. Who, taking four thousand horsemen chosen out of all the forces, led to Orléans to encounter the Maid, if she dared come to meet him, not doubting that he would either take or slay her issuing from the gates; but far otherwise it befell. The maid leading out her cohorts, as soon as she espied the enemy, raising a huge cry and making a horrible onset, invades the English standards; among whom none was found who dared to stand or shew his face. A sudden fear and horror came upon them all; who, albeit they were superior in number, yet thought themselves the fewer, and deemed that innumerable hosts warred for the Maid. Nor were they wanting who thought angels fought on the adverse part, and promised themselves no victory against those who warred for God. Swords fell from their hands; every one cast away shield and helm, to commit himself the lighter to flight. Talbot’s exhortations were not heard, nor his threats heeded; the foulest flight was made; to the maid alone were backs shewn: who, following the fugitives, either took or slew them all, save the captain with a few, who, after he saw his men irrecoverable in flight, escaped the enemy’s onset on swift horses.\nThe fame of these things, borne to the neighbouring peoples and then to the more remote, and ever made greater in its journeying, filled all minds with stupor. The Dauphin, now believing the Maid’s monitions, whose words deeds had confirmed, decreed supplications to God through all the temples and girded himself to receive the crown. The nobility of the whole kingdom, hearing the Maid’s miraculous works, after they learned that the coronation solemnities were being prepared, with incredible eagerness to see the maid, all Gaul taking arms, ran up. And within a month above thirty thousand horsemen, to serve at their own stipends, came to the Dauphin; who, rejoicing more and more that such forces of armed men were at hand, from the Bituriges, among whom he mostly sojourned, setting out on the journey, the Maid going before in arms and bearing the royal banner, led to Reims. All the mid towns were in the enemies’ power; and all the peoples had decreed by new oaths of allegiance to keep faith with the English and receive the Dauphin as an enemy. But when they knew that he and the Maid were nigh at hand (incredible to tell), no armed man came to meet them, none closed the gates, none cursed the comers. Wheresoever they came, the common folk ran to meet the Dauphin and greeted him as their lord; vying among themselves by what pact they might affect their prince with greater honours.\nWhen the army had come near Reims to about forty stades, there was great trepidation in the city. Nothing seemed safe for the English, the nobles wavered, novelties attracted the commons’ minds. There were among the English who counselled that the sacred oil wherewith the king is anointed should be transferred elsewhere, lest, the city being lost, the enemy might be duly crowned. The Gauls opine that a white dove was of old sent from heaven to blessed Remigius, bishop of that city, bearing a liquor of oil wherewith the kings should be anointed; and this they guard with supreme religion, nor do they think it is diminished, albeit a great many kings from Clovis to these times have used it; and they deny him to be a true king who is not anointed with this oil. For which cause, since the English had often consulted on transporting the liquor, they think their purpose was hindered by divine will. The Dauphin, nigh to the city, sent heralds to bid them render the city and announce his coronation to the Reims folk. They ask the principal citizens, who beg time for consulting. The Maid bids the envoys answer nothing, nothing be delayed in the time which God had appointed; all things were to be done. The Dauphin obeys the maid, and the envoys being kept back and orders of horsemen sent before, he seeks the city at swift pace. A marvellous thing, and such as will lack credit with posterity! no armed man is found either at the gate or in the city; the citizens in gowns come to meet them outside the walls. The Dauphin, without conditions, without pacts, without any contradiction, enters the open gates: none cries out, none shews a sign of indignation; all confess the work is divine. While the French enter by one gate, the English flee by another. The pacific and quiet city embraces its lord benignly, and him whom a little before it spurned as an enemy, it now worships as a father with wondrous affection and highest honours. There is a great concourse of those who greet the Dauphin, a greater around the Maid, whom they gazed on as some divine power. These things were done on the Saturday, on the eve of the feast of blessed Mary Magdalene; and on the very feast, at the monastery of Saint-Remi, in a great concourse of people, many nobles and prelates standing around, the Dauphin, after the manner of his forefathers anointed with the sacred oil, received the diadem of the kingdom of France, the multitude acclaiming to King Charles (for that was the Dauphin’s name) life and victory.\nThe King remained in that city four days, beyond the custom. For it is the wont of the kings of France, on the day which follows the coronation, to go on pilgrimage to a certain temple over which Saint Marcoul presides, and there to cure the sick. The Gauls have published it a miracle that a certain disease grows in the human throat, which is cured only by the king’s touch and certain secret words; and that this is done after the coronation in this temple. It is not for nothing that the new King went not on pilgrimage on the appointed day; the ambassadors of the Burgundians were the hindrance, who had come to greet him and brought something towards concord. These being heard, the pilgrimage was made on the fourth day, in which of the curing of diseases I have nothing sufficiently ascertained, albeit the French believe all those things are done miraculously.\nAfter this the Maid sought Laon with the new King, and no resistance was found. All obeyed the King. The same did whatsoever towns lie between Paris and Laon, all the peoples and common folk running to meet him with the utmost exultation. Hope was also given the King of taking the city of Paris; but when he had led into their fields and no man came to meet him, understanding himself deceived, he went back; but the Maid, with a keener spirit, taking certain cohorts, ran up to the very gate which leads to the Swine-market, and burned it with great onset, not without hope of possessing the city; where, while she fought more bravely than warily and was resisted within with the utmost force, she was wounded by an arrow shot at hazard. As soon as she perceived herself hurt, she withdrew from the fight; her companions ceased from the assault. And here the Maid’s favour began to wane, she who had been deemed inviolable being able to be wounded; nor was her name thereafter so formidable to the English nor so venerable to the French; yet her wound being shortly cured, she came again into the camp, where, handling arms after her former wont, she did nothing memorable.\nThe King had gone not far from the city, waiting whether haply, the citizens’ minds being changed, he should be called back; nothing befell as was expected. The Duke of Gloucester (1), who then governed at Paris and ministered the kingdom to the English, with the utmost diligence took heed lest any citizen should go out to Charles. He himself, leading out his forces, set camp against camp at a distance of about five hundred paces from the enemy. The hostile armies watched each other two days, and, albeit they committed certain skirmishes and thefts of war, yet they never dared to join in pitched battle. Thereupon they departed well-nigh untouched, and it is uncertain to whose greater dishonour. The English returned to Paris, the French to Bourges, having received again into allegiance whatsoever peoples were between, when they had returned by another road.\n(1) Confusion of the Duke of Gloucester, who was regent in England, with Bedford, his brother, regent of France. The narrative which follows is also out of its place.\nThe Maid, when she knew the King crowned and placed sufficiently safe in his seat, impatient of rest, returned against the enemies and stormed many towns by arms; many she received in surrender; some which the enemies pressed by siege she freed by swift succour. Last of all, when the English besieged Compiègne, a most fortified town and hostile to Paris, desiring to bring aid to the besieged, she betook herself thither with her forces. The enemies perceive her coming and prepare ambushes for her as she comes. She had to make her way through vineyards and narrow paths, which she entering they attack also from the rear. There is fighting in the strait place with great contention, where the maid being hemmed in, since she could not deploy her line, nor was the contest equal, nor was means of flight given, made surrender. John of Luxembourg, born in a noble place, Count of Ligny, who then served the English, led the Maid captive, and kept her a while in one of his castles. Certain others tell she was taken otherwise.\nThey say that Philip the Duke of Burgundy, setting out against the enemy who were laying waste Picardy, gave attention to hunting at the river Axona. Which thing being known, the Maid, who was not far off, hoped to catch him off his guard, and turned her cavalry like hunters on his troops. Philip, forewarned of the onset, suddenly drew up his men in order and received the approaching maid in battle, in which John took her (1); Philip forbade her to be led captive to him, to whom it seemed unseemly, even in conquering, to have fought against a woman (2).\nHowsoever it be, it is agreed the maid was taken in war and sold to the English for ten thousand golden pieces, and led to Rouen: in which place she was diligently examined whether she used sorceries, or a demon, or held aught amiss of religion. Nothing was found worthy of correction save the man’s garment she used; nor did they deem even this worthy of the last punishment. She was thrust back into prison, the penalty of death added if she should again put on man’s garments. She, who had learned to handle arms and delighted in military exercise, being tempted by her guards, who now brought before her a military cloak, now a cuirass, now a breastplate and other armours, unwary, once arrayed herself in man’s garments and armours, not knowing she was putting on death (3).\n(1) Confusion of the two sallies which Joan made from Compiègne several weeks apart. Cf. Berri, above, p. 44.\n(2) Lie of some great personage of the court of Burgundy whom the author had had occasion to interrogate.\n(3) This version of the infamous trap devised to bring about the case of relapse must be that which the Norman doctors had spread abroad at the council of Basle.\nIt is credible that, the maid living, albeit captive, the English never deemed themselves safe enough, who had been overcome by her in so many battles; that they feared flight and sleights; and for that cause sought a cause of death. The judges, when they knew the Maid had taken again the man’s habit, condemned her to fire as a relapsed. Her ashes, lest they should some time be an honour, they cast into the river Seine. So Joan died, a marvellous and stupendous maid; who restored the fallen and well-nigh dispersed kingdom of the Franks, who inflicted so many and so great disasters on the English. Who, made captain of men, among the troops of soldiers kept her chastity unhurt; of whom nothing unseemly was ever heard. Whether it was a divine work or a human device, I should find it hard to affirm. Some think that, when the nobles of France, the English affairs succeeding prosperously, were at strife among themselves, nor would one deign to bear another’s leadership, this cunning device was excogitated by some one who was wiser, that they should assert the maid was divinely sent and admit her seeking the leadership: for there is no man who refuses God as leader; and in this wise the warlike business was entrusted to the Maid and the command of arms given. This is most certain, that there was a Maid by whose leading the siege of Orléans was dissolved, by whose arms all the land between the Bituriges and Paris was subdued, by whose counsel Reims was received into power and the coronation celebrated there, by whose onset Talbot was put to flight and his army cut in pieces, by whose daring the Paris gate was burned, by whose skill and industry the affairs of the French were replaced in safety. A thing worthy to be committed to memory, albeit with posterity it will have more of admiration than of credit. Charles, albeit he bore the maid’s death most bitterly, yet failed not himself, and waged many battles worthy of mention, many by himself, many by his captains, not only against the English but also against the Burgundians, which perchance we shall insert in this work.\nGUERNERI BERNI. # Guerneri Berni, born at Gubbio, a company captain in the service of Frederick III of Montferrat, is the author of a chronicle in Italian which runs from the year 1350 to 1472. Muratori published this work under the title of Chronicon Eugubinum in the twenty-first volume of his collection of the Historians of Italy. This chronicle’s testimony on Joan of Arc is the only one in the Italian tongue which I have been able to discover.\nIn these times there was a great war in France between the King of France and the King of England, and the French had the worst of it. The English were in the field at Orléans, which they had so besieged that it could not be held. As it pleased our Lord God, there came to the King of France a Maiden who used to watch the sheep; and she said to the King that she went on God’s behalf, and if he did what she would say, he would be victor against the English. And after many signs, the King began to believe her. This Maiden had given her a sword which was in a church, one of those which are hung upon nobles and knights above their tombs when they die; which sword the said Maiden ever bore at her side. The first thing she did, she went to the succour of Orléans, which was besieged; and the English held at the head of a bridge which passes to a river that goes to the town walls a bastion. This Maiden, with that sword naked in one hand, and in the other the banner of France, was the first who entered into the bastion, where she was wounded, and by force took the bastion, giving succour and victual to the town. She won two pitched battles against the English, so that France remained in good state; and at last she came into the hands of the English, by whom she was burned, as she had foretold (1).\n(1) Baptiste Fulgoso, usually named among the writers who are an authority on Joan of Arc, would come by his date after Guerneri Berni; but I have not thought I ought to report his testimony, because he quite simply copied Gaguin, which Gaguin has himself been excluded from the present collection as offering absolutely nothing original. The attention given to Fulgoso doubtless comes of the eminent post he occupied during some years of his life. This author was in effect doge of the republic of Genoa. Deposed in 1483, he took refuge in Provence and there wrote, for the instruction of his son, a collection imitated from Valerius Maximus. After his death this work, which was in Italian, was put into Latin by a certain Ghilini and printed at Milan in 1509 under the title of De dictis factisque mirabilibus collectanea. The use Fulgoso made of Gaguin places the composition of his collection beyond 1491. It is in the third book, under the title De fortitudine, that he speaks of the Maid, rendering her family name very well without mangling it: Joanna Jacobo Arco patre orta (patre Jacobo Darco, matre Ysabella, genita, in Gaguin).\nPHILIP OF BERGAMO. # Fra Giacomo Filippo of Bergamo, an Augustinian, born in 1433, devoted an article to the Maid in his book De claris electisque mulieribus, which he had printed at Ferrara in 1497. A man of an inexact mind and most ignorant of the things of France, he has travestied history into legend; yet he still alleges an eye-witness whom he calls Guillelmus Guaschus, a personage attached, says he, to the court of Charles VII. Doubtless he was one of those Lombard knights who passed into France in the year of the battle of Crevant, under the leading of the Bornio of Caqueran and Théode de Valpergue; but whoever he was, it is hard to believe he told Philip of Bergamo that the three bastilles of Orléans had been taken in three hours of the clock, that Joan of Arc’s mission had lasted eight years, that she had met the English thirty times in battle: all things which Fra Philip advances as so many proved facts.\nSuch inexactitudes suffice to take away all credit from what the author says of the prosecutions which Louis XI would have directed, with the authorisation of Pope Pius II, against a judge and an assessor, the sole surviving members of the tribunal which had condemned Joan of Arc. M. de L’Averdy, in his celebrated memoir, made a formal dissertation to demonstrate the impossibility of this new trial. The same result could have been reached in fewer words and with far stronger arguments. First, Pierre Cauchon’s assessors were so little prosecuted and punished under the pontificate of Pius II that Thomas de Courcelles died long after that pope (in 1469) at Paris, where he was canon and dean of the chapter of Notre-Dame, enjoying his dignities in their fulness. As for the severities which Philip of Bergamo says were exercised on the mortal remains of the deceased judges (for he pretends Louis XI had them dug up and cast on the dung-hill), one has only to object the state of perfect conservation in which Pierre Cauchon’s tomb, raised in Saint-Pierre of Lisieux, maintained itself until the French Revolution. There would be twenty other grounds of inadmissibility of that force to oppose to the Italian monk’s inconsiderate narrative; but to conclude in a word, as he speaks of what passed under Charles VII without saying a word of the trial of rehabilitation, it is manifest he has transported that trial under the reign of Louis XI, accompanying it with circumstances due to his imagination or to that of the folk amid whom he lived. Strange thing, this error gained credit in France by the success which Philip of Bergamo’s book obtained there. An illustrious Dominican, provincial of France and later Bishop of Marseilles, composing for Queen Anne of Brittany an eulogy of women, could write that the rehabilitation of Joan of Arc’s memory was due to Louis XI. I shall return elsewhere to this author and to his work, of which M. le marquis de Coislin now possesses the manuscript. The editio princeps of the De claris mulieribus is of such rarity that I could not procure it. I have made use of the reprint given by Ravisius Textor in his collection entitled De memorabilibus et claris mulieribus aliquot diversorum scriptorum opera (folio, Paris, 1521).\nChap. CLVII. — Of Janna the French Maid, the best of maidens.\nJanna, a French maid, of the Lorraine nation, about the year of our salvation one thousand four hundred and forty-eight, in her girlish and adolescent age, divinely (as is believed) forechosen to perform many deeds, died in the metropolis of the city of Rouen (1), when she was only in her twenty-fourth year, in the highest chastity, consumed by fire. This Janna therefore, albeit she was begotten of obscure and humble parents, none the less throughout her whole life shewed herself a victorious princess of unconquered spirit.\n(1) The text has Remensis, but in the erratum of the work Ravisius Textor warns that Rothomagensis must be substituted for Remensis. Perhaps it is a correction of his own; for Philip of Bergamo is a bad enough geographer to have confused Rouen and Reims.\nSince from the beginning she had passed a great part of her age among the flocks, there with her companions, with whom she was observed keeping the sheep, she oftentimes practised running; and now hither now thither went that frequent running; and sometimes in running she caught a lance in her hand, like a strong knight, and struck the trunks of trees with most mighty wounds. Often also she mounted manfully one of the mares which fed in the flock, and, the lance set under her arm, running she dealt mighty blows; and they who beheld her were affected with great pleasure and admiration of mind. By exercises of this sort the woman became most strong. She was indeed short of stature, with a rustic face and black hair, but mighty through her whole body; who through all her life kept her virginity unhurt, and shewed herself a chief guardian of religion. Her speech was gentle enough, after the manner of the women of that country, which her sane manners much honoured. So right was her understanding and so sound, that she might have been believed brought up and nourished there where the highest prudence and every reason of counsel seemed to flourish.\nIn that season, Henry, King of the English, had brought a cruel war upon Charles, the seventh of that name, King of the French. He had likewise taken from him the greater part of his realm, and was now assaulting Orléans, the chief city of his kingdom, with the utmost force; and every day was the heaviest assault upon that city, and it was hemmed in on every side, nor was any way shewn whereby so great a siege could be dissolved.\nFor in it turned all the hope of the kingdom; which indeed being lost, it seemed all was over with the whole realm of Gaul. The King, set in this difficulty, was racked uncertain by anguish of mind, nor could he by any reason resolve what counsel to follow. Then it befell this maid, while these things were toward, while keeping her flocks, to fall asleep in a certain most vile little chapel to escape the rain: at which time she seemed to be admonished in dreams by God, who had shewn Himself to her; and she was then only in her sixteenth year.\nMoved by which admonition, forthwith leaving the flock which she was keeping, she set out for the camp to the King. When she had come to his tent, she declared she wished to speak with the King of the greatest things, saying she was sent divinely by God. The chief men and the chamberlains spurned the maid, because by her garb and the habit of her body she seemed, as she was, one of the country-folk; whence they chastised her and rebuked her with hard words and roughly, because she was so bold and so petulant and rash as to presume, foolish and boorish, to approach and speak to so great a King. She none the less, comforted and impelled by God, persevering in her purpose, instantly demanded leave to go in to the King, since she said she brought him great and serious matters, not in any wise light or to be mocked. Whereat the courtiers being moved, at last brought her in to the King. But the Maid Janna, brought in to the King, when she had fallen upon her knees before him, greeted the royal majesty with all reverence, after the custom. And the King being greeted, all the chief men openly hearing, she spoke thus: Most glorious King, I, thy least handmaid, leaving the keeping of my flock over which I presided as one of the country-folk, by the bidding of Almighty God, to bear thee aid, whereby thou mayest recover thy lost kingdom, have come hither eagerly, and by divine command I warn thee to declare me captain of all thy host. Nor wonder that I, a poor and rustic maid, and of this most vile lot, have come forth hither and dared to undertake so great a command, since it has seemed good to Almighty God to choose the weak and contemptible things, to confound the strong.\nBut the King, revolving with himself the gravity of these words, straightway, silent and wondering, lifted his eyes to his chief men. And the same admiration stupefied the other nobles, saying under their breath that this was surely divine counsel, not human. But the King said: Maid, thou freely professest thou art sent to me by God for aid; but by what reason? Thou art a woman and a very young girl, unexperienced in all things, and how dost thou presume to take on thee the administration of so great an office and so great a host? This surely is not the task of thine office and tender age, but by military right of the most expert and practised men. Wherefore I warn thee once and again to consider again and again what thou bringest and what thou offerest.\nWith a constant and undaunted face she answered forthwith: Greatest King, I beseech thee, go not on to question more. God, by whom I am sent, will provide for this thy need. Nor, I pray, waste more time, if the safety of thy kingdom is dear to thee. And that thou mayest understand the truth, hear what I shall say to thee with witnesses withdrawn.\nBut after she had spoken with the King, the King, well-nigh stupefied and uncertain what to answer, on the spot pronounced her captain of all his host, all the chief men acclaiming. A thing well-nigh incredible and unheard of, and worthy of the greatest spectacle, if thou considerest so many princes, and the King himself, most practised in wars, subjecting themselves to the command of a young girl, sixteen years old, who had been taken from the care of a flock of sheep and swine or pigs, to see her, clad in man’s garments and arms, lead the armies of Gaul. Therefore, after this Janna the warrior maid was declared empress of all the royal host, the King commanded flashing and needful arms to be given her at once, and a most strong horse to be brought, covered marvellously with trappings and other ornaments. Which when she had mounted, her helm also set upon her head, the hair of her head hung spread over her shoulders. And when all the host beheld her so arrayed and armed, and sitting undaunted on the horse, she seemed to all a knight sent down from heaven.\nWho, borne on horseback by the land road with part of the forces, strove towards the city of Orléans to dissolve the siege. But the King with all his forces and his chief and most strenuous princes set camp against camp at the river Rhône. But she, when she had come to the enemy, straightway joined battle with the utmost force. In which conflict and battle the captain of all the hostile host, with ten thousand English, was on the spot slain, and, in the space of three hours, she took three most fortified bulwarks of the enemy. Which seen, the King brought up all his most mighty host to free the city. And so, within four days, the city itself, the enemy driven off, was freed from the siege with the greatest glory of this young girl; which all reputed and believed a divine rather than a human deed. This exploit indeed a certain most excellent and rich witness, a most illustrious man, Guilielmus Guaschus by name, then a royal courtier, related to me seriously, as he had heard and seen it. And after this, through eight continuous years, she fought with the enemy thirty times in pitched battle. From which she ever came off superior and glorious, the most strenuous emperor of the English being taken, to her greatest glory and triumph, whom she delivered bound to her King. By which deeds, bringing in the said King Charles in triumph into Orléans, he was anointed and consecrated King after the custom by his nobles; which before he could not so easily do. The King therefore being anointed and gifted with the crown after the custom, with the greatest joy of all, was presented in the temple, she accompanying him, to his own glory and triumph. For by ancient law the King of the Franks may not be consecrated elsewhere than in that city, since all the insignia of the kings of the Gauls are kept placed there, which are applied to the King at his crowning, and chiefly the sacred unction sent down from heaven.\nThis Janna the Maid therefore, since she had obtained great glory in arms, and had wrested by fighting from the hands of the English the kingdom of the Franks, in great part lost, being set in her flourishing age, foretold to all not only that she would die, but also the manner of her death. For being at last taken in battle by the English themselves, and violently brought to the city of Rouen, there by them and their King accused of the crime of poisoning and the magic art, she was condemned to the most savage death by fire. And this was the end of so great a maid’s life; by which most atrocious punishment this woman of so unheard-of virtue was undeservedly slain. But after many years, Charles himself, a most excellent King, the city of Rouen being recovered, in that place where Janna the Maid had been atrociously burned, as a monument and title of maidenly honour, commanded a brazen cross, and indeed a most eminent and gilded one, to be set.\nBut King Louis, afterwards succeeding his father, taking most grievously the so undeserved death of so great a heroine, is said to have obtained from the Roman pontiff Pius, the second of that name, that he should send two men learned in the law into Gaul, who should examine anew and more diligently her cause and life. Who, when they had at last come into Gaul, straightway cited to them two survivors of the false counsellors and judges. Who, after they had accurately and diligently known all this cause, discovered plainly that the most innocent woman had been falsely condemned, and all things had been feigned against her, to wit the crimes of poisoning or magic art which had been alleged against her; nay rather that all her life had answered equally to her so illustrious deeds, nor had aught ever been committed by her whereby she could in any part have violated religion. For which causes they affected both with the same punishment of death wherewith they themselves had long before promulgated and condemned the most innocent maid. And to this condemnation was added that the bones of two other dead judges, dug up from their sepulchres, should likewise be burned with fire, and in that place where this heroine had been burned, a temple should be set; and of the remaining goods of the aforesaid, which had been confiscated, a daily sacrifice was instituted there to the honour of the Most High God and the propitiation of the deceased herself. And so in this wise was all honour recovered to this admirable woman.\nFor which merits and unheard-of deeds this Janna the Maid deservedly comes to be added by us here to the illustrious women.\nLAONIC CHALCONDYLE. # Laonic Chalcondyle or Chalcocondyle, an Athenian, a refugee in the kingdom of Naples, wrote some ten years after the taking of Constantinople by the Turks a history of that people’s conquests, from the year 1298 to the total extinction of the Greek empire. In the second book of this work he would needs treat of the affairs of the West, at the risk of proving once more the inventive genius of the Greeks in history, quidquid Graecia mendax audet in historia. It is solely for the curiosity of the fact that the short passage devoted by Chalcondyle to the memory of Joan of Arc is reported here. In the historian’s imagination, the long struggle of France and England, from Philip of Valois to Charles VII, is summed up in a single campaign. The town of Calais having fallen by surprise into the enemy’s hands, the French take arms, and, chasing the English, end by hemming them in on a mountain. These ask to capitulate: their offer is rejected; they fight and win the battle. This victory is followed by a second still more decisive, which took place, says the text, ἐν τῷ Πένθους πεδίῳ οὕτω καλουμένῳ, in the field surnamed since the Field of Mourning.\nChalcondyle continues in these terms:\nNow the English, having subdued well-nigh the whole land, went against the mistress city of the kingdom, to wit the city of Paris. And the affairs of the French were at the point of coming right soon to every extremity of peril. And those French having recourse to foolish beliefs, because they were in such adventure where especially men are wont to turn themselves to superstition, a woman of great seeming and of whom it was said that God wrought by her, set herself to lead them, they being exhorted by her and deeming that the said woman must be their captain. So she said it was signified to her on God’s part that the English had assembled to come upon them and fight them again. Whereupon the English being in nothing amended, the French passed the night at the place where they were, and on the morrow, having already recovered better courage because of that woman who led them, they sallied to the battle, and by force of arms broke the enemies and drove them back in full career. After which the said woman died in that same war. And the French recomforted themselves and became bolder to fight the English, and having reconquered all their places, they won again their mistress city; so that many other armies were sent from England into France several times and in great power, notwithstanding which the French, as men say, ever had victory of their adversaries, and finally chased them out of all the country until they had driven them back within the town of Calais (1) (2).\n(1) Conformed to the Byzantine text, Louvre edition, p. 49.\n(2) This translation is mine. I have permitted myself to make it in the style of the fifteenth century, to render more exactly the Byzantine author’s much-degenerate language.\nINDIRECT TESTIMONIES # OF DIVERS AUTHORS. # BERTRANDON DE LA BROQUIÈRE. # Bertrandon de La Broquière, an Aquitaine gentleman, lord of Vieil-Castel, counsellor and first carver esquire of the Duke of Burgundy, wrote what follows in the relation of a journey in the East which he accomplished in 1433. The passage concerns his sojourn at Constantinople.\nThe Catalan merchant at whose house I was lodged said to one of the Emperor’s people (1) that I was of my lord of Burgundy. Who had me asked whether it was true that the Duke of Burgundy had taken the Maid, for it seemed to the Greeks a thing impossible. I told them the truth of it, just as the thing had been: whereat they were much amazed (2).\n(1) John Palaeologus II, second to last Emperor of the East.\n(2) Drawn from manuscript n° 10025-2 of the Royal Library, fol. 210.\nJEAN DE VAULX. # Jean de Vaulx, native of the diocese of Arras, master of arts and doctor of theology, was rector of the University of Paris in 1460. Being a pupil at the College of Navarre, he wrote with his own hand a Terence which is today among the manuscripts of the Royal\nLibrary (n° 7909 Latin). He has consigned on the flyleaves of this volume divers memories, of which this one:\nI, Johannes de Vallibus, was studying at Paris in the faculty of arts, when the lord of L’Isle-Adam, with three hundred men or less, in favour of the lord Duke of Burgundy, took the city of Paris, certain folk within the city walls favouring him, etc.\nTo narrate the wars, the takings of cities, which flourished while wars reigned in France, would be long, since they have lasted from the death of the Duke of Orléans until now, and still last. Now the death of the Duke of Orléans was in the year seven, and the year thirty-seven now runs. Yet of a certain Maid, called Joan, since it was a marvel, I have deemed this writing should be added for those who look. She moreover bore a man’s habit and in arms against the English fought most strenuously many times. She was present when the siege made upon the Orléans folk by the English was violently carried away. But taken by the Burgundians and delivered to the English, she was burned at Rouen.\nPIERRE DES GROS. # Pierre des Gros, doctor of theology, of the order of Saint Francis, who figured in the quarrel of the mendicant orders with the University of Paris in 1456, gives his opinion on Joan of Arc in these terms in his Jardin des Nobles, a work which he wrote in 1463 for Yvon du Fou, a Breton gentleman, counsellor of Louis XI:\nTo the kings of France, marvellous signs and miracles shown by God, as in the holy Ampoule and the Oriflamme, the Fleurs-de-lis and in the Maid (1).\n(1) M. Paulin Paris made this passage known in his analysis of the Jardin des Nobles. See his work on the French Manuscripts of the King’s Library, vol. II, p. 149.\nGUI PAPE. # Gui Pape, celebrated Dauphiné jurisconsult, president of the parliament of Grenoble, deprived at the accession of Louis XI, died in 1476, says in his Decisiones Gratianopolitanae, question 84:\nI saw also in my times the Maid, named Joan, who began to reign in the year in which I was made doctor. Who, by divine inspiration, taking warlike arms, from the year of the Lord 1430, restored the kingdom of France, expelling the English from the kingdom by armed force, and restoring the aforesaid King Charles to his kingdom of France. Which Maid reigned three or four years.\nROZMITAL DE BLATNA. # Leo of Rozmital and of Blatna, grand judge of Bohemia and brother-in-law of King George Podiebrad, made in 1465 and 1466 a journey in western Europe, of which his secretaries wrote two relations, one in German, whose text has been lately found again, the other in Bohemian, which Stanislas Pawlowicz, canon of Olmütz, translated into Latin in 1577. In the latter the Maid is in question on the occasion of the Bohemian travellers’ passing at Blaye. This mention is only a tissue of errors and absurdities proceeding doubtless from the little intelligence the author had of the French tongue. Here it is:\nFrom Mirambeau to Blaye is a journey of seven miles. That city is set on the Compostela road, so that those setting out from Paris and from all the lower regions for Compostela must needs pass the strait of seven miles at it. The Garonne river, which unloads itself into the sea, flows by it. This city the kings of England once held a hundred and fifty years; but it was recovered through a certain prophetic woman, who had also recovered the whole realm of Gaul from the English (1).\nThat woman, once born of a shepherd, was adorned by God with such virtues that whatsoever she undertook, she brought to a good issue. But in the last battle, taken by the King of England and brought into England, after she had there by his command been set on a brazen horse and led through the city of London, she was done to death by the violence of flames and at last reduced to ashes, which were afterwards scattered on the sea (2).\n(1) The town of Blaye was not reconquered until 1451 by the Count of Dunois. It is probable the Bohemian author confused Blaye with Blois, and perhaps also the story of Joan with that of the Duchess of Gloucester, who was paraded as a penitent in London for the crime of sorcery. However, it is to be noted that the false Joan of Arc made war in the west of France in 1436, and that the passage reported here might at a pinch have to do with some attempt made on Blaye at that date. The history of Guienne, Saintonge and Poitou is absolutely lacking in the chronicles.\n(2) Extract from volume VII of the collection entitled Bibliothek des Literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart (8vo, 1844). The German relation contains none of these errors. Here is what is said of Blaye in it, which the author calls Plaa: There lies the holy virgin Saint Apollonia and Saint Reverin. Item, there lies also Olivernus and the great Bulant and his sister.\nSIMON DE PHARES. # Simon de Phares, of the family of the celebrated Jean de Meun, brought up at Châteaudun with the children of the Count of Dunois, botanist, mineralogist and astrologer, pensioned first by John II, Duke of Bourbon, then by Charles VIII, author of a biographical collection on the illustrious astrologers, which he wrote for the King his master, in 1495. He names the Maid there on the occasion of a Genevan skilled in the science of the stars, whose son he knew, who had become a printer at Geneva.\nAbout this time [1430] was at Geneva master Guillaume Barbin, doctor in medicine and a great astrologer. He foretold in his young age the exile of the English and the relief of the King of France: which was a thing marvellous enough, seeing that it was by means of a simple maid. It is well that a certain master Rollandus Scriptoris (1) gave the election for this purpose, the 16th day of (2), at the 23rd hour…\n12 minutes, the 16th degree of Libra ascending, and a fixed star named Spica in the ascendant Venus, Mercury and the sun at mid-heaven (3).\n(1) A beadle of the University of Paris, who made the almanacks for the use of that body, according to the same Simon de Phares.\n(2) Lacuna in the manuscript.\n(3) From the author’s manuscript, preserved in the Royal Library, n° 7487 French.\nJEAN BOUCHET. # Jean Bouchet makes a digression on Joan of Arc in his Annales d’Aquitaine (part IV). He confines himself to copying the Miroir des femmes vertueuses, joining to that testimony a memory which he had kept since the age of nineteen, for he says the fact came to his knowledge in 1495, and he was born in 1476. Here are his own words:\nI heard tell in my youth, and in the year one thousand four hundred ninety-five, from the late Christofle du Peirat, then dwelling at Poitiers and near my house, who was near a hundred years old, that in my said house there had been an inn where hung the sign of the Rose, where the said Joan was lodged; and that he saw her mount on horseback all armed in white to go to the said place of Orléans (1). And he shewed me a little stone which is at the corner of the Rue Saint-Étienne, where she took her step up to mount upon her horse (2).\n(1) André Thevet, in his Chorographie universelle (vol. II, fol. 581), repeats the same fact as holding it from the very mouth of Jean Bouchet.\n(2) This stone, or another which passes for it, is deposited today in the Museum of Poitiers.\nEND OF THE FOURTH VOLUME. # TABLE, by authors’ names, OF THE TESTIMONIES REPORTED IN THIS VOLUME. # FRENCH.\nPerceval de Cagny 1\nAnother Alençon chronicler 38\nThe Herald Berri 40\nJean Chartier 51\nJournal of the Siege of Orléans and of the Reims journey 95\nChronicle of the Maid 203\nThe Abbreviator of the trial 254\nThe Mirror of Virtuous Women 267\nPierre Sala 277\nGuillaume Girault 282\nJean Rogier 284\nThe clerk of the town hall of Albi 300\nMathieu Thomassin 303\nFrench continuator of Guillaume de Nangis 313\nGuillaume Gruel 315\nThe Dean of Saint-Thibaud of Metz 321\nThe chronicle of Lorraine 329\nThree anonymous Norman chroniclers 339\n— Symphorien Champier (note) 344\nRobert Blondel 347\nThomas Basin 350\n— Life of Guillaume de Gamaches 358\nBURGUNDIANS.\nEnguerran de Monstrelet 360\nJean de Wavrin du Forestel 405\nThe clerk of the Chamber of Accounts of Brabant 425\nLe Fèvre de Saint-Remi 429\nGeorges Chastellain 440\nPontus Heuterus 448\nClément de Fauquemberque, clerk of the Parliament of Paris 450\nThe alleged Bourgeois of Paris 461\nFOREIGNERS.\nWilliam Wyrcester 475\nWilliam Caxton 476\n— Polydore Vergil (note) 477\nWalter Bower 478\nThe religious of Dunfermline 482\nEberhard de Windecken 485\nJean Nider 503\nLorenzo Buonincontro 506\n— Saint Antoninus (note) 507\nPope Pius II 508\nGuerneri Berni 519\n— Baptiste Fulgoso (note) 520\nPhilip of Bergamo 521\nLaonic Chalcondyle 529\nINDIRECT TESTIMONIES.\nBertrandon de La Broquière 532\nJean de Vaulx 532\nPierre des Gros 533\nGui Pape 534\nRozmital de Blatna 534\nSimon de Phares 536\nJean Bouchet 536\nEND OF THE TABLE OF THE FOURTH VOLUME. # ","date":"1 January 1847","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/jules-quicherat/chronicles-of-joan-of-arc/","section":"Writings","summary":"","title":"The Chronicles of Joan of Arc","type":"writings"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1847","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/writings/","section":"Writings","summary":"","title":"Writings","type":"writings"},{"content":"Jean Bréhal was a French Dominican friar, doctor of theology and Inquisitor-General of France. Tasked by the papal legate Guillaume d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville with reviewing Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s Trial of Condemnation, he gathered witness testimonies and expert opinions across France, and sat with the papal delegates who pronounced the definitive sentence of rehabilitation on 7 July 1456.\n","date":"7 July 1456","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/jean-brehal/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Jean Bréhal","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"Translated from Jules Quicherat (ed.), Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc, dite La Pucelle, tomes II–III (Paris: Jules Renouard, Société de l’Histoire de France, 1844–1845). Quicherat’s footnotes are retained; their numbering restarts within each section, as in the printed edition, where they restart on each page.\nPreliminaries of the Rehabilitation Not Inserted into the Trial # I. Preliminary Inquiry into the Iniquity of the Former Proceedings # Here follows the tenor of the letters of commission of Master Guillaume Bouillé (1).\nCharles, by the grace of God King of France, to our beloved and trusty counsellor, Master Guillaume Bouillé, doctor of theology, greeting and love. Whereas some time ago Joan the Maid was taken and apprehended by our ancient enemies and adversaries, the English, and brought to the city of Rouen, against whom they caused such trial as it was to be made by certain persons commissioned and deputed by them for that purpose; in the making of which trial they committed and perpetrated several faults and abuses, to such a degree that, by means of the said trial and of the great hatred which our said enemies bore towards her, they caused her to die iniquitously and against reason, most cruelly; and because we wish to know the truth of the said trial and the manner in which it was conducted and proceeded with: we command and enjoin you, and expressly charge you, to inquire and inform yourself well and diligently of and upon what is aforesaid, and the information made by you upon this you shall bring or send safely, closed and sealed, to us and to the people of our Great Council; and likewise, all those whom you shall learn to have any writings, proceedings, or other things touching the matter, you shall constrain by all due means which you shall see fit to employ, to deliver them to you so that they may be brought or sent to us, in order to provide thereupon as we shall see fit and as shall pertain by reason; for of so doing we give you power, commission and special mandate by these presents. And we command and charge all our officers, justiciars and subjects, that to you and to your commissioners and deputies in so doing they diligently obey and hearken. Given at Rouen, the fifteenth day of February, in the year of grace one thousand four hundred and forty-nine (2), and the twenty-eighth of our reign. Signed thus: By the King, on the report of the Great Council, Daniel (3).\n(1) Guillaume Bouillé was first provisor of the Collège de Beauvais at Paris, procurator of the French nation (1434 and 1437), then rector of the University (1439). Having then devoted himself to theology, he distinguished himself in that faculty and obtained its deanship. Dean of the cathedral of Noyon, dean of Saint-Florent de Roye, and chaplain of Saint-Cuthbert aux Mathurins in Paris, he was made a member of the Grand Council by Charles VII, who charged him in that capacity with an embassy to Rome. The first memoir written against the validity of Pierre Cauchon’s judgement is his. An extract of that work will be found in chapter VIII of the proceedings, and it will be seen from the preamble that it must have been composed before the delivery of the powers set out in the present commission. Guillaume Bouillé will appear more than once as a witness in the rehabilitation trial, which he followed with as much assiduity as his numerous occupations permitted, and the discord between the University and the Mendicants, during which he had to plead several times before the parliament of Paris. In 1466 he resigned his benefices. In 1473 he is found mentioned in the ordinance of Louis XI against the Nominalists. Finally, he died in 1476, having directed his executors to bury him at Noyon without pomp and without monument. (Du Boulay, Hist. univ. Paris., vol. V, p. 441, cols. 875, 921. — Gallia Christiana, vol. IX, col. 1035. — Ordonnances des rois de France, vol. XVII, p. 609.)\n(2) Old style; 15 February 1450.\n(3) Edmond Richer adds to the copy he gives of this instrument: With paraph and sealed with yellow wax on a single tail; and upon the said seal, covered with parchment, is written: Mandatum regis ad Guillelmum Bouillé, decanum Noviomensem super informacione facienda de processu alias facto contra Johannam dictam la Pucelle. (Fontanieu manuscript, shelf-mark P. 785, book III, fol. 2, in the Bibliothèque du Roi.)\nBrother Jean Toutmouillé # The venerable and religious person Brother Jean Toutmouillé, of the Order of Friars Preachers at the convent of the Jacobins of Rouen, doctor of theology, aged forty-two years, sworn and examined on the fifth day of March;\nAnd firstly, concerning the affection of the judges and of those who conducted and managed the trial of the said Joan, he deposes that, inasmuch as he did not attend or appear at the trial, he can say nothing of his own sight; but he relates that the common report made known that, out of a perverse appetite for vengeance, they had persecuted her, and had given sign and appearance of it. For before her death, the English proposed to lay siege to Louviers, but soon changed their purpose, saying that they would in no wise besiege the said town until the said Maid had been examined: of which what follows makes evident proof; for immediately after her burning, they went to plant the siege before Louviers, deeming that during her life they would never have glory or prosperity in the business of war.\nItem, the said Toutmouillé says and deposes that, on the day when the said Joan was relinquished to the secular judgement and delivered to burning, he found himself in the morning in the prison with Brother Martin Ladvenu, whom the Bishop of Beauvais had sent to her to announce her approaching death, and to induce her to true contrition and penitence, and also to hear her in confession; which the said Ladvenu did most carefully and charitably. And when he announced to the poor woman the death of which she was to die that day, as her judges had thus ordained and determined, and she heard of the hard and cruel death that was near to her, she began to cry out sorrowfully and pitifully, tearing herself and pulling out her hair: Alas! am I to be treated thus horribly and cruelly, that my body, clean and whole, which was never corrupted, must today be consumed and rendered into ashes! Ah! ah! I would rather be beheaded seven times than be thus burned. Alas! if I had been in the ecclesiastical prison to which I had submitted myself, and if I had been guarded by the people of the Church, and not by my enemies and adversaries, it would not have befallen me so miserably as it has. Oh! I appeal before God, the great judge, of the great wrongs and grievances that are done to me. And she complained marvellously in that place, as the deponent says, of the oppressions and violences that had been done to her in the prison by the jailers and by the others who had been made to enter upon her.\nAfter her complaints, the aforenamed bishop arrived, to whom she said at once: Bishop, I die by you. And he began to remonstrate with her, saying: Ah! Joan, take it in patience. You die because you have not kept what you promised us, and because you have returned to your first evil-doing. And the poor Maid answered him: Alas! if you had put me in the prisons of the Church’s court, and delivered me into the hands of competent and suitable ecclesiastical warders, this would not have happened: wherefore I appeal from you before God.\nThis done, the said deponent went out and heard nothing more of it.\nBrother Isambert de la Pierre # The venerable and religious person Brother Isambert de la Pierre, of the Order of Saint Augustine of the convent of Rouen, priest, sworn and examined as witness on the fifth day of March, in the year of grace one thousand four hundred and forty-nine, says and deposes that once, he and several others being present, the said Joan was admonished and urged to submit herself to the Church. Whereupon she answered that she would willingly submit to the Holy Father, asking to be taken to him, and that she would in no wise submit to the judgement of her enemies. And at that hour, Brother Isambert counselled her to submit herself to the [general] council of Basel, and the said Joan asked him what a general council was. He who speaks answered that it was a congregation of the whole universal Church and of Christendom, and that in that council there were as many of her party as of the party of the English. Having heard and understood this, she began to cry: Oh! since in that place there are some of our party, I am well willing to yield and submit myself to the council of Basel. And straightway, in great despite and indignation, the Bishop of Beauvais began to cry: Hold your peace, in the devil’s name! and told the notary to take good care not to write down the submission she had made to the general council of Basel. On account of these things and several others, the English and their officers horribly threatened the said Brother Isambert, so much so that if he did not keep silent they would throw him into the Seine.\nItem, he says and deposes that, after she had renounced and abjured and had resumed man’s dress, he and several others were present when the said Joan excused herself for having again put on man’s dress, saying and publicly affirming that the English had done or caused to be done to her in the prison much wrong and violence while she was clothed in women’s garments; and in fact he saw her weeping, her face full of tears, disfigured and outraged in such sort that he who speaks had pity and compassion on her.\nItem, he says and relates that before all the assembly, when she was reputed an obstinate and relapsed heretic, she answered publicly: If you, my lords of the Church, had taken me and kept me in your prisons, perchance it would not have gone thus with me.\nItem, he says and deposes that, after the issue and end of that session and instance, the said lord Bishop of Beauvais said to the English who were waiting outside: Farewell (1), make good cheer, it is done.\nItem, this witness deposes that the poor Joan was asked and set interrogatories too difficult, subtle and crafty, such that the great clerks and well-lettered men who were there present would with great difficulty have known how to give answer; wherefore several of the assembly murmured at it.\nItem, this witness deposes that he himself in person went to the Bishop of Avranches (2), a very aged and good clerk, who, like the others, had been asked and prayed to give his opinion on this case. For this purpose, the said bishop questioned the witness sent to him as to what my lord Saint Thomas said and determined touching the submission that should be made to the Church. And he who speaks gave in writing to the said bishop the determination of Saint Thomas, which says: In doubtful things which touch the faith, one should always have recourse to the Pope, or to the general council. The good bishop was of this opinion, and seemed altogether ill content with the deliberation that had been made here in this matter. This determination was not put in writing; which was left out through malice.\nItem, he who speaks deposes that, after her confession and reception of the sacrament of the altar, sentence was given against her, and she was declared a heretic and excommunicated.\nItem, he says and deposes that he saw well and clearly perceived, because he was always present and assisting at the whole conduct and conclusion of the trial, that the secular judge did not condemn her to death, nor to consumption by fire; and although the said lay and secular judge appeared and was present at the very place where she was last preached to and relinquished to secular justice, nevertheless, without judgement or conclusion of the said judge, she was delivered into the hands of the executioner and burned, saying to the executioner only, without other sentence: Do your duty.\nItem, he who speaks deposes that the said Joan showed at the end so great contrition and so beautiful a repentance that it was a thing to be wondered at, uttering words so devout, pitiful and Catholic that all who beheld her, a great multitude, wept with hot tears, so much so that the Cardinal of England and several other English were constrained to weep and to have compassion on her.\nHe says moreover that the pitiful woman asked, requested and humbly begged him, as he was near her at her end, that he should go into the neighbouring church and bring him the cross, to hold it raised upright before her eyes until the passage of death, so that the cross on which God hung might be continually before her sight in her life. He says moreover that, being in the flames, she never ceased until the end to proclaim and confess in a loud voice the holy name of Jesus, imploring and invoking without cease the aid of the Saints of paradise; and what is more, in yielding up her spirit and bowing her head, she uttered the name of Jesus, as a sign that she was fervent in the faith of God, even as we read of Saint Ignatius and several other martyrs.\nItem, he says and deposes that, immediately after the execution, the executioner came to him and to his companion, Brother Martin Ladvenu, stricken and moved with a marvellous repentance and terrible contrition, like one all in despair, fearing that he could never obtain pardon and indulgence from God for what he had done to that holy woman. And the said executioner said and affirmed that, notwithstanding the oil, the sulphur and the coal that he had applied to the entrails and the heart of the said Joan, nevertheless he had not been able in any wise to consume or render into ashes the entrails or the heart; at which he was as astonished as at a most evident miracle.\nBrother Martin Ladvenu # The venerable and religious person Brother Martin Ladvenu, of the Order of Friars Preachers, at the convent of Saint-Jacques of Rouen, especial confessor and conductor of the said Joan in her last days, sworn and questioned in the year and on the day aforesaid upon certain articles;\nAnd firstly, touching the disordered affection of those who conducted and managed the trial and the cause, he deposes that several appeared at the judgement more for love of the English and of the favour they bore towards them than for good zeal of justice and of the Catholic faith. Chiefly he who speaks tells of the disposition and excessive affection of my lord Pierre Cauchon, then Bishop of Beauvais, alleging against him two signs of malice: the first, when the said bishop bore himself as judge, he commanded the said Joan to be guarded in secular prisons, and in the hands of her mortal enemies; and although he might well have caused her to be detained and guarded in the ecclesiastical prisons, nevertheless he permitted, from the beginning of the trial until its consummation, that she should be tormented and treated most cruelly in the secular prisons. This witness says further that in the first session or instance, the aforesaid bishop requested and asked the counsel of the whole assembly, namely which was the more fitting, to keep and detain her in the secular prisons or in the prisons of the Church; whereupon it was deliberated that it was more decent to keep her in the ecclesiastical prisons than in the others; but, answered this bishop, he would not do it, for fear of displeasing the English. The second sign that he alleges is that on the day when the said bishop, with many others, declared her a heretic, relapsed and returned to her misdeed because she had resumed man’s dress within the prison, the said bishop, coming forth from the prison, espied the Earl of Warwick (1) and a great multitude of English about him, to whom, laughing, he said in a loud intelligible voice: Farewell, farewell, it is done with her, make good cheer, or words to like effect.\n(1) Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick and governor of the young king Henry VI. This man, of a hard soul and an inflexible policy, seems to have been the principal agent in the death of Joan of Arc. It will be seen from the depositions recorded in the trial that he contributed his own money towards the costs of the judgement.\nItem, he says and relates that, on conscience, they proposed to her and asked her questions too difficult, to catch her in her words and in her judgement; for she was a poor woman simple enough, who with great pain knew her Pater noster and Ave Maria.\nItem, he deposes that the simple Maid revealed to him that, after her abjuration and renunciation, she had been violently tormented in the prison, molested, beaten and despoiled; and that an English milord had forced her; and she said publicly that this was the cause why she had resumed man’s dress; and near the end she said to the Bishop of Beauvais: Alas! I die by you, for if you had given me to be kept in the prisons of the Church, I should not be here.\nItem, he says and deposes that when she was last preached to at the Old Market and abandoned to secular justice, although the secular judges were seated upon a scaffold, nevertheless she was in no wise condemned by any of those judges, but without condemnation was compelled by two serjeants to come down from the scaffold, and was led by the said serjeants to the place where she was to be burned, and by them delivered into the hands of the executioner. And in sign of this, a little time afterwards, one called Georges Folenfant was apprehended by reason of the faith and on a charge of heresy, who was likewise relinquished to secular justice. For this cause, the judges of the law, that is to say my lord Louis of Luxembourg, Archbishop of Rouen, and Brother Guillaume Duval, vicar of the Inquisitor of the faith, sent the said Brother Martin to the bailiff of Rouen, to warn him that the said Georges should not be dealt with as the Maid had been, who, without final sentence and definitive judgement, was consumed by the fire.\nItem, he says and deposes that the executioner, after the burning, at about four hours after nones, said that he had never so much feared to make the execution of any criminal as he had the burning of the Maid, for several causes: firstly, because of the great fame and renown of her; secondly, because of the cruel manner of binding and fastening her; for the English had caused a high scaffold of plaster to be made, and, as the said executor related, he could not well or easily despatch her nor reach her; at which he was sorely grieved, and had great compassion for the fashion and cruel manner in which she was put to death.\nItem, he deposes concerning her great and admirable contrition, repentance and continual confession, ever calling upon the name of Jesus and devoutly invoking the aid of the Saints of paradise, as Brother Isambert, who ever accompanied her to her passing and directed her in the way of salvation, has deposed above.\nBrother Guillaume Duval # The reverend father in God and religious person Brother Guillaume Duval, of the order and convent of the Friars Preachers of Saint-Jacques of Rouen, venerable doctor of theology, aged forty-five years or thereabouts, sworn and examined in the year and on the day aforesaid,\nDeposes that, while the trial of the said Joan was actually proceeding, he was present at one session with Isambert de la Pierre; and when they found no proper place to sit in the consistory, they went to sit in the middle of the table, near the Maid; and when she was interrogated and examined, the said Brother Isambert prompted her as to what she should say, by nudging her or making some other sign. That session being ended, he who speaks and Brother Isambert, together with Master Jean de la Fontaine, were deputed as judges to visit and counsel her that same day after dinner; who came together into the castle of Rouen to visit and admonish her; and there they found the Earl of Warwick, who in great despite and indignation assailed the said Brother Isambert with biting injuries and contumelious reproaches, saying to him: Why didst thou prompt that wretch this morning, making so many signs to her? By God’s death, villain, if I perceive that thou takest pains again to deliver her and prompt her for her advantage, I will have thee thrown into the Seine. Wherefore the two companions of the said Isambert fled for fear to their convent.\nAll these things he who speaks saw and heard, and nothing more, for he was not present at the trial.\nMaster Guillaume Manchon # The venerable and discreet person Master Guillaume Manchon, priest, aged fifty years or thereabouts, canon of the collegiate church of Notre-Dame of Les Andelys, curate of the parish church of Saint-Nicolas-le-Peinteur of Rouen, notary in the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, sworn and examined in the year of grace one thousand four hundred and forty-nine, on the fourth day of March, says and deposes that he was notary in the trial of the said Joan, from the beginning to the end, and with him Master Guillaume Colles, called Boisguillaume.\nItem, he says that in his judgement, both on the part of those who had the charge of conducting and managing the trial, that is to say my lord of Beauvais and the masters who were sent for to Paris for that cause, and also of the English at whose instance the trial was made, they proceeded more from hatred and contempt for the quarrel of the King of France than as though she had not borne his party, for the reasons which follow:\nAnd firstly, he says that one named Master Nicolas Loyseleur, who was a familiar of my lord of Beauvais and held the party of the English to the utmost (for formerly, when the King was before Chartres, he went to fetch the King of England to raise the siege), feigned that he was of the country of the said Maid, and by that means found a way to have access, speech and familiarity with her, telling her news of the country such as pleased her; and he asked to be her confessor; and what she told him in secret, he found means to bring to the hearing of the notaries.\nAnd in fact, at the beginning of the trial, the said notary and the said Boisguillaume, with witnesses, were secretly placed in a neighbouring chamber where there was a hole through which one could listen, so that they might report what she said or confessed to the said Loyseleur. And it seems to him that what the said Maid said or related familiarly to the said Loyseleur, he reported to the said notaries; and of this a memorandum was made in order to frame interrogatories in the trial, so as to find means of catching her craftily.\nItem, he says that when the trial was begun, Master Jean Lohier, a solemn Norman clerk, came to this city of Rouen, and what had been written of it was communicated to him by the said Bishop of Beauvais; which Lohier asked for a delay of two or three days to see it. To whom answer was made that at the afternoon sitting he should give his opinion, and to this he was constrained. And this Master Jean Lohier, when he had seen the trial, said that it was worth nothing for several causes. Firstly, because it had not the form of an ordinary trial. Item, it was conducted in a closed and shut place, where those assisting were not in full and pure liberty to speak their pure and full will. Item, that they treated in that matter the honour of the King of France, whose party she held, without calling him, or any who was on his behalf. Item, that neither libel nor articles had been delivered; and so the woman had no counsel, she who was a simple girl, to answer so many masters and doctors, and in great matters, especially those which touch her revelations, as she said. And for this it seemed to him that the trial was not valid. At which things my lord of Beauvais was greatly indignant against the said Lohier; and although the said my lord of Beauvais told him to remain to see the trial conducted, the said Lohier answered that he would not remain. And straightway this my lord of Beauvais, then lodged in the house where Master Jean Bidault now dwells, near Saint-Nicolas-le-Peinteur, came to the masters, that is to say Master Jean Beaupère, Master Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midy, Pierre Morice, Thomas de Courcelles and Loyseleur, to whom he said: Here is Lohier who would give us fine interlocutories in our trial! He would call everything in question, and says it is worth nothing. If he were to be believed, everything would have to be begun again, and all that we have done would be worth nothing; reciting the causes for which the said Lohier would have it called in question; the said my lord of Beauvais saying further: One sees well on which foot he limps. By Saint John! we shall do nothing of it, but shall continue our trial as it was begun. And it was then the Saturday afternoon sitting, in Lent; and the next morning, he who speaks talked with the said Lohier in the church of Notre-Dame of Rouen, and asked him what he thought of the said trial and of the said Joan; who answered him: You see the manner in which they proceed. They will take her if they can by her words, that is, in the assertions where she says I know for certain touching the apparitions; but if she said it seems to me, for those words I know for certain, it is my opinion that there is no man who could condemn her. It seems that they proceed more from hatred than otherwise; and for this cause I will keep myself here no longer, for I will be here no more. And in fact he remained ever afterwards in the court of Rome, and died there as Dean of the Rota (1).\nItem, he says that at the beginning of the trial, for five or six sittings, because he who speaks set down in writing the answers and excuses of the said Maid, both together and at times the judges wished to constrain him, speaking in Latin, to put them in other terms, altering the meaning of her words, and in other manners than he who speaks understood them: two men were placed by order of my lord of Beauvais at a window near the place where the judges were; and there was a serge-cloth passing before the said window so that they should not be seen. Which two men wrote and reported what he did in the charge against the said Joan, suppressing her excuses, and it seemed to him that it was the said Loyseleur; and after the sitting, when collation was made in the afternoon of what they had written, the two others reported in another manner and set down no excuses; whereat the said my lord of Beauvais was greatly angered against him who speaks. And in the places where it is written in the trial (2) Nota, that was where there had been controversy, and new interrogatories had to be begun upon it; and it was found that what was written by him who speaks was true.\nItem, he says that in writing the said trial, this deponent was several times rebuked by my lord of Beauvais and by the said masters, who wished to constrain him to write according to their fancy and against her meaning. And when there was something that did not please them, they forbade him to write it, saying that it did not serve the trial; but the said deponent never wrote save according to his understanding and conscience.\nItem, he says that Master Jean de la Fontaine, from the beginning of the trial until the week after Easter 1431, was lieutenant of my lord of Beauvais in interrogating her in the absence of the said bishop, who nevertheless was always present with the said bishop in the conduct of the trial. And when it came to the point that the said Maid was strongly urged to submit herself to the Church by this de la Fontaine and by Brothers Isambert de la Pierre and Martin Ladvenu, by whom she was warned that she ought to believe and hold that they were our holy father the Pope and those who preside in the Church militant, and that she ought to make no doubt of submitting herself to our holy father the Pope and to the holy council, for there were as many of her party as of the other, several notable clerks, and that if she did not so do she would put herself in great danger; and the next day, having been thus warned, she said that she would willingly submit to our holy father the Pope and to the sacred council. And when my lord of Beauvais heard these words, he asked who had been to speak with her the day before, and sent for the English guard of the said Maid, of whom he asked who had spoken with her; which guard answered that it had been the said de la Fontaine, his lieutenant, and the two friars; and for this, in the absence of the said de la Fontaine and the friars, the said bishop was most grievously angered against Master Jean Magistri, vicar of the Inquisitor, threatening them most grievously that he would do them harm. And when the said de la Fontaine had knowledge of this, and that he was threatened for this cause, he departed from this city of Rouen and returned thither no more; and as for the two friars, had it not been for the said Magistri, who excused them and pleaded for them, saying that if harm were done them he would never come to the trial again, they would have been in peril of death. And from thenceforth it was forbidden by my lord of Warwick that any should go in to the said Maid, save my lord of Beauvais or by his leave, and whenever it should please the said bishop to go to her; but the said vicar had no entry to her without him.\nItem, he says that at the departure of the preaching at Saint-Ouen, after the abjuration of the said Maid, because Loyseleur said to her: Joan, you have done a good day’s work, if it please God, and have saved your soul, she asked: Now then, among you people of the Church, take me to your prisons, and let me no longer be in the hand of these English. Whereupon my lord of Beauvais answered: Take her back where you found her. Wherefore she was taken back to the castle whence she had come. And on the following Sunday, which was Trinity day, the masters, notaries and others who were engaged in the trial were sent for, and it was told them that she had resumed her man’s dress and had relapsed; and when they came to the castle, in the absence of the said my lord of Beauvais, there fell upon them eighty or a hundred English or thereabouts, who addressed them in the court of the said castle, telling them that among them churchmen were all false, arrant traitors and false counsellors; wherefore with great pain could they escape and get out of the castle, and did nothing that day. And the next day he who speaks was sent for, who answered that he would not go unless he had surety, for the fear he had had the day before; and he would not have returned thither had it not been for one of the men of my lord of Warwick, who was sent to him for surety. Thus he returned and was at the continuation of the trial until the end, except that he was not present at a certain examination of people who spoke with her apart, as private persons; nevertheless my lord of Beauvais wished to constrain him to sign it; which thing he would not do.\nItem, he says that he saw the said Joan brought to the scaffold, and there were about her some seven or eight hundred men of war bearing swords and staves, so that there was no man hardy enough to speak to her, except Brother Martin Ladvenu and Master Jean Massieu. And he says that patiently she heard the sermon throughout, afterwards made her thanksgiving, her prayers and lamentations most notably and devoutly, so that the judges, prelates, and all the others present were provoked to great weeping and tears, to see her make her pitiable regrets and sorrowful complaints. And the said deponent says that he never wept so much for anything that befell him, and that for a month after he could not well be appeased. Wherefore with a part of the money he had had from the trial he bought a little missal, which he has still, so that he might have cause to pray for her. And as regards her final penitence, he never saw a greater sign in a Christian.\nItem, he says that he remembers that at the preaching made at Saint-Ouen by Master Guillaume Erard, among other words the following was said and uttered by the said Erard: Ah, noble house of France, which hast always been the protectress of the faith, hast thou been so abused as to cleave to a heretic and schismatic! It is great pity. To which the said Maid made answer, which the said deponent does not recall, save that she gave great praise to her King, saying that he was the best and wisest Christian in the world. Wherefore it was commanded to the said Massieu, by the said Erard and by my lord of Beauvais: Make her hold her peace.\n(1) The Rota, the tribunal where appeals brought to Rome were judged.\n(2) That is to say, upon Guillaume Manchon’s minute.\nMaster Jean Massieu # Master Jean Massieu, priest, curate of one of the portions of the parish church of Saint-Candre of Rouen, formerly Dean of the Christianity of Rouen, aged fifty years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on the fifth day of March;\nSays that he was at the trial of the said Joan every time she was presented at the judgement before the judges and clerks; and by reason of his office he was deputed clerk of Master Jean Bénédicité (1), promoter in the cause, to cite the said Joan and all others who were to be summoned in that cause. And it seems to the said deponent, by reason of what he saw, that they proceeded out of hatred, out of favour, and in abasement of the honour of the King of France whom she served, out of vengeance and in order to make her die, and not according to reason and the honour of God and of the Catholic faith. Moved to say this, for when my lord of Beauvais, who was judge in the cause, accompanied by six clerks, that is to say Beaupère, Midy, Morisse, Touraine, Courcelles and Feuillet, or some other in his place, first interrogated her, before she had given her answer to one, another of those present interposed another question; whereby she was often hurried and troubled in her answers. And also, as the said deponent several times brought the said Joan from the place of the prison to the place of the court, passing before the chapel of the castle, and this deponent suffered, at the request of the said Joan, that in passing she might make her prayer: wherefore this deponent was several times rebuked for it by the said Bénédicité, promoter of the said cause, saying to him: Truant, who makes thee so hardy as to let that excommunicated whore approach the Church without licence? I will have thee put in such a tower that thou shalt see neither moon nor sun for a month, if thou dost it again. And when the said promoter perceived that the said deponent did not obey him in this, this Bénédicité placed himself several times in front of the chapel door, between the said deponent and Joan, to prevent her making her prayer before the said chapel; and the said Joan expressly asked: Is the body of Jesus Christ here? Moved also to this, for when he brought her back to the prison from before the judges, on the fourth or fifth day, a priest called Master Eustache Turquetil questioned the said deponent, saying to him: What thinkest thou of her answers? will she be burned? what will it be? To whom the said deponent answered: Until now I have seen in her only good and honour; but I know not what she will be at the end; God knoweth it. Which answer was reported by the said priest to the people of the King, and it was related that the said deponent was not good for the King; and on that occasion he was sent for in the afternoon by the said my lord of Beauvais, judge, who spoke to him of the said things, telling him to beware of offending, or he would make him drink once more than was reasonable. And it seems to him that, had it not been for the notary Manchon who excused him, he would never have escaped from it.\nItem, he says that when she was taken to Saint-Ouen to be preached to by Master Guillaume Erard, during the preaching, about the middle of the sermon, after the said Joan had been much blamed by the words of the said preacher, he began to cry out in a loud voice, saying: Ah! France, thou art well abused, thou who hast always been the most Christian chamber; and Charles, who calls himself king and governor thereof, has adhered like a heretic and schismatic (such is he) to the words and deeds of a worthless woman, defamed and full of all dishonour; and not he only, but all the clergy of his obedience and lordship, by whom she has been examined and not reproved, as she has said. And of the said king he repeated those words two or three times; and then, addressing himself to the said Joan, he said in effect, raising his finger: It is to thee, Joan, that I speak, and I tell thee that thy king is a heretic and a schismatic. To which she answered: By my faith, sir, saving your reverence, for I dare well tell you and swear, upon pain of my life, that he is the noblest Christian of all Christians, and the one who best loves the faith and the Church, and is not such as you say. And then the said preacher said to him who speaks: Make her hold her peace.\nItem, he says that the said Joan never had any counsel; and he remembers well that the said Loyseleur was once appointed to counsel her, who was contrary to her, rather to deceive her than to guide her.\nItem, he says that the said Erard, at the end of the preaching, read a schedule containing the articles of which he caused her to abjure and revoke. To which the said Joan answered him that she did not understand at all what it was to abjure, and that upon this she asked for counsel. And then it was said by the said Erard to him who speaks that he should counsel her thereon. And then, after excuse for so doing, he told her that it was to say that if she went against any of the said articles she would be burned; but he counselled her to refer herself to the universal Church as to whether she ought to abjure the said articles or not. Which thing she did, saying in a loud voice to the said Erard: I refer myself to the universal Church, whether I ought to abjure them or not. To which answer was made by the said Erard: Thou shalt abjure them presently, or thou shalt be burned. And in fact, before she left the place, she abjured them, and made a cross with a pen that the said deponent gave her.\nItem, he who speaks says that, at the departure of the said sermon, the said Joan remarked that she required to be taken to the prisons of the Church, and that it was right that she should be put in the prisons of the Church, since the Church condemned her. Which thing was requested of the Bishop of Beauvais by some of those present, whose names he knows not. To which the said bishop answered: Take her to the castle whence she came. And so it was done. And that day after dinner, in the presence of the council of the Church, she put off the man’s dress and took woman’s dress, as had been ordered her. And it was then the Thursday or Friday after Pentecost, and the man’s dress was put in a sack in the same room where she was kept prisoner, and she remained under guard in that place in the hands of five Englishmen, of whom three remained by night in the room and two outside, at the door of the said room. And he who speaks knows for certain that by night she lay fettered by the legs with two pairs of iron chains, and fastened most straitly with a chain passing through the foot of her bed, attached to a great piece of wood five or six feet in length and closing with a key; whereby she could not move from the place. And when the following Sunday morning came, which was Trinity day, and she was to rise, as she related and told to him who speaks, she asked those English her guards: Unfetter me, and I will rise. And then one of those English took from her her woman’s garments that she had upon her, and they emptied the sack in which was the man’s dress, and cast the said dress upon her, saying to her: Arise; and they hid the woman’s dress in the said sack. And as she said, she dressed herself in the man’s dress they had given her, saying: Sirs, you know that it is forbidden me; without fail, I will not take it. And nevertheless they would give her no other, so that in this strife she remained until the hour of midday; and finally, for bodily necessity, she was constrained to go out and take the said dress; and after she had returned, they would not give her any other, notwithstanding whatever supplication or request she made of them.\nAsked on what day she told them what he deposes concerning her account: he says it was the following Tuesday before dinner, on which day the promoter departed to go with my lord of Warwick, and he who speaks remained alone with her. And straightway he asked the said Joan why she had resumed the said man’s dress; and she told and answered him what is said above.\nAsked if he was on the said Sunday, Trinity day, at the castle after dinner with the counsellors and churchmen who had been sent for to see how she had resumed man’s dress: he says no, but he met them near the castle, much bewildered and frightened, and they said that most furiously they had been driven back by the English with axes and swords, and called traitors, and many other injuries.\nItem, he says that on the following Wednesday, the day she was condemned, and before she left the castle, the body of Jesus Christ was brought to her irreverently, without stole and light, whereat Brother Martin, who had confessed her, was ill content; and for this one was sent back to fetch a stole and a light, and thus Brother Martin administered it to her. And this done, she was led to the Old Market, and beside her were the said Brother Martin and he who speaks, accompanied by more than eight hundred (1) men of war having axes and swords. And she being at the Old Market, after the sermon, in which she had great constancy and heard it most peaceably, showing great signs and evidences and clear appearances of her contrition, penitence and fervour of faith, both by the piteous and devout lamentations and invocations of the blessed Trinity, and of the blessed glorious Virgin Mary, and of all the blessed Saints of paradise, expressly naming several of those Saints; in which devotions, lamentations and true confession of the faith, asking also of all manner of people of whatsoever condition or estate they might be, both of her party and of the other, mercy most humbly, and asking that they would deign to pray for her, forgiving them the evil they had done her, she persevered and continued for a very long space of time, about half an hour, and until the end. Whereat the judges present, and even several English, were provoked to great tears and weeping, and in fact wept most bitterly; and some and several of those same English acknowledged and confessed the name of God, seeing so notable an end, and were joyful to have been at the end, saying that she had been a good woman. And when she was relinquished by the Church, he who speaks was still with her; and with great devotion she asked to have the cross; and hearing this an Englishman who was there present made her a little one of wood from the end of a staff and gave it her; and devoutly she received it and kissed it, making piteous lamentations and acknowledgements to God our redeemer who had suffered on the cross for our redemption; of which cross she had the sign and representation, and she put that cross in her bosom, between her flesh and her garments. And moreover she humbly asked him who speaks that he would procure her the cross of the church, so that she might continually see it until death. And he who speaks brought it about that the clerk of the parish of Saint-Sauveur brought it to her; which being brought, she embraced it most straitly and long, and held it until she was bound to the stake. While she made the said devotions and piteous lamentations, she was much hurried by the English, and especially by some of their captains, to be given up into their hands so that she might sooner be put to death, saying to him who speaks, who to his understanding was comforting her on the scaffold: What, priest, wilt thou make us dine here? And straightway, without any form or sign of judgement, they sent her to the fire, saying to the master of the work: Do thine office. And thus she was led and bound, and continuing her devout praises and lamentations towards God and his Saints, at the last word, in passing, she cried with a loud voice: Jesus!\n(1) There is in an interlineation thousand in a fairly similar hand but in another ink. This must be an error; there cannot have been eight thousand men, and another witness seems to indicate one hundred and twenty instead of eight hundred, which is still more likely. (Note of M. de l’Averdy.)\nMaster Jean Beaupère # The venerable and circumspect person Master Jean Beaupère, master in theology, canon of Rouen, aged seventy years or thereabouts.\nSays that as regards the apparitions of which he makes mention in the trial of the said Joan, he has had and has a greater conjecture that the said apparitions were rather of natural cause and human intention than of supernatural cause; nevertheless on this he refers himself principally to the trial.\nItem, he says that before she was taken to Saint-Ouen to be preached to, in the morning, he who speaks entered alone into the prison of the said Joan by leave, and warned her that she would soon be taken to the scaffold to be preached to, telling her that if she were a good Christian, she would say at the said scaffold that all her deeds and words she placed in the ordinance of our mother Holy Church, and especially of the ecclesiastical judges. Who answered that so she would do. And so she said it at the said scaffold, being thereto required by Master Nicolas Midy; and this being seen and considered for that time, she was sent back after her abjuration, although by some English it was cast as a reproach upon the Bishop of Beauvais and upon those of Paris that they favoured the errors of the said Joan.\nItem, he says that after this abjuration, and when she had taken her woman’s dress which she received in the said prison, on the Friday or Saturday following it was reported to the said judges that the said Joan somewhat repented of having left the man’s dress and taken the woman’s dress. And for this my lord of Beauvais, judge, sent him who speaks and Master Nicolas Midy, in hope of speaking to the said Joan, to induce and admonish her to persevere in and continue the good purpose she had had on the scaffold, and to take heed that she did not relapse; but they could not find him who had the key of the prison; and while they were waiting for the warder of the said prison, threatening words were spoken to them by some English who were in the court of the said castle, as the said Midy related to him who speaks, namely that whoever would throw them both into the river would be well employed. Wherefore, those words heard, they returned, and on the bridge of the said castle the said Midy heard, as he related to him who speaks, like words or near to them uttered by other English; whereby the aforesaid were terrified, and came away without speaking to the said Joan.\nItem, he says that, as to the innocence of the said Joan, she was very subtle with the subtlety belonging to a woman, as it seemed to him; and he never knew by any words of hers that she was corrupted in body.\nItem, as regards her final penitence, he can say nothing of it; for on the Monday after the abjuration he departed from Rouen to go to Basel on behalf of the University of Paris; and she was condemned on the following Wednesday; wherefore he had no news of her condemnation until he heard it spoken of at Lille in Flanders.\nII. Consultation of Lord Théodoric, Auditor of the Rota in the Roman Curia (1) # Discussion on the twelve articles extracted from the confessions of Joan # Concerning the articles elicited from the confessions of Joan, commonly called the Maid, and sent by the judges to be consulted upon, it is clear enough to one who runs through the proceedings and the confessions of the said Joan that they are perhaps composed with too little rectitude and sincerity. For everything has been collected which seemed to weigh against the said Joan; which, when compared with her other confessions, do not appear so unreasonable, and can be saved by a comparison of all her sayings. And if this be shown, it will sufficiently appear that the consultants, following the example of the deed, were deceived in giving their counsel.\nFirst it is said that the said Joan, at about the age of thirteen, saw with bodily eyes and in bodily effigy Saint Michael and a multitude of angels, and the holy virgins Catherine and Margaret. As to this, I think it is doubtful to no one that angels have often appeared to men in bodily forms, and can so appear. For whether in those bodily apparitions some creature is created, or is formed for that work only — that is, whether the angels who are sent assume a bodily form from corporeal creation for the use of ministry, or turn and change their own body, which is not subject to them [sic: which they do not control], into whatever forms they will, suited and apt for their actions (of which there is a question in Augustine, book III de Trinitate) — I do not care: it is enough that angels, even good ones, appear to men in bodily shapes. Nevertheless, that these were good spirits we may conjecture from other things said by the said Joan. Firstly from this, that at that age of thirteen years — an age tender, next to purity and simplicity — it may sufficiently be presumed that to a virgin, incorrupt and not yet stained by sins, good angels appeared; since evil spirits glide into the minds of those and lead them into error whom they find subject to sins.\nAnother presumption, from this that she says at her first vision Saint Michael struck terror into her, as she, examined, testifies (2). She testifies the same again, saying that at the first and second she was terrified, nor did she believe, until the angel came and comforted her. Which is proved by the example of the angel announcing to Mary the incarnation of the Saviour, who at his first coming terrified and troubled the fearful Virgin; afterwards he comforts the fearful one, confirms the doubting, and calling her familiarly by name benignly persuades her: Fear not. This striking-in of dread is shown also from the vision of Ezekiel saying: And I saw, and I fell upon my face (Ezekiel, chapter 2). And John in the Apocalypse, first chapter: And when I had seen, I fell at his feet as one dead, etc.\nAnother presumption arises from the desire left in her and the ardour of soul to follow him. For she says that the angel departing struck into her no terror nor trembling, but a sorrow at his going mingled with a certain joy. She says also that she wept because, beset by the prison of the body, she could not follow him. We read the like in the Lives of the Fathers, and that it befell holy men in apparitions. These things are had there.\nAnother presumption arises from the excellent and salutary warnings of the angel himself and of the virgins which she says appeared to her: first from this, that she says the blessed Catherine and Margaret exhorted her to confess — which an evil spirit would by no means do, who delights in the stubbornness of sin and would ever wish his snares to lie hid; that she was exhorted to frequent the Church, which the devil abhors; that she should govern herself well; item, that she should keep her virginity, which she says she promised to them as to messengers from God — than which exhortation none can be holier or better; item, that the angel announced to her the misery and calamity of France, exhorting her to come into France and succour the oppressed and snatch the kingdom from tyranny, God willing to choose the weak things of the world to confound the strong. For she asserts that it was revealed to her by the voices that she should have painted upon her banner the King of heaven, and then freely used it.\nAnother presumption arises from this, that she says those images appeared to her girt about with light and brightness; which is not to be presumed of the angels of darkness.\nAnother presumption arises from this, that the said Joan detested the sorceries of those women who are said to flit through the air, of whose number she says she never was: whence it appears that she knew what difference there is between revelations and diabolical illusions. Item, from this that she says of a certain illusion of a certain Catherine, who said that there appeared to her a certain woman clad in white garments, which the said Joan mocks and detests — it sufficiently appears that she knew how to discern and judge between revelations and feigned illusions.\nItem, there is another presumption from this, that she says she did not believe, but that they appeared to her three times before she believed: whence it appears that she did not act rashly and without deliberation.\nItem, there is a great presumption, because she says, being questioned, that very often in those apparitions she signed herself with the sign of the cross, albeit sometimes she did not do so, as appears from her answer to the archdeacon’s admonition. But if they had been demons, they would not have suffered the sign of the Cross; for thus we read in the holy Fathers that demons, recognised and rebuked in their illusions, were put to flight. Item, from this that she testifies many times in the proceedings that diligent inquisition was made upon those apparitions at Poitiers by clerks and lettered men, and that by them she was rebuked before the matter was known; but afterwards they approved her deeds. Nor is it to be presumed that they erred wholly from the way.\nItem, there is a presumption from the end and intention of the said Joan, and the assiduous petition she made to those Saints appearing to her, from whom she asserts she never asked anything else than the salvation of her soul; as appears in several places. Which enchanters and sorcerous women and invokers of demons do not do, who are impelled either by greed, or are stirred by vengeance and lust, and ask other things of demons, as is clear from the everyday proceedings held against such.\nItem, there is a great presumption from this, that being led to execution, at the very point of death, although she had confessed and received the Eucharist, nevertheless she stood fast, and persevered unto the end, saying that it was true that she had really had those voices and apparitions; as appears from the attestations placed at the end of the proceedings. Nor is it to be thought that she, with execution hanging over her, after confession and reception of the Lord’s body — which, as the witnesses assert, she received with many tears and great devotion — was unmindful of her salvation, or wished to lie at the cost of the destruction of body and soul.\nThis same is helped by the good and religious opinion of the said Joan in this, that she says she does not believe, if she were in mortal sin, that she was visited by that voice and the said holy virgins; which she professed at the third examination, where she also says that in the time of fasting, and when the said Joan had fasted, she more frequently heard the voices and had the apparitions; as on that day on which she says she had not eaten from midday of the day before until that hour, on which day she had thrice heard the voices. Whence it is clear that the said Joan understood that angels and saints do not appear to men who are sinners and to a man placed in mortal sin, and that in time of fasting and prayer these apparitions are more frequent. Nor indeed, if anyone says that holy virgins appear to him and even mingle familiar speech with him, or that he is visited by angels, ought he straightway to be judged insane or to fall under suspicion of heresy. Otherwise anyone will condemn also the most blessed Martin, who is known to have said at times: Agnes, Thecla and Mary have been with me. And he related the countenance and garb of each; nor only on one day, but frequently he confessed that he was visited by them. He did not deny either that the apostles Peter and Paul were seen by him often. And yet none will be so sacrilegious as to suppose that Martin lied. The same also often saw angels familiarly, so that they conversed with him in joint discourse. Yet he knew the snares of demons: for when they came he not only recognised them but straightway rebuked them; Mercury and Jupiter he said were brutish and dull. That these things are most true testifies the most eloquent and blessed Sulpitius Severus, in the second book of his Life. Yet he relates that these things were incredible even to many established in his own monastery, so that in such matters human frailty can scarce afford belief to credulity.\nThe good and sincere credulity of the said Joan also excuses her, supposing the spirits had been deceitful; since she says she venerated those Saints as beings who were in heaven, and for that reason caused masses to be celebrated in their honour; and because she gave and adorned images of those Saints existing in churches with garlands and candles; she also offered gifts to priests in their honour. Wherefore she does not seem blameworthy if she venerated them whom she believed truly to be those who are worshipped by the faithful with due veneration: whence also the said Joan says she never diligently asked anything else of those Saints than the salvation of her soul; which is a holy petition.\nTo that part of the first article in which it is said that the said Saints spoke with her beneath the tree called the Beech, and near the Fountain — of which tree and fountain rumour bears it that fairy Ladies resort there — as to what is said of the divulged rumour, it is to be observed that this rumour is not established in the proceedings by any authentic documents, since the informations, even those which were made in the presence of the said Joan by decree and counsel of those assisting the Bishop of Beauvais, are not inserted in the proceedings. And of this tree and fountain the said Joan, questioned in the proceedings, seems to relate the superstitions of certain persons saying that the fever-stricken, having drunk the water of that fountain, are set free; but she says she knows it not, and that she did not see there Fates or fatal Ladies, although sometimes with the flock and other girls she passed by those trees in play and in wandering. She says also that she did not believe in a certain Oak Wood near her father’s house, and scorned, but did not believe, those who said there was a prophecy of a fated maiden in that wood. All this at the third session. It is true that once only, in a certain place, wearied by many importunate questionings, she seems to say she had heard the voice of the Saints, but then did not understand what they said: whence it appears that the articles about the tree ought not to have been so heavily weighed. And it is false what is subjoined in the article, namely that in that place she venerated the said Saints or there invoked them; for this does not appear from the proceedings, and it was falsely added.\nThe following part of the article seems false and calumnious in several points, in that it says that the said Joan was commanded by the voices to go to a certain secular prince, and that, by the work and labours of that woman, the said prince would recover great temporal dominion and worldly honour: whence the deceit and fraud of those framing the article is marked. For they keep silence that the said Joan often professed that the miseries and calamities of the realm of France had been expounded to her by God’s command, saying that He had at times permitted them to be afflicted for their sins. She was sent indeed to the king, not for the acquiring of temporal dominion, but for the recovery of a realm oppressed by tyranny; and not for worldly honour, which savours of pride, but for the claiming back of his own, for which a just war is waged by the sentence of divine law. In which matter the words of Joan are to be noted, full of humility, trusting nothing in her works and labours, but referring all to God. For she asserts in several places that, admonished by the voices to come into France, she said: I am a poor girl who knows not war. And elsewhere, questioned why God would rather do this through her than through another, she answered that it had so pleased the divine goodness to do it through a simple maiden for the repelling of the king’s adversaries. Elsewhere she says of the banner, on which was depicted the image of the King of heaven containing the world, that she had no hope in the banner, nor thought her banner more fortunate than others, but that all hope of victory and help was in God and from God. Whence is perceived the humility of the said Joan, not rashly arrogating to herself, but in the manner also of the prophets who were sent, professing her weakness and frailty. The ineffable divine Providence is also proven, which, to show that it had permitted the French at times to be afflicted for their sins, and, pitying at last the calamity of the realm, willed marvellously by a maiden to snatch the kingdom from servitude — not by the strength of an army, lest according to the prophet the French should say: Our own high hand, and not the Lord, hath done all these things — chose, as the Apostle says, the weak things of the world to confound the strong.\nIt is subjoined in that article that the said Saints, whom she says appeared to her, commanded her to assume man’s dress, and that she would rather die than abandon it. As to this which is said, that it was commanded her by those Saints, it is nowhere established. Nay rather, the said Joan being often asked whether the voices had commanded her this, said that she would not lay a burden upon a living man in that, and never confessed that the voices had expressly commanded it. This appears in the examination made in the prison on the twelfth day of March, where, questioned about the dress, she asserts that she assumed it of her own accord, not at the request of anyone. And, asked whether by command of the voices, she says that whatever good she had done, she had done by their command; but of the dress she would answer at another time. It is true that, questioned on another occasion, she said this she had not done\n(1) The author of this Memoir was one of the greatest canonists of the fifteenth century. He is called in the manuscripts Theodoricus, but his real name was Theodorus de Leliis. Born of a noble family of Teramo, he held the bench of the Rota at twenty-five years of age. Pius II, who called him his harp on account of his eloquence, made him Bishop of Feltre in 1462; in 1465 he was transferred to the see of Treviso. After having written numerous treatises against the Pragmatic Sanction, after having been under three popes the light of the Roman tribunal, after having caused George Podiebrad to abjure, and having filled the most important missions in France, Burgundy and Germany, he died at the age of thirty-eight, of grief, it is said, at having promised Paul II that he would not ask him for the cardinal’s hat for a long while. (Ughelli, Italia sacra, vol. V, cols. 375 and 505.)\n(2) In the manuscripts, folio xxij. The Roman jurist refers to the folios of the engrossment of the trial which he had in his hands. To facilitate research, we shall replace his references by references to the corresponding pages of our first volume. [The page numbers cited throughout this consultation refer to that volume.]\nby human counsel, and that she had taken the garment or done anything else save by divine command. And when she was asked whether she thought that command was lawful, she answered prudently that whatever is done by the command of God, she thinks is lawfully done. In the fourth examination, and elsewhere, she says of the wearing of the dress that, since she did it by the command of God and in his service, she did not believe she did ill; but when it should please God to command it, she would lay it aside at once. Elsewhere she seems to have said that the time had not yet come for putting off the dress, as appears in the answer to the fifteenth article. From which and from other places it appears that the said Joan assumed the dress for some certain reason and divinely-given oracle. On the seventeenth of March she says that, as for the man’s dress, she would not take it off yet until it pleased our Lord. And more expressly she says: When I shall have done that for which I am sent on the part of God, I will take woman’s dress. In the admonition made by the archdeacon, she asserted that it was not for any superstition or unlawful adornment, but by reason of convenience and the fitness of the time; and the cause was the preservation of her modesty among men; for she did not think she could otherwise abide in the press among armed men safely or decently. But if the cause of modesty made her do it, lest men should burn with desire for her, it does not seem damnable, as we read of the blessed virgin Marina, who lived perpetually in man’s dress in a monastery. For she could not otherwise be among men and armed soldiers, nor fight with her own hand. The same reason existed for retaining the dress in prison, since she was committed to men, and indeed to wanton ones, to be guarded: for she was committed to be guarded by a young squire of the king’s, a lone virgin and maid. Nay, what is more, it is proved by the informations had at Rouen (1) that the said Joan sometimes complained that certain impious and wicked men had attempted to do her violence; and that this was the cause of stubbornly retaining man’s dress in prison, the said Joan declared at the end; since, the man’s dress once put off after the abjuration and afterwards resumed, she said she had taken it because that dress was more decent among men than a woman’s, since she was in the guard of men, bound with iron fetters; and that if an honest and gracious prison were given her, she would obey the Church, as appears near the end of the proceedings. And that this was her cause and her intent, many of her sayings in various places show. For once she said: Give me a woman’s garment, and let me go. For she knew that in prison she could not remain without peril to her modesty. And lest anyone think she had been forgetful of womanly honour, let him see her pious prayers, in which among other things she asked that, if she must be brought to judgement and stripped, she requested of grace of the churchmen that she might have a long woman’s chemise and a head-covering. And whatever be said that she chose not to hear Mass and not to receive the Eucharist rather than cast off the dress, it always seems to have been her intent that she was content to hear the divine offices in woman’s dress. And so at another time she most insistently asked, saying: Deliver to me a long garment down to the ground without a train, and give it me to go to Mass, and then I will resume the dress I have, seeing, as I have said, that she could not abide in the prison in the other dress. At another time she asked for a gown after the fashion of a burgher’s daughter and a woman’s hood, and I will take it for the hearing of Mass. At another time she said: Certify to me the hearing of Mass, if I must take woman’s dress. And at another time, after all the confessions, when she was admonished by a certain archdeacon, she declared what her intent had been, saying that as for the dress she had indeed been willing to assume a long tunic and a woman’s hood for going to church and receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist, as she answered elsewhere, provided that straightway after she would lay aside that dress and resume the other: whence it is clear that it is false that she chose not to receive communion on the appointed day; for also in another place, when, wasted by long imprisonment and cruelly tortured by fetters, she was grievously ill, seeing death to be imminent for her, she piously besought the judges, saying: It seems to me that I am in great danger of death, by reason of the infirmity I suffer; and if it be that God wills to do his pleasure of me, I require you that I may have confession and the sacrament of the Eucharist, and that I be buried in a holy place. And elsewhere, in the first session, she asked of grace that she might hear Mass before being brought to judgement; which seems to have been impiously denied her. From which answers she seems to imply that the wearing of man’s dress, for the better preservation of her modesty, she engaging herself in wars, and in prison moreover because of the lustful and wanton youths to whom she was committed, was lawful; and that her will therein was not perpetual or superstitious. Moreover, the wearing of man’s dress then seems condemned by the canons when it is done for superstition, for indecorous adornment, without certain counsel, without necessity.\nAnother part of the article, accusing her that a girl of seventeen years departed without consulting her parents and mingled with bands of armed men day and night, keeping no woman with her, in part fraudulently suppresses the truth and in part maliciously expresses what is false. For it is silent as to what the said Joan said in excuse of this: that she did not therefore disclose it to her parents lest she afflict them with grief; that she had been constrained by the divine command, which must be obeyed rather than parents, and that she straightway wrote to her parents and obtained their pardon; item, the obedience which in all other things she had ever rendered to her parents. The remaining clause is false, since, although she moved among armed men, as was necessary since she was sent for that purpose and led an army, she says nevertheless that in her chamber she was wont to have one or two women with her, and if she could not have them, she lay armed and did not disrobe.\nAs for what is subjoined, that she asserts she was sent by God of heaven — because it is thereupon inquired by what sign and testimony this ought to have been taught to her — it will be spoken of below, where it falls better.\nWhat follows, that she would not submit herself concerning the aforesaid to the determination of anyone save God alone — since on this a special article is made, which is the last in order — will be spoken of with that; in which many things will be shown to be false, and many fraudulently suppressed from the sayings of the said Joan.\nAnd as to her speaking of the certitude of her salvation, since she did not utter it so harshly nor unreasonably, but it seems rightly interpreted, it will be spoken of in its own special article below.\nThe second article concerns the sign given to the King of the French, namely the angel who brought the crown to the King of France and showed him reverence. Concerning which article several things are to be noted. First, that the said Joan often protested that of the things which touch the king she would say nothing, or would not speak the truth; and although she was urged with many words and threats by the Bishop of Beauvais simply to swear to tell the truth, she sometimes said: You might well ask me such a thing that I would answer you the truth, and of others I would not answer; and with this protestation she swore in the first session. And elsewhere she answered: You might ask me such things as I would not tell you; and again: It may be that of many things which you will ask me I would not tell you the truth, as appears in the third session held on 24 February. It appears also from the proceedings that she often repelled many interrogatories as not pertaining to the process, and that they entangled her with various questions, as, of the angelic nature, who was the true pope, and many suchlike. The bishop often threatened that she should swear simply, else she would be held convicted of the crime; yet she would never swear simply. Sometimes also she expressly protested that, concerning the things touching her king, she would not tell the truth. Sometimes she said: I have sworn not to tell certain things, and you ought not to urge me to perjury. From which denunciations and protestations it seems that if ever the said Joan, wearied by manifold interrogation and almost compelled (of which she also sometimes complained), said anything which may seem to abhor from the truth, she did it to satisfy the importunity of those asking, and is to be excused from perjury. Item, it is to be observed that if we are willing to weigh all the sayings of the said Joan and to discuss the sense of her words by subtle inquiry, we shall perhaps find that the said Joan said nothing absurd in this, but spoke mystically and in figure: which at the end she openly declared. For in a certain place, questioned about the crown, she seems to have said that that crown was not wrought and made by hand, because she says that crown was sent on the part of God, and that there is no goldsmith in the world who could have made one so beautiful and so rich, and that it was of good odour if it be well kept. From which words she seems to have understood the crown sent on the part of God, that is, the recovery of the realm and the coronation to be made at Reims, which was of good odour if it were preserved with the fruit of good work and justice. And whereas she said that it was brought to the king, she at the end, with execution imminent, not revoking her sayings, as some falsely calumniate, but interpreting them, said that she herself was the angel who brought it: which well agrees; for since she professes herself sent on the part of God, she may therefore be called by the name of angel; since angel is said as it were sent, and is the name of an office, not of the angelic nature or dignity, according to the doctors; and this appears by that word of the prophet Malachi, second chapter: The lips of the priest keep knowledge and they seek the law from his mouth, because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts — angel, that is, messenger. And she means this in a certain other place, where she says that many churchmen and others saw her who did not see the angel, at the time when the crown was brought. This she says on the thirteenth of March. And then that agrees well which she said of the crown which was given to the Archbishop of Reims in the presence of some, since it was decreed by God that the Archbishop of Reims should crown the king, as the event of the matter declared. To the king therefore by God through an angel, that is through the message of the said Joan, was the crown sent, that is the promise of the realm was made; which crown was committed to the Archbishop of Reims, that is, it was committed to him by God that he should crown the king. And what she says of the multitude of attendant angels in certain places of the proceedings she seems to interpret, saying they were ministering spirits, perchance meaning those who are deputed to the guard of men: which she seems to have implied in sometimes saying that those angels cannot be seen by men; and that angels often move among men who nevertheless are not seen. Whence it is to be presumed that Joan then said something in a figure, according to which that show of reverence made to the king by herself well agrees: which a certain confession of the said Joan declares to us, saying that she had seen in the hand of a certain Scot an image of an armed maid, kneeling upon one knee and presenting a letter to her king; saying that she never saw or caused to be made any other image or picture in her likeness.\nTo the third article, in which it is asserted that Joan said she was certain of the goodness of the apparitions from their comfort and good doctrine alone, and that she believed as firmly as she believes that the Lord suffered for us: this article is false and surreptitious, because not from that alone, but from very many and great arguments and, as it were, certain tokens, she knew the truth of the revelations; by which she was so instructed that she asserted, when asked, that if the devil should transfigure himself into the form of a good angel, how she would know whether it were a good angel or a bad, answering that she would well know whether it were Saint Michael or some feigned thing. So she says, where she also says she did not believe rashly or suddenly, and that terror was struck into her; and very many other things concurred, which I have copiously pursued concerning the first part of the first article. For although the discernment and discretion of a true revelation from an illusion is difficult; nevertheless, as the most blessed Gregory says in book IV of the Dialogues, holy men, amid illusions and revelations themselves, discern the voices or images of visions by a certain inward savour, so that they know either what they receive from a good spirit or what they suffer from the deceiver. From which authority of Gregory it is clear that, from the dissimilarity of voices or images, holy and just men can not only believe but know what difference there is between a revelation and an illusion. Which the example of the blessed Martin confirms, of whom the most eloquent Sulpitius Severus writes that he had the devil so visible and subject to his eyes that, whether he contained himself in his own substance or had transformed himself into divers figures and spiritual wickednesses, and in whatsoever image he was seen by him, he recognised him; as when he recognised him appearing to him girt about with purple and crowned with a diadem. And many more examples of this kind can be brought forward from the lives of the holy Fathers. From which it is clear that her assertion is excusable and to be tolerated; and in this, that she compares the credence of those things to the credence of faith, she can be reproved rather for too vehement affirmation than for error of faith.\nThe fourth article has it that the said Joan says she is certain of certain future contingencies. In this it is to be observed that the said Joan does not seem to have spoken rashly in the prediction of future things; and the prediction itself of her prophecy seems in many things to afford us an efficacious sign of her mission. That she did not speak boastfully appears in the answer to the thirty-third article, in which this is imputed to her. She says that it is in the Lord and from the Lord to reveal future things to whom it pleases Him; and that what she says of the sword and other things future and to come, this is by revelation. So she says in the answer to the said article in the proceedings. Humbly therefore she referred it to the divine power, as if she had learned it from the Gospel: I give thee thanks, O Lord, because thou hast hidden these things from the prudent and wise, and hast revealed them unto little ones. But what things can be foretold more true than those which the said Joan foretold? First, that which she foretold for a sign to the King of the French, and which she asserts was revealed to her by the voices: that she would free the city of Orléans from the siege, and that he would be crowned at Reims, a city then still held by the English. Item, in this that she foretold to the English themselves many times, but most notably in the fifth session, where she said and denounced to the English that before seven years were passed they would lose a greater pledge than Orléans, and would have a greater loss than they had hitherto had in France: which indeed we all know was fulfilled in the recovery of the city of Paris. But what is greater and surer, and which we see fulfilled these days by divine gift and grant, she openly foretold that her king would gain or recover the realm of France; and this she knew as well as\n(1) These informations are those made in 1452 by Cardinal d’Estouteville, which will be found reported at length in chapter V of the proceedings.\nthat she was present in the judgement. This she says in the same session: which, before so many courses of time, no malign spirit could have divined, which from certain conjectures, subtlety of nature and experience, can foretell some future things, as the blessed Augustine treats in the book De natura daemonum. By this spirit therefore she revealed the sword hidden in the church of Saint Catherine, marked with three crosses; of which sword nevertheless she says, in the fourth session held 27 February, that she never caused any benediction to be made over that sword, nor made prayer that that sword should be more fortunate, nor had she more hope in that sword than in another; nay, when it was cast aside, she took a certain sword snatched from a Burgundian, which seemed to her fitter for waging war. Concerning the prediction of deliverance from prison, which seems to have failed her, it is to be noted that on this account the other prophecies ought not to be held suspect, since we read that this very thing befell the holy Prophets; since, as the blessed Gregory says in book II of the Dialogues, the spirits of the prophets are not always present to their minds; for the Scripture says of it that when it wills, it breathes. Hence it is that Nathan, in the Books of Kings, asked whether David could build the temple, at first consented and afterwards forbade it. Hence it is that Elisha, when the Shunammite bore a dead thing and hid the cause, said to the forbidding lad: Let her alone, for her soul is in bitterness, and the Lord hath hid it from me and hath not told me. For the Lord so disposes, by the dispensation of his too great loving-kindness, that sometimes he gives the prophetic spirit and sometimes withdraws it; and sometimes the prophets foresee the future, sometimes not; as the blessed Gregory pursues this subject in the first homily upon Ezekiel. Although concerning her deliverance the said Joan always answered doubtingly, testifying that she knew neither the day nor the hour. And in a certain place she says she had from her deliberation a doubtful answer, but that she would have succour from God: which she said could be understood either of deliverance from prison or of the overthrow of the judgement. And finally she says it was said to her: Care not for thy martyrdom, for thou shalt come to the kingdom of Paradise. Whence she seems sufficiently to have foretold her own execution. And elsewhere she says that she consulted and asked the voices whether she would be burned; and they answered that she should refer herself to God, and He would help her. Nor is it to be marvelled that by the spirit she could know men whom she had never seen, she who foretold things much more uncertain and incredible concerning the future, since even the secret thoughts of men and the temptations of the mind can be known through the spirit by holy men; as the blessed Gregory relates in the second book of the Dialogues of a boy’s proud thought known through the spirit.\nAs to the fifth article, in so far as it is said that she asserted she had assumed man’s dress by the command of God and in that dress had received the sacrament of the Eucharist, those things are to be considered which I said in the first article, where this same is touched and that conclusion was given: that, since it may probably be believed that she was sent by God to exercise deeds of war among companies of armed men, to restrain their concupiscence, to perform feats of war more freely, and not from any superstition or unseemly adornment, she assumed it by the will of God. And that she always said she would remain in that dress, namely so long as she was in that service committed to her by God, and so long as it pleased God, as appears from the many sayings of hers set out above: she ought not to be judged a heretic if in that dress she received the sacraments, since by the necessity of the office and ministry undertaken, and for a good cause, she was clad. Just as no one will impute it as a fault to the blessed Marina if, in a monastery of monks, she lived unknown perpetually in man’s dress, sharing the sacraments with the monks; nor did she appear a woman before her body, stripped after death, revealed her sex, albeit the calumny of adultery had been fastened upon her. The like of the blessed Eugenia, who in man’s dress lived most long and most chastely. Item, the said Joan, about the very reception of the Eucharist in that dress, says (which these men suppress) that, although she received the Lord’s body in that dress at the time when she followed the camp, yet not in armour: whence her religion and reverence towards the sacrament is evident. This she says in the sixth session held 3 March.\nAs to the sixth article, in so far as it is objected to the said Joan that she inscribed in her letters Jhesus Maria and a cross to signify that they should not be obeyed: to this Joan confesses that in her letters she put Jhesus Maria first; the same also in the engraving of the ring and on the banner. This ought not to be judged reprehensible: nay, this is a religious thing in every Christian; wherefore also many prudent and religious men observe it in writing letters. It is true nevertheless that in the fifth session, held 1 March, she confesses that sometimes she made a certain sign of a cross to signify among her own people that they should not do what she wrote: which is to be understood of some sign in the manner of a cross, which is observed by very many Catholic princes, who do this in arduous and secret matters to signify their secret mind by some sign. Nay, they even compose whole letters in characters, so that this may be understood by no one. But that she by edict threatened destruction to those who did not obey her letters — which follows in the article — is false, and nowhere appears in the whole proceedings.\nAnd it is to be noted how craftily it is subjoined in the last words of the article, saying that she caused it to be written that she would have those who did not obey slain, and in recalling the blows: whence they try to suggest that there was cruelty and ferocity in the said Joan, suppressing this which the said Joan excellently uttered in the fourth session, held 27 February, where she says that she never killed anyone; nay, when she attacked her adversaries she bore her banner in her own hands, to avoid, as she says, killing anyone. Item, they suppress this, that Joan by letters and ambassadors requested the Duke of Burgundy that no slaughter should follow, as appears from the answer to the eighteenth article. They suppress moreover that, in the siege of Orléans, she sent letters persuading peace, admonishing the enemies to depart thence, lest slaughter should follow. A copy of which letters exists in the proceedings among the articles. All these things in Joan dispel the suspicion of cruelty.\nAbout the seventh article, in so far as it is said that she at seventeen years of age went to a certain squire whom she had never known — whereby they seem to imply that she alone, forgetful of womanly shame, went to a man — they falsely calumniate in this; for the said Joan asserts in the proceedings that, often admonished by the voices to come into France, she first went to her uncle and opened her purpose to him; and that she had to go to the town of Vaucouleurs; and that her uncle brought her thither, where she found the said squire, namely Robert de Baudricourt. This is established in the examination made 22 February.\nAs to the other part of the article, in which it says that she departed without the knowledge and counsel of her parents: on this I have said something in the first article. They did not then attend or note how elegantly Joan excuses herself about this, saying that she did not disclose it to her parents lest either they should forbid it, or, by the denunciation of her departure, she should afflict them with grief; saying that, since God had so commanded and enjoined, even if she had had a hundred fathers, she must obey God. A worthy and constant utterance in a maid, consonant with the apostolic sentence, that one must obey God rather than men. For she knew that first the will of God must be fulfilled, then that of parents, after the example of Christ, who being found in the temple when His mother had said: I and thy father sought thee sorrowing — What is it that ye sought me? Know ye not that the will of the Father who sent me must be fulfilled? Wherefore the said Joan also, in the aforesaid place and in many others, said that in all other things she had always been most obedient to her parents.\nBut what follows in the article, that she received man’s dress from that man-at-arms, is false. Nay rather, questioned in very many places whether she did it at the instance of that Robert or by his counsel, she answered that in this she did not blame any living man, as appears in the second session; and she seems always to have said that she assumed it by the will and command of God, for His service and for a certain time.\nAnd what is put at the end of the chapter, that she said to the prince that she would wage war and place him in great temporal dominion, is fraudulently feigned, as I said in the first article, because she said and in very many places testified that she came by the command of God to announce to the King of the French that by God’s help he should recover his realm, not for victory against adversaries but by a most just war, to snatch the realm from the enemy; not for an adventitious temporal dominion, as the words sound, but for the redeeming of his own realm, lawfully begotten and unjustly taken by the enemy.\nThe eighth article speaks of the leap and jump from the tower, to induce and cause in her the crime of despair; but it is to be noted that, if the sayings of the said Joan are diligently weighed, she purges herself of all crime of infamy in that matter. For in a certain place, questioned about the said leap, she says that, angered because she heard the English were coming, lest she fall into their hands, she leapt and commended herself to God and to the Blessed Virgin. And asked then whether she would rather die than fall into the hands of the English, she answered, to repel from herself the crime of despair, that she would rather render her soul to God than be in the hand of the English. So she testified in the sixth session, held 3 March. Elsewhere she more openly declared the pious cause inducing the leap, saying that while she was in the tower she had heard that the English had made a certain cruel edict, namely that all those of Compiègne who had passed their seventh year should be burned alive. Most grievously she lamented, beseeching God and saying: And how will God suffer those good people to die who were so faithful to their lord? Moved with compassion, desiring to succour them in so great a calamity, she leapt from the tower. And asked whether, when she leapt, she believed she would be killed, she answered no; but in leaping she commended herself to God, and believed that by means of that leap she would escape being delivered to the English. So she answered in the thirteenth examination, held in the presence of the Inquisitor on 14 March. And in another place she excused herself more expressly, saying: I did this not in despair, but in the hope of saving my body and of going to succour many good people existing in necessity; and after the leap I confessed, and asked pardon of the Lord; which she knew by the revelations she had obtained. All which assertions of the said Joan being gathered into one, we find in the leap these three things excusing her: the good and pious end of succouring the afflicted and of preventing so impious and nefarious a deed against those of Compiègne; the hope of escape; and after the fact, the acknowledgement of error and the petition for pardon. These standing, she cannot be said to have despaired, since despair, as the theologians define it, is that by which one utterly distrusts the goodness of God, esteeming his own malice to exceed the magnitude of the divine goodness; as Cain who said: My iniquity is greater than that I should merit pardon.\nAs to the ninth article, concerning the promise and certitude of her salvation, she does not seem to have spoken rashly or unreasonably, if her sayings be fitly related. For she at another time of her own accord interpreted what she had said about the certitude of her salvation: that she understood that saying provided she keep the oath and promise she made to God, namely that she should well preserve her virginity both of body and of soul: in which she seems wholly holily and religiously to have been minded, since it is written in the canons that virginity alone fills paradise, that chastity alone is that which can with confidence present souls to God; since it is more laudable than every other resolve, transcending and surpassing heavenly things, as the blessed Augustine says; since virginity also renders man equal to the angels, nay makes him excel the angels, as the blessed Jerome pursues in his letter to Eustochium. And it is to be noted that Joan speaks of the virginity of mind and body, understanding that to be the true and perfect virginity which is kept with an incorrupt mind. And concerning sin, if all her sayings be brought together, she seems to have spoken fitly enough, although, as a girl and ignorant, she may have been ignorant of the discretion and difference between mortal and venial sin. And I remember to have heard simple men who think no sin mortal save some greatest and detestable crime, such as to kill a man, to commit robbery, and the like. For she herself in a certain place says, being asked whether she was in the grace of God, answering prudently and religiously: If I am not, may God place me in it; if I am, may God keep me in it. So she answered in the third session, 24 February. And elsewhere, asked, since she has revelations, whether she thought it expedient for her to confess, she answered that she knows not that she has sinned mortally; but if she were in mortal sin, she judges that Saint Catherine and Margaret would straightway forsake her. Yet she wisely subjoined that no one can cleanse his conscience too much. A cautious answer: for she does not rashly assert that she has not sinned or cannot sin, but piously believes that the Saints and elect of God do not appear to those stained with mortal sin. And that she clearly felt this is plainly declared; for asked in another place whether she believed she sinned after the revelations, she answered: I know nothing; but I refer myself wholly to God. And when it was said to her that this answer is of great weight, she answered that she holds it also for a great treasure.\nAs to that which is said in the tenth article, that she rashly asserts that God loves certain wayfarers, in this she does not seem to err; nay rather she humbly professes that there are others in this world who deserve to be loved by God more than she. And what she said was of the Duke of Orléans, of whom she said she had had more revelations than of any other after her king, since for the succour of his suffering people she said she was sent; yet she did not rashly assert anything certain of their salvation. In those things moreover which seem to be against the charity of one’s neighbour, as concerning the English, she at another time rightly saved herself, where she said that she loves those whom God loves and hates those whom God hates. And asked whether she knows that Saints Catherine and Margaret hate the English, she answered that of the hatred and love which God has towards the English, or what He will do with their souls, she knows not; but she well knows that they will be expelled from France. So she said on the seventeenth of March. For how does she seem to have held in hatred those whom by letters she charitably admonished and exhorted to peace? as appears from the copy of the letters placed among the articles. Concerning the Burgundians moreover she never said she hated them, but that she did not love them because of the voices she had. For being asked whether the voice admonished her to hate the Burgundians, she cautiously answered\nthat nothing is said of the voices; but that she, after she heard the voices and revelations favouring the King of France, did not love the Burgundians; adding that they would have war unless they did what they ought. So she answered in the third session, 24 February. Although therefore she did not distinguish, saying she did not hate them but their errors, nevertheless she seems to have felt rightly. And she shows an evident enough sign of charity towards the Burgundians, since she testifies that by letters and ambassadors she requested the lord Duke of Burgundy for peace between the king and him, as appears from the answer of the said Joan to the eighteenth article.\nThe eleventh article is perplexed, containing many falsehoods. First it objects that the said Joan showed reverence to the images appearing: whence it seems to mark her with idolatry; but he who framed the article seems fraudulently to have suppressed that she showed that veneration as to those whom she truly and really thought to be the Saints who are in heaven, not intending to venerate them as images, but as those who ought to be worshipped and venerated by the faithful; which is clear, because the said Joan said she rendered honour to them as to Saint Catherine and Margaret who are in heaven; and for this she offered gifts to the priest in their honour; and that she firmly believed they were they, because for their honour she adorned their images existing in churches with garlands or candles. Which are established by her confession. They suppress that she caused masses to be celebrated in their honour, and so showed the due worship; and even supposing they were illusions, these premises nevertheless excuse her from idolatry.\nAs to what is subjoined in the article concerning the bodily and real presence, enough has been said in the first article. But concerning the invocation, on account of which certain persons argue against her as an invoker of demons, they seem to interpret ill, and against all the things asserted and confessed by her. For in a certain place, asked whether she invoked Saints Catherine and Margaret, she answered that they often come unbidden, and that if they did not come she would ask God to send them. Behold then that she is not an invoker of spirits, but of God, that He may deign to comfort her through the Saints. This appears from the interrogation held on Monday, 12 March. Nay, one answer of hers dispels all suspicion in this matter, which she made to the fiftieth article. For asked by what manner and with what words she asked the voices, she answered that she called upon God and the blessed Mother of God to send her counsel and comfort, setting down the French words which can be rendered in Latin thus: Most sweet God, in memory of thy holy Passion, I beseech thee, deign to reveal to me how I ought to answer these churchmen. Similarly it is false that she vowed her virginity to those images, save as to messengers from God, referring the vow nevertheless principally to God. For so she once answered being questioned on this, that she ought well to suffice to promise this to those who were sent on the part of God; Monday, 12 March. And in the same examination she says that the first time she heard the voice she vowed to keep her virginity as long as it should please God; and so she committed the simple vow of virginity to the care and custody of God. And that the said promise and vow the said Joan made principally to God, she herself expressly declared in the second examination of Wednesday, 14 March, where concerning the certitude of salvation she said that she understood it if she kept the oath and promise which she made to God; namely that she should keep her virginity both of soul and body. And so a vow is made, since God himself is worshipped by vows, as the Prophet says: Vow ye and render to the Lord your God, all ye who round about him bring gifts.\nBut as to that which is subjoined in the article, that she concealed her revelations from the curate and the churchmen, she excuses herself in the session held 12 March, saying that her voices did not compel her to conceal this, but she greatly feared to reveal it for dread of the Burgundians, lest they should hinder her from her journey, and especially she greatly feared her father lest he should hinder her. For this was, in a matter so arduous and of so great peril, a just cause of concealment for the time. For she feared to disclose it to the curate, who perchance could not have kept silence without danger; she might also have easily been hindered from executing the divine command. But she did not conceal it perpetually, but so long as it could have been revoked; for after she came to the king she openly told the Church, namely the churchmen assembled at Poitiers, by whom she says she was examined for nearly three weeks. And the oath which she offered, she says she offered in order to free herself from the molestation of those importunately asking.\nConcerning the other contents of the article, enough has been said in what precedes.\nAs to the last article, on the submission to the Church, the framers of the article seem too harshly to report her words. For if we are willing to gather into one all the answers of the said Joan on this, we shall find that she, sometimes driven by simplicity, did not understand what the Church is; sometimes supposed the Church to consist in those judges whom she held suspect; sometimes feared the submission itself to their judgement, thinking that by submitting herself to their judgement she was already condemned. And it appears lastly that in most points she rightly understood the Church and its power.\nFirst, her simplicity, and that she did not sufficiently understand, appears from this, that being asked on another occasion whether she would submit herself to the determination of the Church, she answered that, as for the Church, she loves it and would sustain it with all her power for our Christian faith; and that she is not one who ought to be hindered from going to church nor from hearing Mass. She understood therefore with a certain simplicity, by those words, that by the Church was contained the enclosure of walls and the material church. At another time a little after she said that, of her words and deeds, she referred herself to God and the blessed Mary and all the Saints; and that it seemed to her that God and the Church were one and the same; and that no difficulty ought to be made of this, saying: Why do you make difficulty about this?\nSecondly, she very often declined the judgement of the bishop himself, asking in a certain manner that, if she had to submit herself to the judgement of the Church, churchmen of the party of France as well as of England should be called in. So she said and asked before she was cited to judgement; immediately after she was cited, as appears from the report of the executor of the citation. Which she also declared more expressly when she asked that three or four clerks of her party should be called in, and in their presence she would answer the truth. Elsewhere, asked whether it seemed to her that she ought to answer more fully before the Pope, the vicar of God, she answered by requiring and asking to be brought to the Pope; and that afterwards before him she would answer all that she ought: whence it appears that she expressly declined the jurisdiction of the bishop and asked to be remitted to the Pope. In which petition she constantly persevered until the end of the proceedings, since she asked this anew. Nay, she openly professed this in judgement when the first sentence was pronounced before all the people, at which time the malice of the judges was manifest; for asked whether she would revoke all her sayings and deeds which are reprobated by the clerks, she answered: I refer myself to God and to our lord the Pope. But they, desiring to bring to effect the vengeance they had conceived, not fearing the authority of the apostolic See, to which, after the accusation of that woman, humble recourse was to be had by all, especially in causes of faith, which are among the greater matters and to be referred to the apostolic See, as all the canons proclaim, said that it could not be done that she should go to seek our lord the Pope so far away, and that they were Ordinary judges each in his own diocese, and other things derogating from the authority of the apostolic See: in which perhaps the judges could be more truly reproved than Joan herself. Whence it is clear that her intent was not to evade the judgement of the true and supreme judge the Roman pontiff, but only of those clerks whom she saw to have come together and conspired in one for her condemnation, whose judgement she dreaded; and especially because they so often interrogated her with horrendous words whether she would submit herself concerning her crimes and excesses to the judgement of the Church. And this her other answers show: one, in which she says that her answers should be seen and examined by the clerks; and afterwards let it be told her whether there is anything there against the faith, and she will know what to say of it: protesting that if there is anything evil against the Christian faith which God commanded, she would not sustain it, and would be well angered at coming to the contrary. And elsewhere in the same examination she answers that all her sayings and deeds were in the hand of God, and of these I look to him; subjoining: I certify to you that I would wish to do or say nothing against the Christian faith; and if I had said or done anything, or there were aught upon my body, which the clerks could say was against the Christian faith which the Lord established, I would not sustain it but would cast it out.\nItem, from many of her sayings and deeds in the proceedings it appears that she rightly felt concerning the authority of the Church; for she, asked who was the true Pope and to whom obedience was due, answered in Catholic wise that at that time obedience was due to the Pope then at Rome, namely the lord Martin of happy memory; and that she believed in him.\nItem, she seems to have rightly felt concerning the power of the keys, since she knew that confession must be made each year to her own priest. For asked whether each year she confessed to her own priest, she answered yes, and to her own curate, or, when he was hindered, with his leave to another priest. Item, since she asked, weighed down by illness arising from the wasting of the prison, that the sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist should be ministered to her, on 18 April. And elsewhere, when it was said to her by the judge that she would be left as a Saracen, she answered protesting that she was a good Christian, well baptised, and as a good Christian would die. And when it was replied to her concerning the submission, she said that she would answer nothing else; and that she loved God, served him, and was a good Christian, and would help and sustain the Church with all her power: the same day, 18 April.\nLastly, by the informations had at Rouen she is proved to have submitted herself to the Church: which the bishop would not have inscribed; and also by some, pains were taken to suborn her not to submit herself to the Church. For certain witnesses of the latest examination, on the tenth article containing this, assert that a certain Englishman, feigning himself a French captive of the English, went by night secretly to the prison of the said Joan, suborning her not to submit herself to the judgement of the Church, else all was over with her. Item, several witnesses who were present and stood by at the judgement said that she always submitted herself to the Pope and the Church. This they say on the twelfth article, saying that she often asked to be brought to the Pope; and that some said to her that she should submit herself to the general Council, in which prelates of her party were present; and that they were rebuked by the English.\nThese things therefore will be for the consultants to consider in the matter of the proceedings.\nDeduction of the points of law to be considered by the consultants # Concerning the nullity moreover it will have to be seen:\nI. Of the competence of the judge, whether the Bishop of Beauvais, favouring the party of the English, was her competent judge from this alone, that she was captured within his diocese.\nII. Granted that he was, whether he ought to have abstained, in view of the fact that in very many parts of the proceedings his judgement and jurisdiction seem to have been declined: first that she, before she answered anything, answered the executor of the citation that she asked that prelates of her party also should be convoked; and that elsewhere she said: You say that you are my judge. I know not whether you are; take good heed lest peril hang over you; and that she asked for a copy of her answers so that she might show them at Paris.\nIII. Whether, from this that she submitted herself to the judgement of the Pope, and required and urgently asked to be remitted to him, it ought in a cause of faith, which is among the greater matters, to be deferred by the judges.\nIV. Since it was decreed from the beginning that the bishop should proceed together with the inquisitor, whether the proceedings are rendered null from this, that neither the inquisitor nor his vicar ever intervened from the day the process was begun, 9 January, until the thirteenth day of March; in which time nine sessions or examinations of the said Joan were made without the inquisitor.\nV. Whether the vicar of the inquisitor could, supposing it was null, confirm the proceedings by his ratification.\nVI. Whether manifest calumny and iniquity appear from the acts, in view of the fact that Joan was bought by the bishop, the judge, by illicit pacts and a price in money, for execution, and was delivered to the King of England himself; as appears from the requisition made by the bishop himself. In view also of the fact that the said Joan was not freely delivered by the King of England, but with retention and protestation, whereof in the king’s letters; in view further that she was placed in secular and profane prisons, as appears in all the proceedings, and that she was delivered to squires and men-at-arms to be guarded; item, in view of the fact that she was manacled with iron fetters, wasted by long imprisonment, denied the means of defence, entangled with many perplexing questions, of which mention is had in the Summary of the proceedings (1) — whether evident calumny and injustice of the judges appear.\nVII. Whether Joan ought to have been deemed relapsed, in view of the fact that she excused herself that she never understood the schedule of abjuration; in view of the fact that that was not observed which the greater part of the consultants willed to be observed, namely that the schedule should be read to her again and she admonished: which nevertheless is not found to have been done, but straightway there was haste to judgement or to execution; in view also that she had before said that she submitted herself to our lord the Pope, asking to be remitted to him: which the judges would not accept, as I said before; in view lastly that, as she said, she had resumed man’s dress because that dress was more fitting among men, and because the promise that she should go to Mass and be released from the iron fetters had not been kept to her; and that she offered herself, if a gracious prison were given her, to use woman’s dress. In which it will have to be considered that, concerning this, certain witnesses exhibit that the woman’s dress assumed by her was stealthily taken away from her, so that she might be judged relapsed: of which there is proof in the extrajudicial informations (2).\nSigned: Théodoric, Auditor of the Rota in the Roman Curia.\n(1) This Summary of the Trial is an abridgement made by Théodore de Leliis himself for the use of the consultants. See in our Introduction the paragraph relating to the Preliminaries of the Rehabilitation.\n(2) Such is the reading of the Rome manuscripts. That of the Saint-Germain-Harlay collection gives extravagantibus instead of extrajudicialibus. These two expressions, which are synonymous, apply to the informations of 1452, of which the jurist has already spoken above. They were extrajudicial in the sense that they had been made before the intervention of the apostolic authority; they had no other character than that of pieces of instruction.\nIII. Certain Allegations of Lord Paul Pontanus (1), Consistorial Advocate, upon the Trial of the Maid # Preface # The aid of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom truth is understood and discerned, being invoked, and presupposing the things narrated in the matter, several doubts seem worthy of discussion.\nTitles of the allegations # And first, whether revelations or apparitions of this kind are to be deemed made by good spirits or by evil.\nSecondly, it is doubted whether the wearing of man’s dress was culpable in her or not.\nThirdly, it is doubted whether her deeds and acts, which are established by the proceedings, are worthy of condemnation or of excuse.\nFourthly, it is doubted whether she is reprehensible or excusable in her sayings.\nFifthly, it is doubted whether she erred concerning the submission to the Church.\nSixthly, it is doubted whether from all the premises she was to be judged a heretic.\nLastly, it is doubted whether the proceedings and the sentence had against Joan fall to the ground because the order of law was not observed or for another cause.\nSubscription of the libel # And so, for a first summary view, it seems to me, Paul Pontanus, least doctor of both laws and advocate of the sacred Consistory, that the conclusion should be thus in law, saving the determination and judgement of holy mother Church and of anyone else better informed.\nIV. Consultation of the Same Lord Paul Pontanus # Digest of the work as regards the discussion held upon the twelve articles # The first article contains, as it were, the sum of all the articles, and begins: A certain woman, and is divided into several parts. In the first it treats of the revelations and apparitions of Saint Michael and of Saints Catherine and Margaret, and that they were on the part of God and of the whole Trinity; and in this it agrees with the third article, which begins: Item, the said woman. The second part treats of the reverence shown them by her; and agrees with the eleventh article, beginning: Item, the said woman says. The third part treats of the command made by them that she should come to the King, and for what cause, and of the sign; and agrees with the second article, beginning: Item, the said woman says that the sign. The fourth part, of the assumption and wearing of man’s dress; and agrees with the fifth article, beginning: Item, the said woman says by command. The fifth part is of the departure from her parents without their knowledge, and of the prosecution of wars; and agrees with the seventh article, beginning: Item, the said woman says that she did nothing. The sixth part is of the submission to the Church, with which agrees the twelfth article, beginning: Item, the said woman says and confesses. The seventh part says that she was certain of being saved; and agrees with the ninth article, which begins: Item, the said woman says and affirms. Outside the sum of the first article are the fourth article, speaking of the certitude of future things; and the sixth, speaking of the words Jhesus Maria placed in her letters; and the eighth, speaking of the leap from the tower; and the tenth, speaking of the love of the said Saints towards the King of France and others of her party. Which are thus joined together, lest the same thing be repeated twice.\nA specimen of the discussion itself # Concerning the first part of the first article, and consequently concerning the third article, there is to be added, first, for the fuller instruction of those who have to consult in a cause of this kind, that this woman was, at the time of the trial attempted against her, of the age of nineteen years or thereabouts, as she asserted in the first session; and so let it be weighed that she had not yet attained the full vigour and understanding of the mind. Item, she asserted that she had the first voice in her father’s garden, not at the tree of the Fairies; and that she had it to help and govern her; and that the first time she had great fear: which is the sign of a good Angel. Item, as she asserted, that voice taught her to govern herself well and to frequent the church; and that the voice told her it had revealed that she should raise the siege before Orléans, as she did. Item, that she knows not that, after she reached discretion, she ever danced beside the said tree. Item, that after the departure of the voice she wept, and would willingly have had it carry her away. Item, that before the King would believe her that it was from a good spirit, she was interrogated for three weeks by clerks of his party, and they judged that there was nothing in her but good. Item, that she prophesied to the English the loss of all that they held in France: which today we see verified. Item, she says that she knows not whether in those apparitions there was aught of arms, or whether other members were figured, etc.\nItem also, when Saints Catherine and Margaret came to her, she signed herself with the sign of the cross. These things from the first register.\nFrom the preparatory proceedings (2), Brother Martin, of the Preachers, who heard her in confession, says that always and at the end of her days he found her faithful and devout.\nFrom the last proceedings, Brother Isambert, the eighth witness, asserted that a certain Englishman who hated her, when he saw her end so religious, was as it were astonished and in ecstasy; and that he asserted that it seemed to him, at the giving up of the spirit of the said Joan, to see a certain white dove flying out of the flame (3). Lord Thomas, priest, the fourteenth witness, says that he heard from many that the name Jesus was seen inscribed in the flame of the fire in which she was burned. These things for the first.\nConcerning the second part of the first article, and consequently concerning the eleventh article, it is to be added that she asserts that she never asked of the said voice any other final reward than the salvation of her soul, etc.\nConclusion # From which there are substantially had, in formal words, the things which concern the said articles contained in the said registers. From these things also it is clear to anyone reading that the articles were elicited from the proceedings with too little fidelity — nay, were mendaciously and corruptly depraved.\nThe articles or doubts to be given beyond the foregoing are briefly these:\nI. Whether the said proceedings and sentence are subject to nullity, since the lord of Beauvais does not seem to have been a competent judge (even granted that she was captured in his territory), since she neither offended there nor drew her forum from elsewhere.\nII. Whether they fall to the ground by nullity, since the Bishop of Beauvais chose to proceed jointly with a pretended sub-inquisitor, and yet of the power of the asserted Inquisitor, by whom the delegate is deemed to have been constituted or sub-delegated, there is in no wise proof.\nIII. Whether they are null, because it appears from the proceedings that the bishop alone, without the sub-inquisitor adjoined by him, proceeded to several substantial acts, as several solemn interrogatories, assignations of place, and the like.\nIV. Whether they are null, because the bishop often caused Joan to be examined by others and not by himself alone, in view of the fact that the cause was criminal and most grave.\nV. Since from the sayings of the witnesses of the last proceedings there is proof of the greatest fear and impression wrought by the English upon the sub-inquisitor and others having to give counsel in the cause, whether from the said fear the proceedings fall to the ground.\nVI. Whether, in view of the fact that Joan refused the said bishop as incompetent and suspect, and, as she asserted, her capital enemy, on this account the proceedings and sentence are null, or at least manifestly iniquitous.\nVII. Whether, because she submitted herself to the judgement of the Pope and of the Council, and asked to be brought to them, and so submitted herself under the protection of the Pope, the proceedings and sentence afterwards had against her are null.\nVIII. Whether, in view of the gravity of the cause, namely concerning those secret and hidden revelations which are known to God alone, and concerning a doubt of the cause of faith which is reserved to the apostolic See alone, these men proceeded nullly, especially since she asked to be judged by the Pope.\nIX. Whether, in view of the fact that the said Joan was detained in a private prison of laymen and in the hands of capital enemies who were deputed to guard her, and treated her so inhumanly that she desired to die; and in view of the fact that she asked to be taken to an ecclesiastical and gracious prison: on this account the proceedings fall to the ground.\nX. Whether, because it is established that it was denied her that anyone should speak with her, and she asked that a counsellor and director should sometimes be given her, which was denied her; in view also of her youthful age of nineteen years and her frail womanly sense: the proceedings fall to the ground.\nXI. Whether such age excuses from heresy, in our matter a doubtful point, at least as to the relaxation of the ordinary penalty (4).\nXII. Whether, because those who wished to direct and instruct her were forbidden by the bishop and the English, and many terrors were brought upon them, from this denied defence the sentence and the proceedings are subject to nullity.\nXIII. Whether, because she asked that her articles should be seen and discussed by the Church before she abjured, and this was denied her, the proceedings and sentence are null.\nXIV. Whether, because the bishop, the asserted judge, as is established, forbade that her excuses and submissions should be written by the notary, on this account the whole proceedings are to be held invalid, imperfect and untrue.\nXV. Whether, because those who elicited the articles transmitted to the consultants framed them not truthfully but mendaciously, imperfectly and calumniously, on this account also the sentence and the proceedings fall to the ground, in view of such evident deceit.\nXVI. Whether, because it is established by witnesses and by the proceedings that those who interrogated her much vexed and entangled her in most difficult questions and captious interrogatories, so much so that, according to them, scarcely the greatest doctor could have answered satisfactorily; and so that they might catch her in her speech: on this account she is excused from the said crime; in view also, as has been said, of her age and sex, and of the defence and counsel denied her.\nXVII. Whether, because by suborned and feigned persons she was persuaded not to submit herself to the Church, and they calumniously removed her woman’s dress so that she might take the man’s, on this account also by deceit the judgement falls to the ground.\nXVIII. Whether, because there is no proof of a preamble of the proceedings upon ill-fame, on this account also such proceedings are void.\nXIX. Since the said Joan in the schedule of abjuration and in the sentence of condemnation is reputed a mendacious contriver of divine revelations and apparitions, a pernicious seductress, presumptuous, lightly believing, superstitious, a diviner, a blasphemer against God and the Saints of God, in his sacraments a despiser of the divine law, a transgressor of sacred doctrine and of the ecclesiastical sanctions, seditious, cruel, an apostate, a schismatic, in our faith manifoldly erring, against God and holy Church offending in many ways, expressly, with hardened mind, obstinately and stubbornly refusing to submit herself to the Church itself, to the lord Pope and to the general Council; stubborn, obstinate, excommunicated and a heretic: whether, according to the contents of the proceedings, she was to be deemed such.\nFor the rest, let the prudence of the consultants supply.\nSigned: Paul Pontanus, consistorial advocate.\n(1) Paul Pontanus, whose name M. de l’Averdy translated, but wrongly, by that of Dupont. The Soubise manuscript made, with no more reason, an advocate in Parliament of this personage, who in the older manuscripts gives himself the title of advocate in the apostolic Consistory. He was in 1452 at Orléans, where he countersigned, as secretary of the legate Guillaume d’Estouteville, the indulgences granted for the celebration of the feast of 8 May. There are found about the same period several Italian men of letters of the same name and probably of the same family: among others Louis Pontanus, who died of the plague at the Council of Basel in 1439; Octavian Pontanus, made cardinal; Giovanni Gioviano Pontano, who was tutor to Alfonso of Aragon, then secretary and counsellor of that prince, and died in 1503. (Lenglet Du Fresnoy, Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc, part III, p. 270. — De l’Averdy, Notices des Manuscrits de la Bibl. du Roi, vol. III, pp. 194 and 295.)\n(2) Paul Pontanus means by this the information made at Rouen by Cardinal d’Estouteville in person; while he designates by ultimus processus the depositions of the witnesses heard some days later by the Inquisitor of France and the grand-vicar of the same d’Estouteville. See chapter V of the proceedings.\n(3) The manuscripts of the proceedings have de Francia instead of de flamma, as will be seen in its place.\n(4) The author of the S. G. Harlay manuscript marked this article with an obelus, doubtless to indicate that the sense of it did not seem very clear to him.\nV. Summary of Brother Jean Bréhal, Inquisitor of the Faith (1) # The graver and more principal articles of the said Joan upon which deliberation is to be had. Namely:\nThat she asserted she had had bodily apparitions and visions of Saint Michael and of Saints Catherine and Margaret, had frequently heard voices of spirits, and had received many revelations.\nThat she foretold some future things.\nThat she showed reverence to the spirits appearing to her and speaking to her.\nThat she wore man’s dress and mingled in wars.\nThat she seems to have refused to submit herself to the judgement of the Church militant concerning her sayings and deeds.\nThat, after the abjuration or revocation, she resumed man’s dress and again cleaved to her apparitions, to which she had publicly renounced.\nThese are the matters upon which deliberation seems principally to be had.\nVI. Letter of the Same Brother Jean Bréhal, Written to Brother Leonard, of the Preachers of Vienna # Jesus.\nTo the man of sincere religion and illustrious fame, Brother Leonard (2), eminent professor of sacred theology, and lector of the convent of Vienna in Germany, of the Order of Friars Preachers.\nAfter the office of sincere veneration, with devout commendation, most renowned master and father, I, though unknown to you, dare to write, yet known by clear fame. The matter also urges me, which concerns the honour of the most Christian King of the French, who holds it not a little at heart that, for the honour of the Order, I should move your approved skill to something not so much new as great. For he deems the glory of his Majesty to have been most enormously injured of old by his enemies the English in this: that against a certain simple maiden and virgin, who by divine will, as is proved by well-nigh unanswerable evidence, formerly waged war for his lot (3), under colour of the faith they proceeded; nay, at the last, under the very judgement of the faith, to the reproach of the king and kingdom, they destroyed her by hostile fire. Wherefore the royal Majesty supremely desires to ascertain the truth of that sentence and of the matter judged. For which cause he committed and enjoined upon me, his poor Inquisitor in the realm, to communicate to all the wise, wherever I should see it expedient, the lawful documents and faithful extracts upon the trial, and to ask and exact their opinions, and that chiefly from foreigners, so that all favour may seem excluded in this particular cause. Wherefore by the valiant knight Lord Leonard (4), ambassador of the most illustrious prince the lord Duke of Austria, I send your reverence all that you will have known of the matter at first sight, so that, for the honour of the Order and the renowned commendation of your deserving person, you may write and decide something. The rest worthy of mention in this case the said illustrious Leonard will supply.\nOf the affairs of the Order, which is now, by God’s permission, tossed by a mournful tempest, I know nothing new, save that by our lord the Pope the general chapter has been restored to the convent of Nantes; but the Roman Provincial nevertheless remains vicar of the Order. The bull of these things I have myself seen.\nFarewell happily in the Lord Jesus. From Lyon, the last day of December.\nYour brother in full charity, Jean Bréhal, Inquisitor of the faith in the realm of France.\n(1) See what has been said of this document in the Introduction, on the subject of the Preliminaries of the rehabilitation. The author, Jean Bréhal, was a doctor of theology, prior of the Jacobins of Paris, and inquisitor general in the realm of France. Nothing is known of his earlier life save that he was born in Normandy and made his profession among the Dominicans of Évreux. He may be regarded as the one who played the principal part in the rehabilitation of Joan of Arc. At the beginning of the year 1452, Cardinal d’Estouteville adjoined him to himself to proceed officially to the revision of the first trial. To that end he heard the first witnesses cited at Rouen; he journeyed through all France to inform himself on the life of Joan of Arc; finally he put himself in correspondence with the most famous doctors of the realm and of foreign parts to have their opinion on so delicate a matter. The delegates designated by Calixtus III in 1455 having likewise called him to sit with them, during the eight months that the trial lasted he attended to it almost without interruption, one day at Paris, another at Rouen; and that amid very difficult circumstances for him, inasmuch as the University of Paris was in open war with the Mendicant Orders, of which he was one of the chiefs. The definitive sentence was pronounced on 7 July 1456; on the 21st of the same month Jean Bréhal conducted to Orléans the expiatory procession ordered by that same sentence. In the month of February 1457, in a solemn assembly of the University presided over by the Constable of France, he publicly made the submission of the four Orders, and, although his words were found a little proud, peace was concluded between the teaching body and the dissidents, who had become his subordinates again. After that, the name of Master Jean Bréhal, inquisitor of the faith, is met with on the registers of the Exchequer of Rouen, where he is mentioned as defaulting at the assizes of 1463. There remains of him a manuscript treatise De libera auctoritate audiendi confessiones religiosis mendicantibus concessa, and a vast compilation of the doctrinal opinions drawn up in favour of Joan of Arc, which he composed by order of the tribunal, and of which we give something in chapter VIII of the proceedings. (Quétif and Échard, Script. ord. Præd., vol. I, p. 815. — Du Boulay, Hist. un. Par., vol. V, p. 615. — Delaroque, Hist. de la maison d’Harcourt, vol. III, pp. 552, 573 and 577; and the documents reported in the fourth volume of the present work.)\n(2) This personage is known only by his Christian name, under which he distinguished himself in his order. Quétif and Échard mention ten ascetic and moral treatises, which he dedicated to the emperor Frederick III in the year 1469. (Script. ord. Prædicat., vol. I, p. 843.)\n(3) For the construction of the sentence to be regular, at least the words ceperunt et would have to be supplied.\n(4) Leonard Wilzkehel, chancellor of the Archduke of Austria, then ambassador to Charles VII.\nThe Trial of Rehabilitation # Preface of the Notaries # The order of reason requires, the right disposition of equity teaches, and the salutary institution of the sacred canons and of the civil laws prescribes, that the things done in solemn tribunals be noted in writings and drawn up in authentic charters and commended to public instruments, so that they may become equally known to present and future generations, and not perish as the memory of men slips away. To the praise, glory and honour of God, then, and for the perpetual elucidation and manifestation of truth and justice, this work and authentic register, faithfully and integrally collected by us, the notaries hereinafter named, under judicial acts, solemn instruments and faithful documents, and various treatises of doctors and men skilled in the law, contains the trial lately conducted, solemnly discussed and concluded by authority, ordinance and rescript of the holy apostolic See and of our most holy lord the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name; under the most reverend and reverend fathers Jean, Archbishop of Reims (1), Guillaume, Bishop of Paris (2), and Richard, Bishop of Coutances (3), most worthy professors of law, and the venerable father Master Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, Inquisitor of the faith in the realm of France; all those who had to be summoned having been called to all the proceedings both specially and generally. By which trial indeed, and by a final sentence duly intervening, under the authority of the holy Roman Church and of the apostolic See and of the most holy Roman Pontiff, the same most reverend and reverend fathers in Christ, at the humble and devout prayers and the sedulous instance of the honest and worthy widow Isabelle d’Arc (4) and of Jean and Pierre (5), brothers of the late Joan d’Arc, commonly called the Maid: the former trial held in the city of Rouen, at the instance of a certain Master Jean d’Estivet, pretended promoter of the faith, under the reverend father Lord Pierre Cauchon, assisted in a part of the said trial by Master Jean Magistri, sub-inquisitor of the said faith, with the sentences and executions that followed thereupon, is declared null, void and iniquitous, manifestly containing error of law and of fact in matter and in form, conducted and concluded besides and against the form of the laws and of the ordinance, and against the style and manner of the inquisition of the faith, and after the tacit and express refusals of the said pretended judges and counsellors, and after the submissions of the said Joan to the apostolic See having the force of an appeal; and its nullity, the usurpations, threats, frauds and violences intervening in it, which have the power to render every judgement null and annulled, to detect and declare likewise, with the total purgation of the said Joan and her people from all infamy, mark and stain arising under pretext or occasion of the said proceedings, sentences and executions; as may plainly appear from the conduct of the trial hereunder written, the declarations and sentences given after mature deliberation and long communication of the whole trial with prelates, doctors and most learned men.\nMoreover, by special ordinance of the said most reverend, reverend and venerable fathers, the judges and commissioners aforesaid, we, the aforesaid notaries, specially constituted in the conduct of the said trial, solemn oaths having been given, judged that this our integral and authentic register should be drawn up in a tripled volume, from the daily notes and ordinances of all the things done and produced; in one only of the said volumes, on account of the very great prolixity of the two processes, joining and connecting at length the aforesaid process, just as it was received by the notaries of the aforesaid process in solemn judgement, and many times integrally inspected before us, the notaries, by the said lords Delegates and other most approved men. And whereas, by the prudent inspection and manifold discussion of the aforesaid process made by the said lords Delegates with the most approved and learned men, at repeated and various times and at the times noted, severally, particularly and specifically in matter and in form, through each particular of the same process, as well concerning the preparatory as the essential and consequential parts of the aforesaid process, which seemed to make for its justification, effect and proof, or contrariwise for its nullity or annulment in matter and in form, it has been faithfully related to the said lords Delegates by common fame and by the report of very many: that in the outset of the process certain informations upon the conversation and deeds of the aforesaid Joan, and a certain examination, by ordinance of the pretended judges, upon the integrity, modesty and virginity of the said Joan verily ascertained, were made by physicians and surgeons and by illustrious ladies and most worthy matrons, kept hidden from the counsellors and notaries themselves, and maliciously omitted from the proceedings; and certain supplications for the moderation of the most rigorous imprisonment and of the fetters with which at her feet, and of the chains with which, as to her body, by night the said Joan was kept bound, and for a change of her guards, namely of the most unworthy and bitterest archers and men of war, were utterly denied her; and sundry requests for the calling of counsellors not suspect, for the remission of the matter to the Pope or to the Council, were alike spurned and neglected; and, in the conduct of the process, manifold threats with imprisonments and expulsions were brought upon some of the counsellors; captious, subtle questions not pertaining to the case, with various interruptions, invectives and injuries, were addressed to the said Joan; and false and counterfeit notaries were posted in secret and hidden places; moreover, in the conclusion of the proceedings, certain twelve articles, many times repeated in the said trial, whose authors are unknown to the true notaries, were, after the said correction of the articles and the evident dissonance and repugnance from the said confession, without correction, fraudulently transmitted for the obtaining of opinions upon which the sentences, as is expressly contained in them, seem to be founded; and under dissembled garb false and fraudulent deceits and wily inducements were wrought upon the said Joan, and certain adjurations contained in the proceedings were falsely and mendaciously composed and amplified: for this reason, the aforesaid lords Delegates, desiring for the good of justice to search all things fully, and to seek out by full discussion the truth of the matter, both from the acts of the aforesaid trial and from other documents, as is commanded them in the rescript, upon the aforesaid informations and examination, upon the requisitions and refusals, and upon the threats, violences and frauds, and upon the falsity of the aforesaid articles, and upon the manner and quality of the proceeding, deemed it right to inquire of office, and ordered new informations and inquests to be made, both in the place of origin of the aforesaid Joan, and in the city of Orléans, upon the conversation and deeds of the same Joan, and in the cities of Rouen and Paris upon the quality of the proceedings and the manner of proceeding, the parties also being called, by themselves and by commissioners and sub-delegates. Which informations, by ordinance of the said lords Delegates, together with certain other informations made some time since upon this by the most reverend father in Christ Lord Guillaume (6), Cardinal of San Martino ai Monti, the aforesaid Inquisitor being adjoined, we have deemed right to adjoin to this our register.\nAnd the aforesaid process having been communicated integrally and at length, according to the form of the laws, to very many most approved and learned men, prelates, doctors and others, although very many of them, answering various questions both in speech and in writing with mature deliberation, by several means showing the nullity of the process in matter and in form, gave manifold opinions and most salutary counsels; nevertheless, to avoid prolixity and confusion, we have deemed right to insert in this our register the opinions and counsels only of those who wrote back at length upon each of the articles and parts of the process, and published solemn treatises at large.\nBut that it may proceed in fitting order, both as regards the aforesaid solemn treatises, and the aforesaid informations, and the series of all things to be collected, by this our integral and authentic register, and that the contents of the same register, all confusion being removed, may be more easily and more orderly presented to the memory and consideration of readers: therefore we ordain that each portion of this our register, beginning from this our outset, be distinguished particularly and specially under particular rubrics and notes, according to the manner and order following, and under the articles and heads of matters and the summary descriptions immediately subscribed.\nHere follow the articles or designations and little rubrics of all and each of the acts and things done contained in this present process, from the day of the presentation of the rescript made to the lords Delegates up to the day of the definitive sentence inclusive.\nIn the first chapter are placed the acts of the presentation of the rescript, and are recited the presentations and supplications made in the church of Paris to the lords Delegates.\nThen is inserted the public presentation in the episcopal hall, we the notaries being present, with many assisting prelates, doctors and counsellors; with the letters of general and special citations, and the reports of their execution, and the constitutions of the procurators there constituted by the parties.\nSecondly, the acts of the first assignation made in the aforesaid citations at the city of Rouen, where, after sundry continuances and expectations of the parties, is placed the declaration of the competent judges; the constitution of the notaries and also of the promoter, and their oath; as also the public receipt of the books, instruments and acts of the said first trial, and of the informations by the most reverend father lord Guillaume, Cardinal of the title of San Martino ai Monti, legate, etc., from the hands of the notaries; with the solemn requisition, the recognition of the signs and seals; with assignation for further proceeding.\nThirdly, the acts of the second assignation, where is placed the libel or petition of the plaintiffs, with a certain requisition of the promoter both in the first trial and against it; with the declaration made on the part of the heirs and executors of the lord Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, and assignation of a term for giving in writing the articles and scripts of the plaintiffs.\nFourthly, are placed the articles and scripts of the plaintiffs; then the assignations, commissions and citations for the making of the inquests, with the report and publication thereof, various assignations and continuances being intermixed.\nFifthly, are placed at length all the informations and inquests, and first the informations made by the aforesaid lord Cardinal legate; secondly, those made in the place of origin of the aforesaid Joan, by ordinance\n(1) Jean Jouvenel des Ursins, son of the provost of the merchants of Paris, born in 1388, doctor of civil and canon law, Bishop of Béarnais, then of Laon, after having exercised the office of advocate-general in the parliament transferred to Poitiers. He was promoted to the archbishopric of Reims in 1449. His wisdom and eloquence put him in great credit with Charles VII, who employed him almost constantly in his diplomatic relations with England. Louis XI, without making so much use of him, always showed him great deference. He died in 1471, leaving a History of Charles VI which he had written during his leisure at Poitiers, and several harangues worthy of consideration as monuments of the oratorical art in our language. (Gall. christ., vol. IX, cols. 138, 552, 758. — Godefroy, Hist. de Charles VI. — Loysel, Antiq. de Beauvais. — Duclos, Hist. de Louis XI, proofs at the years 1461 and 1468.)\n(2) Guillaume Chartier, born at Bayeux, bred in the University of Paris, like his brother Alain Chartier, at the charges of Charles VII, who called him to Poitiers in 1432 to profess canon law there. Curate of Saint-Lambert-lès-Saumur, archdeacon in the cathedral of Tournai, counsellor in the parliament, he was elected Bishop of Paris unanimously in 1447. The University employed him as peacemaker jointly with the Archbishop of Reims in its quarrel with the Mendicants. In 1458 he attended the Council of Mantua. Having conducted the embassy which the Parisians sent to the confederate princes during the war of the Public Weal, he became thereby odious to Louis XI, who wished, after his death, that this circumstance should be recorded upon his tomb in terms dishonouring to his memory. That order, however, was not carried out. (Du Boulay, Hist. un. Par., vol. V, p. 876. — Gallia christ., vol. VII, col. 151. — Chron. scandaleuse, at the year 1472.)\n(3) Richard de Longueuil, president of the Chambre des comptes, elected Archbishop of Rouen by a part of the chapter on the death of Raoul Roussel. But Nicholas V, to put an end to the scandal of a contested election, transferred Guillaume d’Estouteville to Rouen and recommended Richard to the bishopric of Coutances. When the revision of the trial of Joan of Arc began, he was ambassador to the Duke of Burgundy; which is why in almost all the acts of the procedure he is mentioned as absent; nevertheless he was present at the pronouncement of the judgement. It is also to be remarked that in these same acts the title of cardinal is nowhere given him, although he had been decorated with the purple on 26 December 1455. But as he did not enjoy that dignity when his commission of judge was conferred upon him, the registrars had to confine themselves in his regard to the terms of the apostolic rescript. The Bishop of Coutances attended, in 1458, the trial of the Duke of Alençon, where he incurred a fine of 10,000 livres for having spoken against the Pragmatic Sanction. He professed so manifest an aversion for all that has since been called the Gallican liberties, that Pius II said of him: Utinam Constantienses haberemus plures! — Would that we had more Coutances men! Louis XI accordingly chose him for one of the ambassadors who went to carry to that same Pius II the abrogation of the constitutions of Bourges (1462). From that time Richard de Longueuil settled in Italy near the pope, who rained down upon him bishoprics and benefices. His immense revenues permitted him to contribute to the embellishment of Rome. (Gallia christ., vol. XI, col. 865.)\n(4) Isabelle d’Arc, otherwise Romée, born at Vouthon near Domrémy, and called in the patois of the country Zabillet, as appears from an old book of obits of Domrémy bearing this entry: Jacques d’Arc and Zabillet his wife have given to the curate of Domrémy two gros barrois each per year for their obits, in the year 1428. (De l’extraction et parenté de la Pucelle d’Orléans, memoir printed in 1610.) It is seen by the deposition of Jean Pasquerel, heard at Paris by the judges of the revision, that Isabelle d’Arc left Domrémy shortly after her daughter, and that she was at Le Puy (in villa Aniciensi) while the expedition of Orléans was being prepared. She was ennobled in December 1429, together with her husband and children. In 1438 she went to dwell at Orléans, where she was pensioned on the town’s treasury for a sum of 48 sous parisis a month. She died on 28 November 1458. (See the Pièces justificatives of the fourth volume.)\n(5) Jean and Pierre d’Arc, called Du Lys (Dail in Lorraine) since the ennoblement of their family, both took part in the defence of Orléans. Jean kept near the king until 1436, when he returned to Lorraine on the rumour that his sister had reappeared there. Charles VII made him about that time provost of Vaucouleurs, and he kept that office until 1467, when Louis XI bought it back from him to give it to the Duke of Calabria. As for Pierre, he was taken at the same time as Joan at the sally from Compiègne, and remained several years in the hands of the Bastard of Vergy. On 28 July 1443 the Duke of Orléans gave him the Île-aux-Bœufs near Orléans, which, it was written on one of the destroyed registers of the chambre des comptes, my lord the Duke has given to my lord Pierre du Lys, knight, having heard the supplication of the said my lord Pierre, containing that to acquit his loyalty towards the King our sire and my lord the Duke of Orléans, he departed from his country to come to the service of the King our said lord and of my lord the Duke, in company with Joan the Maid, his sister, with whom, until her being taken, and since until now, he has exposed his body and his goods in the said service and in the business of the wars of the King, both at the resistance of the ancient enemies of the realm who held the siege before the town of Orléans, and at several journeys made and undertaken for the King our said lord and his chiefs of war, and otherwise in many and divers places. The Île-aux-Bœufs became the dowry of Jeanne du Lys, Pierre’s daughter, who later yielded it to her brother Jean du Lys, called de la Pucelle, to go and settle in the Barrois. Thereafter Pierre du Lys and Jean de la Pucelle were also pensioned by the King of France. Another Jean du Lys, likewise a son of Pierre, was made échevin of Arras by Louis XI in 1481. (See Étienne Pasquier, Recherches sur la France, book VI, ch. 5, and the Pièces justificatives of our fourth volume.)\n(6) Guillaume d’Estouteville, Archbishop of Rouen.\nof the said lords Delegates; thirdly, the informations and inquests made by the said lords Delegates and their commissioners upon the aforesaid articles and scripts of the parties.\nSixthly, are placed the acts of the assignation to speak against the witnesses and the sayings of the witnesses, as also of the assignations to proceed, and afterwards to speak against the things produced, with other assignations to conclude in the cause.\nSeventhly, is placed the conclusion in the cause, with certain reasons and motives of law, given at the said term for concluding in the pending cause, and also in the conclusion itself, as well on the part of the promoter as on the part of the plaintiffs or their procurators.\nEighthly, are inserted at length several treatises of several bishops, prelates, professors of sacred theology and of the laws, and of others who wrote solemnly and at length upon the matter of the said trial.\nLastly and finally, the inspections both of the first trial and also of this present one, made in various places and times, being narrated, as also the communications had with prelates, doctors and learned men, and the revolutions and examinations of the said alleged treatises, is placed the assignation to hear the law and the definitive judgement, and the definitive sentence itself is inserted at length.\nChapter I # Presentations and supplications first made in the church of Paris # In the name of Christ, Amen.\nFor the perpetual memory of the things hereunder written, and that nothing of the things happening may remain unknown or uncertain to the proceedings hereunder written, let all, present and future alike, who shall inspect this our register, know that in the year of the Lord 1455, the third indiction, in the first year of the pontificate of our most holy father and lord in Christ, the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name, on the seventh day (1) of the month of November, in the venerable church of Paris, in the morning: the honest widow Isabelle d’Arc, relict of the late Jean (2) d’Arc, mother of the late Joan commonly called the Maid, humbly approaching to the presence of the most reverend father and lord in Christ Jean, Archbishop of Reims, and of the reverend lord Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, and of the honoured master Master Jean Bréhal, Inquisitor of the faith, and casting herself at their feet with great groans and sighs, and offering and presenting a certain mandate and rescript of the holy apostolic See, together with her son Pierre d’Arc, brother of the said Joan, there assisting them very many honourable men, ecclesiastical and secular, and honest women, set forth, both in her own name and in that of her sons and kinsfolk, with tearful insinuation and mournful deprecation, and caused to be set forth by certain persons assisting there, that:\nWhereas she had long ago brought forth a daughter in lawful wedlock, and had brought her up, duly marked with the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, in the fear and reverence of God and the traditions of the Church, so far as her age and the condition of her simple state permitted, so that, nurtured among the pastures and in the fields, she frequented the church often, received the sacrament of the Eucharist, although set in tender years, after due confession, almost every month, devoutly and fervently intent upon fastings and prayers for the then greatest necessities of the people, with which she sympathised with her whole heart: nevertheless certain adversaries and rivals of her, and of her kinsfolk, and of the princes and peoples of the commonwealth under whom the said Joan and hers lived and dwelt, drew her into a cause of faith, to the injury, contumely and contempt of the said princes and peoples alike; and her, supported by no lawful authority, after tacit and express refusals and appeals, all defence of her innocence being taken away, by a deceitful, violent and iniquitous trial, all order of law being omitted, many crimes being falsely and mendaciously imposed upon her, many articles repugnant and dissonant from her confession being falsified for the obtaining of opinions, they condemned damnably and iniquitously, and burned with the most cruel burning of fire, all weeping, after she had received with the greatest devotion the sacrament of the Eucharist — to the damnation of their own souls, and to the mark, infamy and irreparable damage of the said Isabelle and her kin. The bowels of the aforesaid widow were moved over her daughter; all her kinsfolk were filled with grief; but they kept the grief within, many likewise grieving with them, until it pleased the heavenly clemency to give clear sky after clouds, tranquillity after wars, light after darkness, and to restore the city of Rouen — nay, all Normandy — to the natural dominion of the French, and to bring to full effect those things which, in the time of the said Joan, had been begun at Orléans and Reims. Then it was plainly manifest, then came forth into public from its hiding-place that deceitful, violent and iniquitous trial, long hidden; and its nullity, iniquity and violence were manifoldly detected, both from inspection of it and from common fame and the report of men worthy of belief. Which the aforesaid Isabelle and her kinsfolk perceiving, by the counsel and direction of many most worthy men who had inspected that trial at length, they deemed it right simply and humbly to have recourse to the fountain of justice, the holy apostolic See, which is the mother and mistress of the faith, and is wont to afford loving succour to all the oppressed, to which the said Joan had often submitted herself in the conduct of the said trial, and to which she had often asked that her sayings and deeds should be remitted — setting forth to the same See all the premises and asking the opportune remedies of justice. Upon their prayers and supplications, therefore, inclined with his wonted benignity, our most holy lord Calixtus the Third (3), ever bearing loving bowels of compassion over the afflicted, since he could not be fully informed of the premises, committed his powers and full authority to the same most reverend Jean the Archbishop, and to Guillaume and Richard, Bishops of Paris and Coutances, and to one of the Inquisitors of the faith in the realm of France, most choice and approved men, as the said widow then set forth to them, and to two of the three the faculty of duly taking cognisance upon the nullity and iniquity of the said trial, both from the acts of the same and from other documents, declaring that nullity by their sentence, and totally purging the said Joan and her people from all mark, infamy and stain by occasion or pretext of the said trial, and applying to the said widow and her kin all opportune remedies of law; as is more fully contained in the said apostolic letters and rescript.\nThe aforesaid widow Isabelle, therefore, casting herself with great groans and sighs at the feet of the said most reverend and reverend fathers — to wit, the Archbishop of Reims and the Bishop of Paris — and of the venerable Master Jean Bréhal, Inquisitor of the faith (Richard, Bishop of Coutances, being then absent), and again offering and presenting to them, and to each of them particularly, the rescript which she bore in her hands, together with her aforesaid son, both in her own name and in that of her kinsfolk, humbly and most instantly required that the aforesaid lords Delegates, wholesomely following the footsteps of the holy apostolic See and of our most holy lord Calixtus the Third, and reverently receiving and executing its mandates, would deign to proceed to the inspection or the speedy execution of the said rescript presented to them, without further delay or tarrying; and to minister justice to the said widow and her sons and kinsfolk, declaring the nullity of the aforesaid trial, purging the said Joan and her people, and applying the other remedies of law, as justice and equity demanded and required, and as was commanded them in the rescript.\nThere were present then among those assisting the aforesaid widow learned and lettered men, secular and religious, who, reciting at length many things concerning the aforesaid trial, which they professed to have seen in authentic form: many unbefitting things (4): of the violence, usurpation and inordinate passion of the judges; many of the rigour of the prison, the chains and fetters, and of the baseness and bitterness of the guards delivered over the said Joan; of the captious, subtle and impertinent questions; of the interruptions and changes of place; of the unaccustomed and extraordinary manner of interrogation; of the threats and terrors brought upon the counsellors; of the articles falsified for the obtaining of opinions; of the fraudulent inducements; of the violent abjuration; of the feigned and contrived relapse; also concerning the simplicity, integrity and virginity of the said Joan herself, ascertained even by her adversaries, and concerning her pious and salutary purposes and deeds amid the very great necessities of the realm — which things, they said, if weighed with right intention, were to be attributed not to crime but to praise, not to error but to religion; to piety, not to depravity; to truth, not to falsehood, and to be discussed by divine rather than human judgement; exhorting and beseeching the said lords Delegates with great insistence that they would deign to have regard to the needy and poor widow, and with loving benignity to impart the salutary aid of charity and justice to her desolations and complaints.\nBut when the aforesaid lettered men stretched out the aforesaid speech at length, and each of them particularly strove to descend to particulars of the aforesaid trial and to specify them; and the said widow, many of those assisting crying out with her, doubled and repeated her prayers, a great multitude then running together at their voices: the aforesaid lords Delegates, perceiving that time and place did not admit full deliberation in the reception and inspection of the aforesaid rescript, and that the presence of notaries was not then at hand, led the said widow with those assisting her, the multitude being shut out, to be withdrawn to the sacristy of the aforesaid church of Paris; and in the aforesaid place, after certain consolations ministered to the said widow, set in great bitterness of heart, and after manifold interrogations made upon the origin, condition and conversation both of the said widow and of her daughter the aforesaid Joan — the aforesaid rescript having first been read among themselves, and afterwards before all — they answered her by the mouth of the said most reverend father the lord Jean, Archbishop of Reims, that they had heard with loving compassion of mind and had perceived from the very tenor of the rescript her lamentations, complaints and moaning, and the effect of her petition; wherefore, since the reverence due to the holy apostolic See, and the fidelity and obedience owed to it, constrained them, and natural piety and the testimonies of Scripture induced them patiently to hear the widow’s cause and complaint, and, keeping within the bounds of reason and justice, effectually to grant it: they were prepared, at a fitting place and time, the notaries being summoned and called, with the assistance, direction and counsel of learned and honest men whom they had purposed to summon, benignly to receive again with reverence the rescript presented to them; and to proceed to its execution, after the due calling of the parties, justice being the means, according to the tenor of the said rescript; and in no wise to deny the said widow and her kin the due fulfilment of justice. Nevertheless they wished the aforesaid widow, unskilled in law-suits and processes, to be forewarned of the arduousness and difficulty of the matter set forth in the narration of the rescript and in her supplication, that she should duly ponder the prolix and difficult, ambiguous and perilous courses and issues of judgements; and that in this most renowned city, where there was at hand a multitude of learned and honest men, she should seek salutary counsel; lest, seduced perchance by carnal affection, or moved by a zeal of indiscretion, or guided by a less salutary counsel, she should have to renew and heap up for herself and hers, in place of the reparation and purgation sought, damage and injury; and, in place of the annulment of the trial conducted against her daughter, to bring back its corroboration and confirmation. For since the aforesaid Joan, her daughter, as she says, was long ago judicially dealt with in a cause of faith, which is to be spoken of as favourable, and condemned by grave, learned and solemn judges, it is most likely to be presumed in favour of their sentence; nor is the retraction of a sentence to be approached without the strongest proofs, by the extraordinary way of nullity: For the voice of all litigants, says Augustine, is this one and the same, even when they have been convicted by manifest reasoning, to say that they have suffered at the hands of bad judges, and that their judgement was iniquitous and null. Credence, therefore, is not readily to be afforded to such; what has once been definitively determined is not to be broken off; easy access is not to be ministered; ecclesiastical discipline is not lightly to be broken; never, under any pretext of piety or compassion, is the integrity and uprightness of the faith to be changed. For since causes of faith must be so handled that neither the distinction of the powerful nor of the poor may intervene, nor any acceptance of persons be had, Scripture saying: If thy father or thy son, or thy wife who sleepeth in thy bosom, or thy friend would pervert the truth, let thy hand be upon him [Deut. 13:6], it beseems those who judge of matters of faith, in the first, and much more strongly in the second instance, discussing again the things adjudged, ever to have before their eyes God alone and justice, and the very sincere integrity of the faith, to bear the balance of rectitude in their hands, and in no wise to depart from the way of truth and the traditions of the Fathers, all considerations of whatsoever favour being set aside. For although the Church ought to show herself favourable to orphans and widows, favour is nevertheless not to be shown against justice or against the very sincerity of the faith.\nSaying these and other things, the aforesaid lords Delegates finally declared that they spoke and\n(1) The manuscripts: die vero décima septima — the seventeenth day; then at the end of the procès-verbal of that same day and throughout the sequel (see below, pp. 90, 91 and 92) they indicate 7 November as the day which was afterwards assigned for the solemn presentation of the apostolic rescript. On the subject of this manifest error, consult our Introduction.\n(2) An error: the Christian name of Joan of Arc’s father was Jacques. See vol. I, p. 40, and the Pièces justificatives of the fourth volume.\n(3) The manuscripts read quintus — the Fifth.\n(4) The Notre-Dame manuscript: de incompetentia.\nsaid all the aforesaid things, not to the diminution of the innocence of the aforesaid Joan, nor to the detriment of the cause or of the justice of the widow herself, nor for the sake of delay or tarrying, but so that the widow herself, ever armed with good counsel, might duly foresee that, if the entering into judgements is easy, yet the issue is difficult and perilous; and that all things reserved to the future are uncertain.\nAfter these and other things had been set forth, the aforesaid lords Delegates ordained that the presentation, reception and publication of the rescript, and the answer upon the decree and other matters, should again be made, more solemnly and more particularly, in the presence of notaries, doctors and honest men to be summoned by the said lords Delegates, in the episcopal hall of Paris; assigning, as they also did assign, to the aforesaid widow and her son and her people the seventeenth day (1) of this month of November, in the aforesaid episcopal hall, to present again and to receive the aforesaid rescript in the presence of the public notaries and of the counsellors to be summoned; and also to require on the part of the aforesaid widow what of right should be required, and also to hear the deliberation, determination and answer of the said lords Delegates and of the council upon the presentation and reception of the aforesaid rescript, the citations and summonses of the parties, and other preparatory matters; and to proceed upon these and other matters as of right it should behove to proceed; admonishing the aforesaid widow that, during the pending delay, she should procure for herself the counsels of good and honest men ever having God and justice before their eyes, and should come on the said day armed with good and faithful counsel.\nThe aforesaid widow moreover and the aforesaid assistants, expressly protesting that it was not their intention to pursue, say or do anything which could redound to the detriment or prejudice of the faith, of truth and of justice, or depart from the integrity of the faith itself, said that they were fully certified of the simplicity and innocence of the aforesaid Joan as regards the crimes imposed upon her under pretext of the faith; and that the very iniquity, violence and nullity of the trial lawfully appear from its acts and from other documents; therefore, in no wise distrusting the justice of the cause, they were ready to appear in public sight and publicly to require judgement. Accepting therefore with humility and reverence the aforesaid term for presenting the rescript again, and the place assigned them, and benignly and humbly entreating the aforesaid lords Delegates for the speedy and brief despatch of the business, the aforesaid widow and the aforesaid assistants withdrew from the presence of the said lords Delegates and from the said church of Paris with acts of thanks, an authentic copy of the aforesaid rescript being left with the aforesaid lords Delegates, and certain supplications, conceived in Latin and in French, being tendered and left with them, in which all the premises were set forth more at large. The aforesaid lords Delegates moreover, certain communications having been held beforehand in that place, ordained, during the pending delay, to communicate further among themselves, the most approved and learned men being called together more often.\nThese things were first done and said in the said church of Paris and its sacristy; and then, that all things might proceed more advisedly and maturely and be more attentively done, the matter being likewise renewed and repeated in the presence of the said prelates and of the learned men subscribed below, we the notaries being constituted for the whole series of the proceedings, on the said [seventeenth] day of the aforesaid month of November; there being also present at these things Jean de Cruisy, scribe of the episcopal court of Paris, and Pierre de Rupe, public notaries, subscribed with us at the end of this article; who also were present at all the things already said and premised, both done in the said church and also renewed and repeated in the said episcopal hall, on the said [seventeenth] day of the month of November (2), the acts of which day are forthwith described.\nSolemn presentation of the apostolic rescript at Paris, in the episcopal hall # The said seventeenth day (3) then having come, assigned to the aforesaid widow and her kin, as aforesaid, in the said church of Paris (4); there assembling in the said hall the most reverend and reverend fathers Jean, Archbishop of Reims, and Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, and the venerable Master Jean Bréhal, Inquisitor of the faith, the reverend father in Christ Richard, Bishop of Coutances, being then absent; there being present and assisting in the same place very many bishops, abbots, professors of sacred theology and of the laws, and officials of divers metropolitan and diocesan sees, and other licentiates, masters and learned men, and a copious multitude of clergy and people: the aforesaid widow Isabelle appeared, together with her son, both in her own name and in that of her kinsfolk, most honest and worthy men and women accompanying her. And she duly appearing, and we the notaries underwritten being constituted to hear and register the things which should be said and done, the solemn oaths requisite in matter of fidelity having been required of us and given, saving an ampler constitution; the parties being summoned on behalf of the same widow Isabelle and of her son and her kin: a man of great circumspection and knowledge, Master Pierre Maugier (5), eminent doctor of the Decretals, repeated and resumed the presentation, propositions and requisitions made on behalf of the aforesaid widow in the said church of Paris; and set forth the lamentations and complaints upon the cruel death and condemnation of the aforesaid Joan; the said archbishop also repeating the aforesaid exhortations made to the said widow, and the assignation to this place and day. Which assignation the aforesaid widow desiring to satisfy, by the mouth of the venerable said Master Pierre Maugier she presented with humility and reverence the rescript formerly presented, namely the apostolic letters of our most holy lord the lord Calixtus the Third, sealed with the bull after the manner of the Roman curia, sound and whole, not vitiated, not cancelled, but altogether free from every defect and suspicion, by which it was expressly commanded to the said lords Delegates that they should show to the same widow and her kin the due fulfilment of justice; humbly beseeching that the aforesaid lords Delegates, wholesomely following the footsteps of the said holy apostolic See and of the same most holy lord our Calixtus, and reverently receiving and executing its mandates, would deign to proceed to the inspection and speedy execution of the said rescript presented to them without further delay or tarrying; to summon the parties to be summoned, and to minister justice to the said widow and her sons and kinsfolk, declaring the nullity of the aforesaid trial, purging the said Joan and her people, and applying certain remedies of law, as justice and equity demanded and required, and as was commanded them in the rescript.\nAnd the aforesaid presentation of the rescript and the requisition on the part of the aforesaid widow and her kin being thus made, the aforesaid lords Delegates, for the reverence and honour of the holy apostolic See, received the aforesaid rescript reverently and benignly in their hands with all humility and obedience; and since they had read and seen it among themselves at the first presentation in the venerable church of Paris, as is said above, desiring specially to receive counsel and direction upon its execution from certain of the most learned and worthy men assisting, both concerning the summoning of the parties, the place and time of the summons, and concerning the other preparatory matters; and to intimate to the ears of each of those present the contents of the same rescript and the sincere intention of the same most holy lord our Pope, so that it might more conveniently come to the knowledge of all whose interest it might be: they ordained that the aforesaid rescript should be read through and published in the sight of all, by the mouth of the venerable man Master Jean Cruisy, scribe of the episcopal court of Paris. Who, receiving it from the hands of the aforesaid lords Delegates, read it in a loud and intelligible voice, all and each hearing.\nSo I affirm, Ferrebouc. So I affirm, Comitis (6).\nThe tenor moreover of the aforesaid rescript thus presented and read follows, and is this:\nCalixtus (7), bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our venerable brethren the Archbishop of Reims and the Bishops of Paris and Coutances, greeting and apostolic benediction. To the humble prayers of suppliants we gladly assent, and we follow them up with opportune favours. A petition lately exhibited to us on behalf of our beloved sons Pierre and Jean, called d’Arc, laymen, and of our beloved daughter in Christ Isabelle, mother of the same Pierre and Jean, and of sundry of their kinsfolk, of the diocese of Toul, contained that: albeit the late Joan d’Arc, sister of Pierre and Jean and daughter of Isabelle their mother, while she lived among men detested every heresy, nor believed nor affirmed nor asserted aught that savoured of heresy or was contrary to the catholic faith and the traditions of the holy Roman Church; yet the late Guillaume d’Estivet, or whosoever then was promoter of criminal causes of the episcopal court of Beauvais, at the subornation, as is veritably believed, of certain rivals as well of Joan as of the aforesaid brothers and mother, falsely reporting to Pierre of good memory, Bishop of Beauvais, and likewise to the late Jean Magistri, professor of the Order of Friars Preachers, asserting that he then bore the office of the Inquisitor of heretical pravity deputed in those parts, then also living among men, that the said Joan, who was then in the diocese of Beauvais, was besmirched with the crime of heresy, and had committed other crimes which were contrary to the said faith: the said bishop, by ordinary authority, and Jean Magistri, pretending to have been supported by sufficient power in this behalf, under pretext thereof, upon such false report, descended to an inquisition against the said Joan, the promoter prosecuting the business of such inquisition; and straightway committed her to prisons and custody, neither the evidence of the matter, nor the vehemence of suspicion, nor the clamour of ill-fame requiring it; and at last, although it was not lawfully established to them by such inquisition, as neither could it be established, that the said Joan had been besmirched with any heresy, or had committed other things contrary to the faith, or such excesses and crimes, or had adhered to any errors whatsoever contrary to the said faith, since these things were neither notorious nor true, and the said Joan herself had required the same bishop and Jean Magistri that, if they pretended she had said or was saying aught that savoured of heresy or was contrary to the faith, they should remit it to the examination of the apostolic See, whose judgement she was then ready to undergo: nevertheless, all defence of her innocence being taken from the said Joan and the order of law omitted, proceeding at the mere pleasure of their will nullly and in fact in this business of inquisition, they promulgated an iniquitous definitive sentence against the said Joan, by which they judged her a heretic and entangled in the other crimes and excesses aforesaid. By occasion whereof also the said Joan was afterwards wickedly delivered by the secular court to the last punishment, to the peril of the souls of those condemning her, and to the ignominy and opprobrium, and the hurt, offence and injury of the mother, brothers and aforesaid kinsfolk. And, as the same petition subjoined, of the nullity of such inquisition process, and of the innocence of the said Joan, it clearly appears from its acts and otherwise; and because she, beyond the deserts of her fault, was wickedly condemned, it can easily be established by lawful proofs. Wherefore the aforesaid brothers and mother and kinsfolk, desiring to act especially for the recovery of their own honour and of the said Joan’s, and to abolish the mark of infamy thence unduly incurred, caused us to be humbly supplicated that we would deign to commit the cause of such nullity and of the purgation of the things falsely imputed to the said Joan to be heard by certain persons in those parts and determined with due end, and to command that they be admitted to the prosecution of the cause of such nullity and purgation, notwithstanding the premises. We therefore, inclined to such supplications in this behalf, command your fraternity by apostolic writings that you, or two or one of you, taking unto you some person deputed over such pravity in the realm of France, and the present sub-inquisitor of the said pravity constituted in the said diocese of Beauvais and the promoter of criminal causes of the said court being called, and the others who shall have to be summoned; having heard the things proposed on either side upon the premises: ye shall decree what is just, appeal being removed, causing what ye shall decree to be firmly observed by ecclesiastical censure; apostolic constitutions and ordinances and all other things contrary notwithstanding. Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, in the year of the Lord’s incarnation 1455, on the third of the ides of June, in the first year of our pontificate. So signed in the fold of the lower margin: S. Consiliati.\n(1) The manuscripts 5970 and Notre-Dame: the seventh day.\n(2) The two manuscripts Notre-Dame and 5970, septembris.\n(3) The manuscripts Notre-Dame and 5970, the seventh.\n(4) The Notre-Dame manuscript: in prœdio Parisiensis ecclesiœ — in the close of the church of Paris; but we must read in prœdicta Parisiensi ecclesia — in the aforesaid church of Paris; for the assignation had been given to appear in Notre-Dame, and not in the close of Notre-Dame.\n(5) Advocate of the d’Arc family; perhaps son of Robert Mauger, first president of the Parliament of Paris under Charles VI. At least it is certain that he was a Parisian, and procurator of the nation of France in the University of Paris from the year 1421. He exercised the functions of rector in 1427 and in 1431. After having been elected deputy to the councils of Basel (1429) and of Rouen (1450), he displayed much activity and talent in the quarrel of the University and the Mendicant Orders. The assembled Faculties voted him thanks for the trouble he had taken in that affair. In truth, the gratitude of the body did not go so far as to preserve him from a humiliation which he drew upon himself a little afterwards by his indiscreet conduct: having spoken ill of the rector Jean Boulanger, he was publicly reprimanded on 14 March 1467 and forced to make honourable amends. (Du Boulay, Hist. univ. Par., V, pp. 351, 410, 439, 605, 621, 878, 921.)\n(6) Registrars of the cause, whose letters of institution will be found hereafter. There exists a letter of Robert Gaguin to François Ferrebouc, dated from Burgos 1468, in which the latter is qualified as Pontificii juris laureatus, that is to say licentiate in canon law, a title which he himself takes in divers documents of the trial. (Thesaurus anecdot., I, p. 1833.)\n(7) Alphonse Borgia, formerly Archbishop of Valencia in Spain, elected pope on 8 April 1455, at the age of seventy-eight.\nSpeech of Master Pierre Maugier at the aforesaid presentation # And the presentation, reception and public reading of the aforesaid rescript being made, as is described above, and public instruments being thereupon requested, when the aforesaid lords Delegates with the reverend and venerable prelates, doctors and men skilled in the law assisting them in great numbers were beginning to deliberate upon the answer to be given and upon the summoning and citation of the parties to be decreed, and upon the parties, both generally and specially, to be summoned of whom mention is made in the rescript, and the other preparatory matters; and were already directing the parties and counsellors and the attendant multitude to withdraw to another part of the hall: the venerable man the aforesaid Master Pierre Maugier, most instantly required by the said widow and her kinsfolk, and, as he said, by well-nigh the whole multitude, as appeared from the voices of many, to set forth more particularly and fully in French words the supplication of the widow herself and her kinsfolk contained in the rescript — desiring, as he asserted, in some measure to inform so venerable an assembly of the pitifulness of the cause and the injustice of the judges, and of the innocence of the aforesaid Joan named in the said rescript — asked for a hearing (1). Which, although the aforesaid lords Delegates, who had not yet assumed upon themselves the part of judges, manifoldly asserted to be unnecessary and of little use, nevertheless at the frequent and sedulous instance of the aforesaid widow and the prayers of those present, by the deliberation of the aforesaid prelates, doctors and other men skilled in the law, they deemed right to be granted to the said Master Pierre, he being forewarned to speak with honesty, modesty and brevity concerning the very parties of whom mention was made in the rescript, and to whom full hearing and defence was reserved, both against the rescript and concerning the principal matter.\nHearing being therefore granted, and silence enjoined upon all, the same venerable Master Pierre first protested that he purposed to injure none maliciously, nor to detract or inveigh aught to the prejudice of the fame, honour or dignity of any; but intended only to say and propose, whether now or in the whole series and discussion of the future trial and judgement, those things which seemed to make for the elucidation of the truth and the manifestation of justice, and for the justice due to his cause; protesting also specially and expressly that it was his intention solely and only to apply and adapt the words of complaint (2) against the judges and the promoter, of whom special mention is made in the rescript; but against the others who are said to have been present at some time at the trial attempted against the aforesaid Joan, and to have given certain opinions or counsels — since, in view of the false and mendacious extraction and composition of the articles communicated to them, they are held excusable — he wished to say or propose nothing; nay, he intended, justice requiring it, in the very discussion and series of the trial, manifoldly to show that the articles themselves, transmitted for the obtaining of opinions, were falsely and unduly extracted from the confessions of the aforesaid Joan, pertained in no wise to the case and deeds of the aforesaid Joan, differed from them, and in many things most evidently contradicted them. These protestations being thus made, the aforesaid Master Pierre, submitting the things said and to be said in this prosecution and matter to the correction and determination of the holy apostolic See, and of the lords delegated by it, and of all to whom it may pertain in this behalf, began to say and propose, in French words, the things which in effect follow, here set forth in Latin words:\nMost reverend fathers and most renowned judges, that the zeal of your rectitude may come forth into the midst, and the sacred honour of truth and justice may shine forth, and on the other hand, ever speaking short of all injury, the deceitful intent of the judges Pierre Cauchon, late Bishop of Beauvais, Guillaume d’Estivet the promoter, Jean Magistri, sub-inquisitor of the faith in the diocese of Beauvais (3), and their colleagues or accomplices, may be detected, and their manifest iniquity laid open: after the example of the most pure Daniel, raised up by divine grace for the salvation of the innocent Susanna condemned by wicked deceit, to convict the malice of the hardened judges: may it please you, I beseech, to attend to the hidden deceit, the perverse zeal, the conspired malice, and the damnable over-boldness of the presumed authority of judgement of those judges, of whom mention is made in the rescript now presented to you, and against whom our proposition is directed. Wherefore, I ask, has this rashness of judging, deceitfully sought out by the judges, prevailed without authority, when the evidence has shown that the same judges cherished capital enmities against that innocent daughter, so that they are held openly, publicly and manifestly not only dwellers with her enemies, but adherents, table-companions, familiars, favourers, officers and counsellors of them, as the sayings, deeds, iniquitous trial and pernicious sentences of the same judges manifest and express most evidently? Whence comes their so great presumption to be marvelled at, since they themselves know that the laws divine and human cry out that not only capital enemies, but those dwelling with them, are utterly alien from the office of judging, witnessing and accusing. But from the very series of the judgement and its form, corrupted and stained beyond measure, shines forth the intention of the said judges, and their officious conspiracy, alike deceitful and iniquitous, for her destruction: since they caused her, bound in iron fetters and gyves and consigned to a hard prison, under basest guards, in a castle and secular power, to be often vexed with subtle interrogatories sought out in arduous matters; and by the false articulated excerpts of her forced confession, sinister additions and discrepancies of the opining consultants, and adjurations extorted by force and fear, and feigned relapses, they dared at last, with polluted consciences and hands, iniquitously to suffocate her by public burning. For these things are manifest from the sight of their iniquitous trial, and are established by most true informations; by which that very trial itself stands infected, and the sentences and consequences, stained with the taint of deceit, nullity and iniquity, it manifestly leaves behind. Give heed to these things, most renowned judges; the unspotted blood of oppressed innocence cries before the throne of the Lord. To your providences is sent the authority from on high, and the delegation made, and the elucidation of this iniquitous condemnation committed, that by the ministry of justice ye may render serene the consciences of the faithful, and appoint a seemly and just reparation, tempered with the sweet-smelling compounds of justice and equity.\nNeither is the purity of the said daughter, her modest conversation, her exceeding humility, her sincerity in the faith, her fervent devotion towards the sacraments of the Church, to be little weighed in this behalf before your paternities; which things never beget or induce ill-fame of the faith, or the stain or suspicion of heresy. Nor will it be found in the whole conduct of that trial that she was convicted of, or confessed, those crimes which the most iniquitous sentence passed upon her falsely expresses. But if she was accused of the assumption of man’s dress, or the bearing of arms for some time: she gave a catholic answer, excusatory, the necessity and public utility being manifoldly shown, and the loving and divine instinct whereby she was moved thereto being alleged; so that she was held free of every stain imputed to her, especially such as deserved a process of faith, as the trial itself manifests in its most open proofs. May it please you to impress these things upon your minds, that it may be made manifest to all that every suspicion in the same innocent woman, and matter of a cause of faith or of any mark whatsoever imputed to her, ceases.\nNor let it irk you, most reverend fathers, to observe that the aforesaid judges, from the beginning of the trial conducted against the said daughter, that they might seem to hold the form ordained by law, made informations concerning her ill-fame in her own parts; but they did not join them to their trial — nay, filled with deceit, they willed them to lie hid; since immaculate innocence, frequency of divine offices, reception of the sacraments, and the purity of all good disposition, the embraces of devotion and catholic truth, and good name and honest conversation, had by those informations rendered authentic report in common fame. But because this report was contrary to the intention of the judges, they cast those informations out of the trial, and deceitfully willed them to be hidden under a bushel. Herein moreover, most learned judges, they bring in the nullity of their trial and of all its consequences; for, even according to the doctors of law, every sentence is deemed infected with the taint of nullity which deceit mingled in the trial stains; most of all if the judge has in any wise consented to the deceit, as your circumspect reverences will weigh these things; noting also with special observation that, since a criminal sentence cannot be passed save upon one spontaneously confessed before his own judge, or convicted, this Maid, set in her lesser age and made over to a hard prison, afflicted by the fear and terror of her guards and the continual opprobriums of her capital enemies and the immense vexations of the judges, ought not to have been held convicted or confessed, and much less condemned, especially by those judges whom she oft-times refused, and against whom she appealed to the Pope, and asked that she and her sayings and her deeds should be remitted.\nItem, these things being supposed, and to avail for the purgation of the same innocent Maid, it is needful as to the rest of the contents of the trial to observe with what perseverance she affirmed that she had revelations from God and the Saints, and that she proceeded by their aid, not refusing but embracing the judgements of the Church; and that very many doctors and lettered men veritably affirm them to be such that none ought to judge of them save for good; since such things, even where uncertain, were rather to be left to the divine judgement. Nor was this Maid to be called an idolater, or a diviner or contriver of such revelations, save nullly and in fact, nor a seductress in aught, who strove to bring back the subject peoples to the obedience of their natural king and lord, believing in God alone and invoking the Saints of God, the adoration and invocation of evil spirits whatsoever being set aside and driven out.\nItem, since the aforesaid judges were not ashamed, in the sentences attempted by them, infected with the taint of deceit, iniquity and nullity, to utter many opprobriums concerning the same daughter and innocent Maid, and falsely to impute to her that she was confessed and convicted of divers crimes, and falsely, mendaciously and iniquitously to condemn her as erring in the faith and relapsed into heresy; in all which things, if the series of the trial be unfolded, she will be able to appear duly neither convicted nor confessed: may it please your reverences to declare her not liable to the aforesaid crimes, and to retract the condemnations and declarations uttered against her, and to abolish all the scandal thence arisen, justice being the means.\nItem, since that false trial of her adversaries contains that this daughter was condemned by the opinions of many skilled in sacred and human law, whereas nevertheless no trial of her confessions was ever delivered to those opining consultants, nor seen by them; but there were given them, deceitfully indeed, articles to opine upon, beginning A certain woman, unlike her confessions, suppressing the things which availed for her justification, and superadding iniquitous, false and surreptitious aggravations of every kind, upon which nevertheless the perverse sentence of the judges seems to have been wholly founded, being thence infected with nullity: which I ask to be borne in memory by your providences, and to be duly compared with the said trial, for the evident dissimilarity, and with the confession of the said Joan.\nItem, the pretended abjuration also, placed in the proceedings by the aforesaid judges, comes to be most greatly weighed, since that which is inserted in the proceedings was fabricated anew after the proceedings were completed, very prolix and wrought with a strong artifice, which that innocent and ignorant daughter could not even have conceived; nay, another and a dissimilar one was presented to her, comprised in a short schedule; which if she, terrified, uttered, she will have seemed to have done nothing, since the expectation of the torturer, and the burning of the fire prepared, and the instant menace of a cruel death, seemed to compel her thereto by the very greatest fear. Nor will it irk you likewise to observe that the said maiden or daughter then oft-times, when she was thus dealt with, said to her adversary judges that she submitted herself and her sayings utterly to our lord the Pope and the Roman Church, and that she should be brought to him, or her sayings and deeds be sent to him. In all which things it is established that she was not a schismatic, but a true catholic; not a heretic, but obedient and faithful; nay, all the aforesaid things sound a most true appeal interjected to the Pope. From all which things it is needful to infer that that very sentence of those judges is null, and uttered by those who were not judges, erroneous and false, which falsely and mendaciously asserts the Maid herself to be a schismatic and an erring one.\nThese and many other things the said venerable Master Pierre Maugier briefly set forth in general in the said presentation of the rescript; protesting to set forth and declare them more particularly and amply, the parties being called; and asking both that the parties be called and that justice be shortly despatched to the aforesaid widow and her kinsfolk, as is enjoined upon the same aforesaid lords Delegates by the holy apostolic See and our most holy lord Calixtus; by summoning, or causing to be summoned, the parties whose summoning is commanded in the rescript, and by ministering to the aforesaid widow the due fulfilment of justice.\nAdjunction of the Inquisitor and previous interrogation of the plaintiffs # These things being heard, as is premised, that they might omit nothing of the contents of the same apostolic letters, so far as they could, they first took unto themselves as co-judge the venerable and religious man Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, of the Order of Friars Preachers, the other Inquisitor (4) in the realm of France, as was commanded to be done by the same apostolic letters; and he being so assumed, who was present also, and had ever been present at all the things already done: considering that a business of this kind could not be despatched without summons and citation, and without great distinction of terms, they deemed right first to admonish the said widow Isabelle, then present, mother of the aforesaid Maid, and the aforesaid Pierre and Jean, her brothers, upon the difficulties of the proceedings; and to interrogate them by solemn oath concerning the consanguinity which they had to the aforesaid Joan herself, and the zeal whereby they were moved, and other things. Which aforesaid widow and brothers answered upon solemn oath that she, the widow, was mother, and they brothers, of the aforesaid Joan the Maid, and that they intended to prosecute their own and their kinsfolk’s injury; not willing to become cruel by unduly neglecting their own and their kinsfolk’s fame; desiring that the apostolic mandate concerning the injustice wrought upon the same deceased woman and her parents should be committed to execution, and that according to its tenor justice should be ministered to them; instantly asking that letters of citation, according to the form and tenor of the said apostolic letters, be decreed to them.\nOrdinance upon the citation and summons of the parties # And thereupon the aforesaid lords Delegates, attending that the proceedings, and on that side which concerns the summoning into law, ought to begin; those being then excluded and directed to withdraw\n(1) The manuscripts: audiendam postulavit — asked for a hearing.\n(2) The manuscripts: querimoniam verba — the words of complaint.\n(3) Supply: diœcesi — the diocese. Jean Lemaître was vice-inquisitor in the diocese of Rouen; but here, and throughout the course of the trial, he is regarded as vice-inquisitor of the diocese of Beauvais, on account of the special commission which he had received to proceed in concert with Pierre Cauchon. See vol. I, p. 124.\n(4) Alterum Inquisitorem — the other Inquisitor, because there were two Inquisitors in the realm: that of Paris, who was properly the Inquisitor of France, and that of Toulouse, Inquisitor of Languedoc.\nthe widow and kinsfolk and counsellors and the multitude to another part of the episcopal hall: with the aforesaid reverend bishops and venerable abbots, doctors and men skilled in the law assisting, they ordained that the persons specially named in the rescript, and the others generally, should be cited and summoned to the place of the city of Rouen, where the first trial was conducted (1), to say first against the rescript and the persons, and to say further as should seem reasonable; and, causing the said widow and kinsfolk and counsellors and those present with them to return again before them, they granted to the same widow and kinsfolk letters of citation, both special and general, and decreed that they should be made and committed to execution, under the tenor designated below, as was commanded to be done to them by the same apostolic letters in the rescript.\nWhich being done, the same aforesaid widow Isabelle, now well-nigh decrepit with age, and the aforesaid Pierre and Jean, saying that they could not go about to very many places, constituted procurators in the acts and in the hands of us the notaries underwritten, under this tenor:\nTenor of the letters of procuration on the part of Isabelle and Pierre d’Arc # In the name of the Lord, amen. By this present public instrument let it be manifestly plain and known to all that, in the year of the same Lord 1455, the third indiction (2), on the eighteenth day of the month of November, in the first year of the pontificate of our most holy father and lord in Christ the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name; in the presence of us, the notaries and witnesses underwritten, specially called and required for these things, personally constituted, Isabelle d’Arc of the diocese of Toul, mother, and the lord Pierre d’Arc, knight, brother of the late Joan d’Arc, commonly called the Maid of Domrémy-sur-Meuse, of the said diocese of Toul; of their certain knowledge, by the better way, right, manner and form whereby they best could and ought, can and may: made, constituted, created, named and solemnly ordained, in the acts of this cause, their beloved and faithful, the venerable and circumspect men, lords and masters: Jean Loyseux, Jean Angot, Jean Generi, Jean Merat, Louis Penyot, of Paris; Guillaume Prévosteau (3), Guillaume Leconte, licentiates in the laws, advocates; Pierre Cointe (4), Jean Véteris, of Rouen, procurators; Jean Geffroy, Gérard Folie, Laurent Surreau, Jacques Foucques, canons of Rouen; Jean Frocourt (5), Jean de Granvillier (6) and Raoul Fabri, dwelling at Beauvais, their general procurators, and each of them in solidum (so nevertheless that there be not a better condition of those first occupying, nor a worse of those following; but that what was begun by one of them may freely be prosecuted, carried on, terminated and ended by another, with effect), specially and expressly, in the name or names of the constituents themselves, to prosecute the nullity of the proceedings, sentence and all things following thereupon, formerly conducted against the said Joan, commonly called the Maid, and to require, seek and obtain condign reparation; and to appear before the most reverend and reverend fathers in Christ, the lords Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, and Richard, Bishop of Coutances, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, one of the Inquisitors of heretical pravity constituted in the realm of France, or the other of them, or those deputed or to be deputed by the same judges and commissioners deputed by the holy See; and to act and defend in the name of the said constituents; and for them to give, make and offer a libel or libels and whatsoever petitions, by word or in writing; to reply, to rejoin, to sur-rejoin, and, if need be, to rebut; to contest the suit or suits, and cause them to be contested; to choose a domicile, and to excuse, avow and disavow the constituents themselves; to give whatsoever cautions; to speak of calumny, malice and truth; and to give upon the souls of the constituents themselves every oath of whatsoever other kind which is required in causes and which the order of law demands; to defer the oath; to take upon themselves the oath deferred; to put positions and articles; to answer positions and articles; to produce and exhibit witnesses, letters, acts, instruments and whatsoever other kinds of proofs by way of proof; to see the witnesses swear; to speak upon the witnesses and their sayings and the things exhibited and produced against them, and to reprove them; to object crimes and defects; to seek terms and delays; to propose exceptions of whatsoever kind; to implore and allege the office of the judge; to conclude in the cause or causes; to ask and to hear the sentence or sentences, both interlocutory and definitive; and, if it shall be necessary, to protest and appeal from the same, and from whatsoever other grievance brought or to be brought upon them; to prosecute, intimate, insinuate and notify their protests and appeals; once or many times, with due instance, to seek, recover and obtain the appeal (7), and the principal and the expenses if any be adjudged; to acquit of the things received; to seek and obtain the benefit of their absolution simply and by way of caution, and of restitution in full; to substitute another or other procurator or procurators, one or more, in their place, having a like or the same power in the premises; and to revoke him or them, the present procuration remaining in its vigour; and generally to do, make, procure and exercise all and each other things which shall be necessary or even opportune in and about the premises, and which the constituents themselves would do or could do if they were present and personally interested in the premises; even if there be such things as require a more special mandate. The same constituents promising, by their faith corporally given in the hands of us the notaries underwritten, and under the hypothec and obligation of all and each of their goods, moveable and immoveable, present and future, to hold and to hold for ever firm, stable and ratified all and whatsoever shall be done, said or transacted in the premises by their said procurators or the other of them, and by those substituted or to be substituted by the same or the other of them, or even otherwise howsoever procured, even if it shall be necessary to be presented in judgement and the judgement to be paid, with the opportune clauses. Of and upon all and each of which premises the often-said constituents asked that a public instrument or public instruments, one or more, should be made and delivered to them by us the notaries underwritten. These things were done at Paris, beside the church of Saint Mary of Paris, under the year, indiction, day, month and pontificate aforesaid; there being present at these things the venerable and circumspect men: Master Guillaume Sowillet, master in theology, Master Simon Chapitault, Égide Hallage, Laurent Vincent, and Pierre Heurgalent, witnesses specially called and required for the premises. Ferrebouc. Comitis.\nTenor of the letters of procuration on the part of Jean d’Arc # In the name of the Lord, amen. By this present public instrument let it be manifestly plain and known to all that, in the year of the same Lord 1455, the third indiction (8), on the twenty-fourth day of the month of November, etc., etc.; in the presence, etc., personally constituted, Jean d’Arc, brother of the late Joan, commonly called the Maid of Domrémy-sur-Meuse, of the diocese of Toul; of his knowledge, etc., his beloved and faithful, the venerable and discreet men, lords and masters: Jean Loyseux, Jean Angot, Jean Generi, Jean Merat, Louis Penyot, of Paris; Guillaume Prévosteau, Guillaume Leconte, licentiates in the laws, advocates; Pierre Lecointe, Jean Véteris, of Rouen, procurators; Jean Geffroy, Gérard Folie, Laurent Surreau, Jacques Foucques, canons of Rouen; Jean Frocourt, Jean de Granvillier and Raoul Fabri, dwelling at Beauvais, our procurators, etc. (9).\nTenor of the letters of citation published in the diocese of Rouen # Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, judges and commissioners in this behalf, specially deputed for the foregoing by our most holy father and lord in Christ, the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name, together with the reverend father in Christ the lord Bishop of Coutances, our colleague in this behalf, with that clause: In that ye, or two or one of you, etc. To all and each priests, vicars, curates and not curates, and the other rectors of churches and public notaries, and other notaries wheresoever constituted, to whom or to which these our present letters shall come, and the others whom the underwritten matter in any wise touches, greeting and everlasting love. Among the catholic works of the faithful the embrace of charity shines, by whose purest ardour the tearful complaints of the oppressed oft-times desire opportune remedies for the ministry of truth and justice. Verily, but a few days since, with mournful voice, loving insinuation and grave bitterness of heart, prostrate before our sight, with repeated turns, the honest woman Isabelle, mother, and Pierre d’Arc, brother, both in their own name and in that of the other kindred of the late Joan d’Arc, constantly asserted and offered that they had obtained a certain patent mandate of the apostolic See, directed to us under the apostolic bull; and that we should receive it, to be carried out, established and founded for the same complainants and afflicted; and that they should declare openly the causes of their supplication, difficult of approach, and should solemnly demand that the presentation of the pretended mandate be admitted; the patronage of counsel being distributed to them, we assigned a day and place. Who, again, at the term assigned to them, namely on the seventeenth day of the present month of November, in the episcopal hall of Paris, there being convoked and assisting a copious multitude of certain prelates and venerable masters, professors of both laws, licentiates, bachelors, and other regular scholars, ecclesiastical and lay; we sitting solemnly for the tribunal for this purpose: by the mouth of their counsel they mournfully set forth in a resounding voice that, some time since, Joan d’Arc, the natural and lawful daughter of Isabelle and sister of Pierre and Jean, the same complainants, was offended and enormously injured with a grave mark and loss of her fame and of all her kindred; especially in this, as they said, that, by the working of the violence of certain of her rivals, or of adversaries of the commonwealth under which she and her parents were wont to live and be nurtured, the said Joan was detained; and without form of law, lawful party, due inquisition, and the terms requisite in matter of faith ceasing, she was from the beginning made over to a hard prison; and although she was falsely denounced, in matter of faith, by a certain pretended promoter of the reverend father in Christ lord Pierre Cauchon, then Bishop of Beauvais, before the said Bishop of Beauvais and a certain pretended vicar of the Inquisitor of heretical pravity there, as judges: a trial, such as it was, was conducted against her nullly and in fact; and whereas she, as one born again in the faith of Christ, persevered in the manner of the faithful, devoutly embracing the divine worship and the traditions of the Church, nor asserted aught alien from holy Church, but rather gave catholic answers to the interrogatories sought out: nevertheless, by confessions and articles falsely contrived and fabricated, and certain things extorted by force, fear or circumvention, they were not ashamed unjustly to impute to her, impugning her, that she had uttered aught deviating from the tradition of the truth, or had otherwise grievously offended against the faith and the Church; and thence, adhering as it were to false principles, proceeding by deceitful means, they cruelly proceeded to iniquitous sentences, first of perpetual imprisonment, then of dismissal to the secular arm, and at last to the impious and detestable execution of final destruction. The aforesaid complainants subjoining with mournful desolation upon this opportunity assumed by them, which they knew not formerly to be fitting for them from lawful causes, that they had recourse in the form of justice decreed to the protection of the holy apostolic See, to which the Maid herself also oft-times, while the judgement was thus being conducted, sought recourse; by the form of which said apostolic mandate the commission of provision is delegated to us. Lastly, beseeching (since by the apostolic rescript itself, from the same most holy See and the present lord Pope, that delegation directed to us is known) with a mournful and lamentable prayer, that we would deign to admit it with loving compassion and to impart to them the works of truth and justice; tending and finally concluding that, the presentation of the apostolic mandate itself being received by us, we should take care to proceed to its execution according to its form; and thenceforward, justice persuading, would be willing to pronounce and sentence the nullity of the rash and presumptuous, false and contrived, as they asserted, proceedings, sentences and executions, with all the things following thereupon, and the declaration of rash presumption and falsity, or their irritation, cassation and annulment, and also the reintegration of their injured honour and offence and fame, and condign reparation of the injuries wrought by so great presumption, and the purity of the innocence of the same Joan by a true purgation openly to decree; so that to the perpetual memory of men there should redound this\n(1) The Notre-Dame manuscript: fuit.\n(2) The manuscripts read quarta — the fourth.\n(3) In 1452 Cardinal d’Estouteville had constituted him promoter of the cause. Procurator of the d’Arc family in 1455, it was he who had the principal charge of the suit. There are found on the registers of the Exchequer of Rouen, in the years 1462 and 1464, Guillaume Prévosteau, lay counsellor at the Exchequer; and on a list of the nobles dwelling at Rouen in 1486, Messire Guillaume Prévosteau, lord of Tourny. (Desoculet, Hist. de Rouen, pp. 3 and 33.)\n(4) Called Lecointe in the following document. See page 112.\n(5) Canon of Beauvais, licentiate in canon law, apostolic notary, registrar at the ecclesiastical court of Beauvais and at that of the Conservation of the privileges of the University of Paris. He executed the citations of the tribunal in the diocese of Beauvais.\n(6) Registrar in the church court at Beauvais.\n(7) Manuscript 5970, apostolos.\n(8) The manuscripts read quarto — the fourth.\n(9) The rest as in the preceding act, with this difference, that where there is ipsi constituentes in the procuration of Isabelle and Pierre d’Arc, here there must be substituted ipse constituens.\nreparation; or that otherwise, for the obtaining canonically of the due ends, more largely to be expressed and reserved at time and place, as they protested, we should extend our judgement, the same humbly imploring it of us. These things being therefore thus set forth, for the obtaining of the aforesaid ends, very many reasons being heard and openly deduced and laid bare, with due and honest protestations, sincere deliberation being straightway had upon this, we gave our assent to the reception of the same apostolic mandate. The apostolic mandate therefore being received by us with the reverence which was fitting, given at Rome at Saint Peter’s in the year of the Lord’s incarnation 1455, on the third of the ides of June: that, according to the due form of law, we might validly proceed to its execution, being instantly required by the aforesaid complainants; the other of the Inquisitors of heretical pravity deputed in this realm of France nevertheless being assumed and assisting us, of the same authority, namely the reverend professor of sacred theology, the religious Master Jean Bréhal of the Order of Friars Preachers: we caused the apostolic mandate itself to be read through openly and wholly, and to be published in the open. And then, a special summons being decreed by us of all and each of those who according to the series of the same mandate seemed to be summoned; moreover that we might proceed in this matter with ampler maturity, and lest anyone should be able to pretend ignorance of the things to be done: we commanded this our general and peremptory citation, of abundant caution, to be made and published, and deemed it right to be affixed in public places where it should be fitting. Wherefore, by the same apostolic authority which we exercise, we, the special Commissioners and Delegates aforesaid, command you all and each aforesaid, priests, vicars, curates and not curates, and the other rectors of churches, and public notaries, and other notaries wheresoever constituted, both by virtue of holy obedience and under the penalties of suspension upon the priests, and of excommunication upon the rest, which we pronounce in these writings unless ye shall do what we command: we enjoin that ye, or one of you, openly and publicly affix this our instrument, edict, or a copy thereof signed by a notary’s hand, upon the doors of the church of Rouen, and of other churches of the cities and places at which ye shall have been required, or one of you shall have been required, on behalf of the complainants or plaintiffs the same; and that ye cite, or one of you peremptorily cite, all and each, of whatsoever dignity or eminence, degree, honour, state and condition they be, or in any wise believing themselves interested, or in the form of law the formal parties, denouncers or accusers of the said late Joan, or defenders of the same pretended proceedings, or others willing lawfully to show themselves parties. Whom also, by the same apostolic authority, we summon and cite in these writings, to the twentieth day of the instant month of December next to come, at the hour of Terce, if that day be a law day; otherwise to the next law day following thereupon, on which it shall happen that we sit for the tribunal in this cause, or another or others acting for us by sub-delegation; to appear at Rouen in the archiepiscopal hall before us or one of us, or our sub-delegates or those to be sub-delegated by us or by one of us, in person or by their fit procurators sufficiently instructed, with all those rights, letters and muniments whereby they shall be willing to aid themselves in this behalf; to say or propose, by word or in writing, whatsoever they shall be willing to say against the aforesaid apostolic letters, the summonses, reports or execution of the same; and also to answer to the said complainants and to our promoter, if need be, concerning justice and right and what is just; and otherwise to proceed as of right in a cause of this kind, with its circumstances, dependencies and connexions, through all judicial acts and up to the definitive sentence and its execution inclusive; with due intimation, certifying wheresoever those thus cited that, whether they shall appear at the aforesaid prefixed peremptory term or not, we shall duly proceed, or they shall proceed, as shall be reasonable, the contumacy of the absent notwithstanding. Nevertheless, that no path of justice of any kind should be defrauded on any side, we have willed that to those asking for the exhibition or a copy of our mandate, whose interest it is, it should be given and exhibited at their own charges. And we command, by the aforesaid authority, that the things which in this behalf shall be done, executed or affixed by you or one of you, be delivered and despatched without delay to us or to one of us or to those to be delegated by us, in force of our summons, under your faithful and authentic report in writing. In faith and witness of all and each of the premises, we have commanded these our letters of citation, or this present public instrument, to be subscribed and published by the public notaries underwritten, our own and the scribes of this cause, and sworn by us; and to be confirmed by the appension of our seals. Given and done at Paris, in the greater upper episcopal hall of Paris, in the year from the nativity of the Lord 1455, the third indiction, on the seventeenth day of the month of November, in the first year of the pontificate of the same our lord Calixtus the Third; there being present the venerable and most lettered men, Masters Gérard Gehe (1), Guillaume Bouille, and the brothers Jean Soret (2), Jean de Vernon (3), of the order of the brothers of Saint Mary of Mount Carmel, professors of sacred theology; Hector de Quoquerel (4), Martin de Fraxinis (5), doctors of the Decretals; Pierre Gay and Jean Le Rebours, licentiates in canon law; witnesses specially called and required for the premises.\nBut because I, Jean de Cruisy, priest of the diocese of Auxerre, licentiate in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority, and sworn scribe of the episcopal court of Paris, was present, together with the witnesses above and the notaries underwritten, at the presentation, reception and decree of citation of the present apostolic letters, and all the other premises, while they were thus done and transacted by the said lords Delegates the judges and before them, and saw and heard them so done: therefore I have signed these present letters or this present public instrument, faithfully written by another’s hand, with my apostolic sign, together with the appension of the underwritten seals, here subscribing with my own hand, in witness of the truth, being required. So signed:\nJ. de Cruisy.\nAnd I, Denis Comitis, priest of the diocese of Coutances, bachelor in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority, and sworn notary of the Court of Conservation (6) of the privileges indulged by the holy apostolic See to the University of Paris; was present, together with the witnesses above and the notaries underwritten, at all and each of the premises while they were, as is premised, said, done and transacted, and saw and heard them so done. Therefore to these present letters or this public instrument, faithfully written by another’s hand, I have set my accustomed sign, together with the seals of the lords Judges and the signs and subscriptions of the notaries underwritten, being required and requested, in faith and witness of all and each of the premises. So signed: D. Comitis.\nAnd I, François Ferrebouc, clerk of Paris, licentiate in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority, and sworn notary of the Courts of Conservation of the privileges indulged by the holy apostolic See to our alma mother the University of Paris, and of the episcopal court of Paris; who was present, together with the aforenamed witnesses and the notaries above and underwritten, at the presentation, reception and requisition of the aforesaid apostolic letters, the decree of citation and all and each of the other premises, while they were, as is premised, said, done and transacted, and saw and heard them so done. Therefore to this present public instrument, faithfully written by another’s hand, I being lawfully hindered by other affairs, I have set my public and accustomed sign, together with the signs and subscriptions of the said notaries, being required and requested, in faith and witness of all and each of the premises. So signed: F. Ferrebouc.\nAnd I, Pierre de Rupe, canon of Le Puy, bachelor in both laws and abbreviator of apostolic letters, and also public notary by apostolic authority; who was present, together with the aforenamed witnesses and the notaries above written, at the presentation, reception, requisition and decree of citation of the afore-inserted apostolic letters and all and each of the other premises, while they were, as is premised, said, done and transacted, and saw and heard them so done. And therefore I have subscribed myself to this public instrument, faithfully written by another’s hand, I being occupied with other affairs, and have set my accustomed sign, together with the signs and subscriptions of the said notaries, in faith and witness of all and each of the premises, being required and requested. So signed: P. de Rupe.\nThen follows the report of the execution.\nTo the most reverend and reverend fathers and lords in Christ, the lords Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, and Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, judges and commissioners in this behalf, specially deputed by our most holy father and lord in Christ, the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name, together with the reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Bishop of Coutances, your colleague in this behalf, with that clause: In that ye, or two or one of you, etc. Your humble subjects, Socie Foies, priest of the diocese of Rouen, and Gérald de Sale, of the diocese of Reims, notaries sworn by the same apostolic authority, due reverence with obedience and honour. Let your most reverend paternities know that we have reverently received your letters, or the public edict, nay rather the apostolic edict, to which these our present letters are attached (7), presented to us on behalf of the honest woman Isabelle, mother, and the noble man Pierre d’Arc, knight, brother, and the other kindred of the late Joan d’Arc, commonly called the Maid; and that we have affixed your edict itself, in its original form, on the eleventh day of this month of December, upon the doors of the church of Rouen, openly and publicly, about the ninth hour in the morning of the said day; and that we have left those letters affixed, and have left the duplicate of the same original edict, underwritten and signed by us the aforesaid notaries, affixed upon the same doors from that hour at which divine service was being celebrated in the church until the twelfth hour or thereabouts of the same day, and on the morrow until this Friday, the nineteenth day of the said month of December; and that we and each of us, by force of the same letters or edict, by apostolic authority, have peremptorily cited all and each, of whatsoever dignity, pre-eminence, degree, honour, state and condition they be, or in any wise believing themselves interested, or in the form of law the formal parties, denouncers or accusers of the said late Joan, defenders of the proceedings made against her while she lived in the pretended matter of faith, or others willing lawfully to show themselves parties, just as ye summoned and cited them by the same apostolic authority in these your writings, to the twentieth day of this month of December at the hour of Terce, if that day be a law day; otherwise to the next law day following thereupon, on which it shall happen that ye sit for the tribunal in a cause of this kind, or another or others acting for you by your sub-delegation; to appear at Rouen in the archiepiscopal hall before you, one of you, or your sub-delegates or those to be sub-delegated by you or by one of you, in person or by their fit procurators sufficiently instructed, with all those rights, letters and muniments whereby they shall be willing to aid themselves in this behalf; to say or propose by word or in writing whatsoever they shall be willing to say against the aforesaid apostolic letters, the summonses and reports or the execution of the same; and also to answer to the complainants in your said letters and to your promoter, if need be, concerning justice and right and what is just, or otherwise to proceed as of right in a cause of this kind, with its circumstances, dependencies and connexions, through all judicial acts and up to the definitive sentence and its execution inclusive; with due intimation, certifying those thus cited that, whether they shall appear at the aforesaid prefixed peremptory term or not, ye, or those to be sub-delegated by you as aforesaid, or one of them or of you, as of right\n(1) A Parisian, bred as a bursar at the college of Cardinal Lemoine, received master of arts in 1410. He was several times procurator of the nation of France, then rector in 1433 and 1436. His rectorate having earned him the cure of Saint-Cosme and Saint-Damien, he thenceforth gave himself to theology, which he afterwards professed with great success. He died in 1463, bequeathing to the University 800 golden écus, the distribution whereof gave rise to great debates among the Faculties. (Du Boulay, Hist. univ. Paris., vol. V, pp. 423, 439, 597, 664, 874, 921.)\n(2) Otherwise Jean Soreth, general of the order of the Carmelites, born at Caen and professed in the priory of that town. After having been procurator of the nation of France in the University of Paris, and visitor of his order in Germany, he was raised in 1451 to the supremacy of the Carmelite profession, a dignity which he kept to the end of his days. He died at Angers in 1471, by poison as some assert. He wrote sermons and several treatises upon the rule of his order. (Biblioth. Carmel., vol. II, col. 99.)\n(3) Jean de Vernon, a Norman, made his profession and passed his life among the Carmelites of the Place Maubert, of which he was prior in 1456. It was he who founded the library of his house, which afterwards became famous. He died in 1461, leaving several treatises upon the holy books. (Bibl. Carmel., vol. II, col. 137.)\n(4) Otherwise de Coquerel. He was vicar-general and official of the Archbishop of Rouen, dean of the chapter of Lisieux and counsellor in the parliament of Paris. In 1454 he was commissioner of the king at the assizes of the Exchequer of Rouen. Louis XI charged him, in 1464, with an embassy to Spain. (Gallia christ., vol. XI, col. 810. — Blanchard, Catalogue des Conseillers au Parlement de Paris, p. 25. — Delaroque, Hist. de la maison d’Harcourt, vol. III, p. 322.)\n(5) Martin Defresnes. He was of the commission named by the University in 1456 to settle the differences which had arisen between the body and the mendicant orders. Cited before the Parliament in 1460 as guilty of excesses towards the Élus of Paris. (Du Boulay, Hist. univ. Paris., vol. V, pp. 605, 639.)\n(6) This was the name given to a permanent tribunal constituted within the University for the defence of its franchises. It was presided over by one of the bishops of Beauvais, Senlis or Meaux, elected by the assembled Faculties. The Conservator, assisted by a promoter, procurators and registrars, could proceed by way of ecclesiastical censure against the servants of the fisc, and even strike them with excommunication. This jurisdiction, placed under the safeguard of the Holy See, was long dreaded even by kings. At the assembly of 22 March 1459 the rector of the University of Paris called the Conservator of its privileges his staff of defence (baculus defensionis). Charles VII, however, knew how to bend an authority which so greatly hampered the administration. By ordinance of 24 September 1460 he constrained the University to make reparation to the officers of the cour des aides, whom the Conservator had declared perjured. (Du Boulay, Hist. univ. Paris., vol. III, p. 481, and vol. V, p. 635.)\n(7) The Notre-Dame manuscript reads actetœ, an irregular form of the word actachiatœ, used in the ancient procedure.\nand as reason require, ye will duly proceed, they will proceed, or some one of you or of them will proceed as of right, the contumacy of the absent notwithstanding. At which citations indeed none of the cited appeared, nor asked for a copy, although on each day of such affixion they were read by a multitude of the people. Which premises we certify to your most reverend paternities to have been thus done by us, by these presents. In witness whereof we have deemed right to confirm these same our present letters with our manual signs. So signed: Socius and G. de Sale.\nTenor of the letters of citation published in the diocese of Beauvais # Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, judges and commissioners in this behalf, specially deputed for the underwritten by our most holy father and lord in Christ, the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name, together with the reverend father and lord in Christ the Bishop of Coutances, our colleague in this behalf, with that clause: In that ye, or two or one of you: to all and each abbots, priors, deans, provosts, archdeacons, treasurers, precentors, cantors, archpriests, canons, rectors and perpetual vicars, and other chaplains, curates, and other ecclesiastical persons, beneficed and not beneficed, exempt and not exempt, and also notaries and public scribes, throughout the city and diocese of Beauvais and wheresoever else constituted, and to each of them in solidum, to whom or to which these our present letters shall come, greeting in the Lord and firm obedience to our mandates, nay rather the apostolic mandates. Know ye that we have received, in the presence of witnesses and notaries, with the reverence which was fitting, the letters of our most holy father and lord in Christ, the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name, presented to us by the venerable, learned and excellent man Master Pierre Maugier, doctor of the Decretals, with their hempen cords (1), sealed with the true leaden bull of the said our lord the Pope, not vitiated, not cancelled, not erased, nor suspect in any part, but altogether free from every defect and suspicion; there being present and assisting the noble man the lord Pierre d’Arc, knight, and Isabelle his mother, asking, requiring and stipulating this for Jean d’Arc, brother of the said lord Pierre d’Arc, of the diocese of Toul, described in the said apostolic letters; under this tenor: Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, etc., as appears above.\nAfter the presentation and reception of which apostolic letters, we were, by the said lord Pierre d’Arc, knight, and Isabelle his mother, lawfully stipulating for the said Jean d’Arc, brother of the same lord Pierre d’Arc, principally named in the said apostolic letters, required with due instance that: in a business of this kind, according to the form and tenor of the said letters presented to us, we should take care to proceed, and should be willing and deign to decree a lawful citation against the reverend father in Christ the lord Bishop of Beauvais, and the sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity constituted in the diocese of Beauvais, and the promoter of criminal causes of the said court of Beauvais, and also all and each others commonly or severally believing themselves interested. We therefore, considering that, as Paul witnesses, obedience is by right preferred to victims, gladly attend to those things whereby, obedience being yielded to the mandates of superiors and chiefly of the holy apostolic See, justice may be made manifest in public and truth may not be swallowed up in oblivion; so that thence, against those not knowing to direct their steps in the paths of justice and presuming to tear it with revilings, justice itself, the protectress of realms, may be allotted to those who ask with an equal balance. Having assumed with ourselves, for the executing of the premises and their determination with due end, and as was commanded us to be done in the above-written apostolic letters, the venerable and religious man Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, of the Order of Friars Preachers, the other Inquisitor of heretical pravity in the realm of France; willing reverently to execute the above-written apostolic mandate directed to us in this behalf, as we are bound: to you all and each, all above named and each of you in solidum (whom by apostolic authority we require and admonish in this behalf, first, secondly and thirdly, and by virtue of holy obedience and under penalty of excommunication, which we shall pronounce effectually upon you and each of you who shall have been required in this behalf, if ye shall have contemned or neglected, or shall have contumaciously neglected to fulfil, our mandate, nay rather the apostolic mandate, the said canonical admonition being premised), we strictly enjoin and command that, for the executing of this our mandate, one of you shall not wait for another, nor shall one excuse himself by another. Ye shall take care peremptorily to cite, on our part, nay rather on the apostolic part, the same lord Bishop and the sub-inquisitor of the said heretical pravity constituted in the said diocese of Beauvais, and the promoter of criminal causes, and all and each others, of whatsoever state, degree, sex, dignity or condition they be, commonly or severally believing themselves interested; whom also and each of whom we cite by the tenor of these presents, that on the twelfth day of the month of December (2) next to come, if the said twelfth day be a law day and we shall sit for the tribunal to render justice in the greater archiepiscopal hall of Rouen, or one of us shall sit; otherwise on the next law day immediately following thereupon, on which it shall happen that we or one of us sit in the said greater archiepiscopal hall of Rouen to render justice; they shall lawfully appear in judgement at Rouen in the aforesaid hall before us or one of us, in person or by their fit procurators specially constituted for a cause of this kind and sufficiently instructed, with all the rights, letters and other muniments concerning this business; to say and propose whatsoever they shall be willing to say and allege against the aforesaid apostolic letters, the citation, the report and its execution; and otherwise to proceed in a cause of this kind according to the exigency of the case and the narration, up to the decision of the cause itself, as shall be of right and reason; to answer concerning justice to the same Pierre and Isabelle, principals and stipulating for the said Jean, and to the promoter principally constituted for this cause. But if ye could not personally find the aforesaid bishop, sub-inquisitor and promoter of criminal causes, ye shall cite them in the houses of their habitations, if safe access to the same be open to you; otherwise in the cathedral church of Beauvais, by affixion of the presents, or a true copy thereof signed by the hands of notaries, when the faithful people shall come in the said church to hear divine service; and in the other places at which ye shall have been required; so nevertheless that, in executing these things, one of you shall not wait for another, nor shall one excuse himself by another; and otherwise so that this our citation ought and may be presumed veritably to have come to the knowledge of the sub-inquisitor and promoter of criminal causes themselves, and of the others believing themselves interested, in the manner and form above expressed. Certifying the same sub-inquisitor and promoter, and all others believing themselves interested, that, whether they shall appear at the term of the said citation or not, before us or one of us: we shall proceed in this cause at the instance of the parties lawfully appearing before us, the absence or contumacy of the others notwithstanding. Ye shall diligently study to intimate to us the form of the citation and whatsoever ye shall deem fit to be done upon the premises, by your patent letters containing the series of these our letters, or by a public instrument, the presents being remitted. We command you nevertheless to make, or cause to be made, to the said sub-inquisitor, promoter and others believing themselves interested, if they shall ask and be willing to have it, a copy of the premises; nevertheless at their own charges and expenses. In faith and witness of all and each of the premises, we command these our letters of citation, or this present public instrument, to be subscribed and published by the public notaries underwritten, and our scribes in this cause, and sworn by us, and to be confirmed by the appension of our seals. Given and done at Paris, in the greater upper episcopal hall of Paris, in the year from the nativity of the Lord 1455, the third indiction, on the seventeenth day of the month of November, in the first year of the pontificate of our lord Calixtus the Third. There being present in the same place the venerable and most lettered men, Masters Gérard Gehe, Guillaume Bouille, and the brothers Jean Soret (3), Jean de Vernon, of the order of the Carmelites, professors of sacred theology; Hector de Quoquerel, Martin de Fraxinis, doctors of the Decretals; Pierre Gay, Jean Le Rebours, licentiates in canon law; witnesses specially called and required for the premises.\nBut because I, Jean de Cruisy, priest of the diocese of Auxerre, licentiate in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority, and sworn scribe of the episcopal court of Paris, was present, together with the witnesses above and the notaries underwritten, at the presentation, petition and decree of the aforesaid apostolic letters, and all and each of the other premises, while they were, as is written above, done and transacted, and saw and heard them so done: therefore I have signed these present letters, or this present public instrument, faithfully written by another’s hand, I being hindered otherwise, and drawn up in this public form, with my apostolic sign, together with the appension of the seals of the reverend lords the fathers in Christ, and of the signs and subscriptions of the said public notaries, here subscribing with my own hand, in witness of the truth of the premises, being required. It stands witnessed concerning these words: in the first year of the pontificate of our lord, the lord Calixtus the Third, inadvertently omitted and placed or written in the last line (4); which I faithfully approve. So signed: J. de Cruisy.\nAnd I, Denis Comitis, priest, etc. (5). Those words, namely pontificatus etc., inadvertently omitted and placed in the last line: omitted by inadvertence and not by defect, under the same sign, I faithfully approve. So signed: D. Comitis.\nAnd me, François Ferrebouc, clerk of Paris, etc. It stands witnessed concerning these words pontificatus etc., inadvertently omitted and placed in the last line. So signed: F. Ferrebouc.\nAnd likewise, me, Pierre de Rupe, canon of Le Puy, etc. It stands witnessed concerning these words pontificatus etc., omitted not by defect but by inadvertence, and added at the end of the last line. So signed: P. de Rupe.\nThen follows the tenor of the executor’s report.\nTo the most reverend and reverend fathers and lords in Christ, the lords Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, and Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, judges, etc., etc., your humble Jean de Frocourt, licentiate in canon law, canon of Beauvais, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority and of the court of Conservation of the privileges of the most holy University of Paris, reverence with honour and promptitude of service. Let your reverend paternities know that today, namely Saturday, the twenty-ninth of the month of November, at the hour of vespers, in the year of the Lord 1455, the third indiction, in the first year of the pontificate of our most holy father and lord in Christ, the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name, I received your patent letters of citation, sealed with your seals in red wax surrounded with white, and also with a third seal unknown to me, and furnished and subscribed with the signs and subscriptions of the Masters Jean de Cruisy, Denis Comitis, François Ferrebouc and Pierre de Rupe, public notaries; directed and delivered to me for execution for and on behalf of the noble man the lord Pierre d’Arc, knight, and Isabelle his mother, and Jean d’Arc, brother of the same lord Pierre d’Arc, knight, of the diocese of Toul; which I received with reverence as I was bound. Which being thus received by me, forthwith and immediately I betook myself to the presence of the reverend father and lord in Christ Guillaume de Hellande (6), Bishop of Beauvais, then being in the ambulatory of his episcopal palace, accompanied by several notable persons; among whom was the discreet man the lord Reginald Bredoulle, canon of Beauvais, promoter or fiscal procurator of the said lord bishop or of his court (7); there being also found there by chance the religious man Brother Geremar de Morlanis, prior of the convent of the Friars Preachers of Beauvais. By force or pretext of which your letters, nay rather apostolic letters, I read them through for the most part publicly, in a loud and intelligible voice, to the same lord bishop, and to the promoter, and to Brother Geremar, several others standing by there, and brought them to the knowledge of all and each aforesaid; and I cited the aforesaid lord Guillaume, bishop, with the reverence which was fitting, and his aforesaid promoter, to appear in person or by their fit procurators specially constituted and sufficiently instructed, before you or one of you, on the twelfth day of the month of December next to come, if it be a law day, in the greater episcopal hall of Rouen; otherwise on the next law day immediately following thereupon, on which it shall happen that you or one of you sit for the tribunal in the said greater hall to render justice; to answer concerning justice to the same Pierre and Isabelle, principals, and stipulating for the said Jean, and to the promoter of the cause specified in your said letters. And I said, did, exercised and certified otherwise, as and in what manner is more fully contained in your said letters; asking and questioning, the above being present, the said Brother Geremar, the prior above named; and I sought of him whether there was for the present in his convent any inquisitor or sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity; or whether any of his order having the power of an inquisitor was present in those parts, that I might speak with him and bring the premises to his knowledge. Who, answering, said that he knew of no inquisitor or sub-inquisitor, or other having power from the Inquisitor, in his convent or elsewhere in the diocese of Beauvais,\n(1) Manuscript 5970, canapisenis. An adjective which is not found in the glossary of Du Cange, but regularly formed from the substantive cannabesum or cannabisum — hempen cords.\n(2) The manuscripts, septembris.\n(3) Manuscripts 5970 and N. D.: Johanne Foret.\n(4) This omission had taken place only in the redaction of the original act. The aforesaid words are found in their place in the two manuscripts 5970 and N. D.\n(5) The rest of the formula as above, p. 121.\n(6) Bishop of Beauvais from 1444 to 1462. (Gallia christ., vol. IX, col. 759.)\n(7) At the same time dean of the collegiate church of Gerberoy, a dignity to which he had been raised in 1423. Died 25 June 1463. (Gallia christ., vol. IX, col. 774, where it is written Bredouille.)\nhe knew; nevertheless he would write back to the inquisitor being at Paris, or notify him in writing, the premises which he had thus heard. Which things being thus, as is aforesaid, said, done and executed by me, the aforesaid reverend father the lord Guillaume, bishop, answered that he believed or pretended to have no interest in and upon the things there notified and the cause specified in your letters of citation; commending himself nevertheless to your reverend paternities. The said Bredoulle moreover, his promoter, answered that in these premises he has no interest, nor did he intend to pretend any interest herein. These things therefore being accomplished, lastly, at the said hour, I betook myself by the straight road to the greater church of Beauvais, and before the door of the same, while divine service was being celebrated in the said church, held in my hands your letters of citation. By force whereof I cited all and each thinking or believing themselves interested in the business described, according to the form or series of your said letters; and I publicly affixed upon the doors of the same church a copy thereof written on parchment and confirmed by the signs of the four notaries and collated by them, and left it in the same place. There being present, as to the things which were done to the person of the promoter and of Brother Geremar, the venerable and learned men Master Hugues Rogier, seal-bearer of the same lord bishop and canon of Beauvais; Pierre Coielle, general procurator of the same lord; Jean de Granvillier, notary of the episcopal court of Beauvais; with several others standing by in the same place, and called and requested by me as witnesses. At the things moreover which were said and done by me at the doors of the said church of Beauvais, there were present the lords Firmin Rayer, canon, Jean Cardot and Jean Bordelle, great vicars; and Gilles Gourbault, matricular of the same church; whom I invoked as witnesses to the premises. For the greater confirmation and witness of the premises, therefore, and that the premises, as and in what manner is written above, were done, said and executed by me, Jean de Frocourt, the notary above named: I myself, Frocourt, made and published this my present report, or this present public instrument, faithfully written by another’s hand, I being hindered and much occupied, and drew it up in this public form; and signed it with my accustomed sign, here subscribing with my own hand, and affixed or joined the instrument itself to the margin of these your letters of citation of which mention is made above, under my accustomed seal which I am wont to use, being required and requested. So signed: Jo. de Frocourt.\nChapter II # Continuation of the assignation after the default of the cited, at the city of Rouen # In the year of the Lord 1455, on the twelfth day of the month of December, the third indiction, in the first year of the pontificate of our most holy father and lord in Christ, the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name, as is described above; to which day were cited: the reverend father in Christ the lord Bishop of Beauvais, the sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity constituted in the diocese of Beauvais, and the promoter of criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and all and each believing themselves interested in this behalf; to appear before the aforesaid lords Delegates, Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop of Reims, and Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, judges and commissioners in this behalf, together with Richard, Bishop of Coutances, specially deputed for the underwritten by the aforesaid our lord Calixtus, with that clause: In that ye, or two or one of you; in the palace or greater hall of the most reverend father and lord in Christ, the lord Archbishop of Rouen. On which day there appeared before the aforesaid lords Delegates, the Archbishop and Bishop aforesaid, the Bishop of Coutances being absent, but Brother Jean Bréhal above written assisting and being assumed: the venerable and circumspect man Master Jacques Foucques, canon of Rouen, procurator and in the name of procuration of the venerable persons Isabelle d’Arc, mother of the lords Pierre and Jean d’Arc, brothers of the late Joan d’Arc, commonly called the Maid, in his own name and in that of the other parents and kinsfolk of the said Joan; of whose mandate lawful proof stands in the acts of this cause; asserting that this present day, at the instance and requirement of Isabelle, Pierre and Jean, parents and kinsfolk of the same Joan, had been assigned to the same reverend father, the sub-inquisitor and the promoter of criminal causes; asking and requiring of the said lords Delegates and through them that the cited not appearing should be reputed contumacious, and that in their contumacy it should be decreed and ordained by the same as should be of right and reason. And yet those judges, the aforesaid commissioners, not willing to constrain the parties but to minister justice with due maturity, prorogued and continued this assignation of the day from thence to the next Monday, which will be the fifteenth day of the aforesaid month of December, of office and otherwise; declaring that the parties ought to be heard that day as if they had appeared that day. There being present at these things the venerable and learned men Masters Hector de Coquerel, doctor of both laws; Jean Gresler, Gilles de Campis (1), Guillaume Auber (2) and Jean Dugie, witnesses specially called and required for the premises.\nProductions made for the foundation of the judgement # And the said fifteenth day of the aforesaid month of December having come, there appeared in judgement, before the aforesaid judges and commissioners and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, one of the inquisitors constituted in the realm of France, assumed with them, sitting for the tribunal in the said palace or greater hall of the aforesaid lord Archbishop of Rouen: the venerable and learned man Master Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the aforesaid Isabelle, Pierre and Jean d’Arc and in the name of procuration, of whose mandate lawful proof stands in the acts of this cause; there assisting him a man of great authority and knowledge, the lord Pierre Maugier, doctor of the Decretals, advocate of the said Isabelle, Pierre and Jean and the other kinsfolk of the said Joan in this matter and cause, given and distributed by the said lords. Who, for the foundation of the jurisdiction and judgement of the said lords Delegates, exhibited the apostolic rescript above written; as also the citations both against the said lord Bishop of Beauvais, the sub-inquisitor and the promoter of criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and against all and each others commonly or severally believing themselves interested, as he produced them in the acts of this kind word for word and in writing, with their executions; the tenors of which citations and their executions are described above.\nAfter which (3) foundation of our jurisdiction and judgement, the same Master Pierre Maugier, the aforesaid advocate, willing to show certain things for the conduct of this cause, in the form of a solemn proposition, uttered and set forth openly in effect the things which follow, in French words, addressed to the said lords Delegates; there being present prelates, doctors and other ecclesiastics and seculars in copious multitude, solemn men of every state; beginning under this form:\nProposition of Master Pierre Maugier translated into Latin (4) # From approved and honest observance, in arduous affairs and most difficult matters, the divine word is wont to precede, to implore the eternal direction of sublime grace, to honour the excellent judges and to procure their goodwill and that of the hearers, and especially, if the case occur, to the honour and praises of the holy apostolic See and of the supreme Roman Pontiff, our lord. From this exalted, holy and apostolic See, moreover, without mediation, has arisen all the faculty and delegation specially committed in this behalf to you, most renowned fathers, most worthy prelates and lords to be feared: to wit, the most reverend and illustrious archbishop of Reims, duke, first peer of France, and legate born (5); the reverend and most eloquent pontiff of Paris, both most resplendent doctors of both laws; the most approved professor of sacred theology called in with them, Brother Jean Bréhal, faithful Inquisitor of heretical pravity in this realm of France, here present; as also the Bishop of Coutances, shining with the splendour of most lucid wisdom, now absent. Thence was deservedly gathered by me, lately reading the epistles of the doctor of the gentiles, his benign and divine word written in the Epistle to the Romans, ch. xv, v. 14: Ye are full of love and replenished with all knowledge.\nMost worthy fathers, the instant matter, full of loving compassion, is a mournful complaint, a humble supplication and an imploring of your just judgement in the form of law. The parties here complaining are most just: Isabelle d’Arc, mother, Pierre and Jean her children, brothers, and her other kinsfolk, here competently represented by their procurator. The complaint is lamentable. It is that of the said Joan d’Arc of good memory and humble, formerly commonly called the Maid, a humble and innocent virgin, of the parts of Lorraine, of Domrémy, of the diocese of Toul, near Vaucouleurs (6), on the confines of the realm of France; sprung from honest parents, poor and honest in life and manners, much commended in her humility; who, albeit she formerly, by honest, lawful and catholic means, proceeding rather, as is veritably presumed, from divine disposition than otherwise, to the honour of our lord the King and the good of his realm, honourably undertaking and accomplishing many great exercises of arms, to the honour of the royal majesty and the utility of its subjects: was nevertheless iniquitously, deceitfully and unjustly detained, made over to a hard prison, burdened and interrogated impiously and violently, and in a pretended process of faith was falsely and calumniously dealt with, before those then, albeit nullly and in fact, pretended judges, Pierre Cauchon, then Bishop of Beauvais, and a certain Brother Jean Magistri, of the Order of Friars Preachers, the pretended faithful sub-inquisitor of Beauvais, at the instance of a certain Jean d’Estivet, called Benedicite, asserted promoter of the said bishop, and certain others their accomplices. For this humble and devout Maid, young and inexperienced, was with repeated turns sharply and subtly interrogated, detained in the hands of her capital enemies, and by those who could in no wise of right be her judges, by these she was reputed to have deviated and erred from the faith and from the doctrine and traditions of the Church; calumniously nevertheless and against truth and justice. Then the said Joan was most iniquitously twice condemned: once to perpetual prisons and to the making of a certain abjuration unknown to her; the second time, as though she had relapsed into errors of faith, she was abandoned to the secular arm, and at last, in extreme confusion, was burned with cruel fire, to her own defamation and the public scandal and irreparable mark of her parents and friends: although she was truly innocent of the crimes imposed, a faithful catholic, not wavering in the faith, but immune from every crime touching the faith or the Church in any wise. This, then, is the complaint of the mother and parents of this memorable Maid, full of lamentation, griefs, scandals, cruelty, impiety, fraud, deceit, wickedness, calumny, founded upon a false process of faith, and fullest of griefs.\nHear, most renowned judges, lest we fall from the word proposed. The great Paul, the vessel of election, after Christ the Lord the chief instructor and defender of our holy faith, visiting the Romans with benign exhortation, newly tasting the sweetness of the eternal fruits springing up from the Christian religion; that he might console them in their tribulations, that he might teach them perseverance in the faith, mutual charity and heavenly love, sent them the words proposed from the beginning: Ye are full of love and replenished with all knowledge. In like manner, most choice judges, our lord the first Pontiff, whose clemency has deigned to receive this lamentable complaint; who in another place answered the complainants with a general word, as was deduced at Paris in the episcopal hall: When I shall have received the time, I will judge justices (Psalm lxxiv); which answer seemed equal to that evangelical word: I will go down, and I will see whether they have fulfilled in work the cry which has come to me: now the supreme Pontiff himself speaks more clearly. I write at once, says he, to chosen men; my place, for the ministry of justice, I confer upon them, that, the truth being searched out, the desired provision may result to you complainants. He himself said it, and they were done. Now your hand holds the rescript; now your charity deigns to undergo the charge committed; the sons obey the paternal wishes, saying after the blessed Paul, expressing and confiding in your piety and charity: I am certain, he says to you, most worthy fathers; I am certain moreover, my brethren, of you, as says the apostolic providence, that ye are full of love and replenished with all knowledge. And as our lord the Pope, recognising your solid and constant virtues, directed the apostle’s word to you; the same words, in a humble voice, the mother desolate with the bitterness of grief, the brothers beyond measure sad, the parents and friends of the deceased honest virgin, the innocent Joan the Maid, present to your lordships, together with their mournful and most sorrowful complaint; since, according to the first part of the word assumed, ye are full of love; for every one who does not love, abides in death (De Pœnitentia, dist. i, c. 37); and since by this love I understand nothing better than love and charity, expressed under the great precept of the evangelical law, first to God, secondly to one’s neighbour. Of the second I account it written in the Psalm, loving and compassionating without passion of another: Blessed is he who understandeth concerning the needy and the poor, etc.; and elsewhere: Justify the orphan and the needy, and deliver them from the hand of sinners; and in the canon: Let us not love in word and tongue, but in work and truth (dist.\n(1) Another than he who figures in the trial of condemnation. See vol. I, p. 40.\n(2) Mentioned as canon of Coutances in 1451 in the Gall. christ., vol. XI, col. 892.\n(3) Or quorum. The manuscripts read cujus.\n(4) The d’Urfé manuscript has chiefly served me as a guide for the restoration of this piece, which swarms with faults in the authentic gross copies of the proceedings.\n(5) Born legate — legatus natus. Jean Jouvenel des Ursins was the first who took this title, which afterwards remained to the archbishops of Reims. (Gallia christ., vol. IX, col. 131.)\n(6) So the text. Read rather Novum Castrum — Neufchâteau.\nxlvii). As this is rooted charity, which being established, no evil can befall (De Pœnitentia, dist. ii, c. 3). This is the rooted charity which moved heaven, which brought Christ down to the depths, which set the corner-stone, that he might make both one, of which in the canon Caritas (dist. ii, c. 5): for where faith and charity are wanting, there can be no justice (caus. xxiv, quæst. i, § Vidé). And likewise, according to the second part of the Apostle’s words, ye are replenished with all knowledge; ye, divine grace cooperating, hold the sum and perfection of good knowledge and virtuous knowledge especially. I speak of good knowledge; since all good knowledge is from God, but evil from the devil (dist. xxxvii, § Hinc etiam; and caus. xxvi, quæst. 2, c. Qui sine). Of your good knowledge it is written in the canon Si per, dist. xlvi: I will set knowledge in the light, and I will not pass by the truth.\nBut to come to our principal conduct of the cause, and lest ye should think that I make your praises rather with the mind of a flatterer than such as I hold dear (1), I will stay my steps; saying only the things which were directed as first fruits to your most discreet, most renowned and virtuous persons: Ye are full of love and replenished with all knowledge. It remains, most worthy fathers and most discreet judges, to make plain and lay open in the midst the nullity, deceit, frauds, injustice, iniquity and false and falsely pretended matter of faith of the excogitated trial and of the presumptuous sentences against our Maid; that the supplication made to the supreme Pontiff by these complaining plaintiffs, founded upon truth, may shine forth, and the apostolic mandate flowing thence, directed to your most reverend paternities, comprising justice and equity on every side, may be attended to, and the loving supplication, formerly tendered to you and here to be tendered, ye may deign to bring forth to hearing, with propitious execution and reparation, your compassion and grace nevertheless intervening.\nSince ye are full of love and knowledge, the instant work requires that your lordships, exercising the judicial office, should attend to the order of your delegated power, so that in the first place it may be permitted to consider the education, fame, honesty and conversation of this Joan of good will, virgin and maiden. From catholic parents indeed she took the beginnings of the Christian religion, her manners and discipline; she worshipped God, frequented the church even in tender age, and when she reached riper years was present at the divine offices, honoured and received the sacraments of the Church, especially of Penance and the Eucharist, with devout solicitude; asserting nothing, dogmatising nothing adverse in any wise to the faith and the Church, or which was contrary to the traditions of the holy Roman Church; nay, so long as she remained among men she detested every heresy. But when she had reached the years of puberty, she had revelations believed to proceed from a good Spirit; taught by which, warring in the realm of France with the greatest honour and utility, she foretold by her industry the final extirpation of the victories of the enemies from the same realm of France shortly at hand: which is ascertained so to have been. And at last, being set in the violent hand of her capital enemies by means of moneys, and sharply smitten in an iniquitous trial, she oft-times implored the judgement of the holy Roman apostolic See. Which are the manifest signs and indications of a person pleasing to God and catholic.\nNo information therefore could proceed against her, from which she could have been marked with suspicion of the faith, or a trial ought to have been conducted against her. For this cause also the adverse parties, described in the apostolic mandate, attempted their trial infected with nullity, composed with deceits, precipitated by violence; and uttered iniquitous, null, affected sentences, founded upon a false trial, utterly adverse and contrary to law and justice in matter and in form. For Guillaume Durand writes in his Speculum juris, tit. de relut., § How a sentence is to be promulgated, that a sentence and the proceedings ought to be called null in many ways, to wit: by reason of the judge, by reason of the jurisdiction, by reason of the litigants, by reason of the place, by reason of the time, by reason of the cause, by reason of the quantity, by reason of the manner, by reason of the proceedings, by reason of manifest iniquity. The iniquitous trial attempted against this deceased Joan the Maid, violently detained in the hands of the ancient enemies of the realm of France, and the sentences and executions following thereupon, are infected with all the causes expressly set forth by that same Speculator.\nFor first, by reason of the judge or of drawing the forum and jurisdiction, the whole trial is infected, with its consequences, since the deceased Maid herself neither had her domicile nor had committed an offence touching the faith within the pretended jurisdiction of those presuming to judge.\nThen secondly, on account of the fear brought upon the person of the vicar of the Inquisitor at Beauvais, then co-judge of the Bishop of Beauvais. Which vicar was forced to treat the matter of faith, where no mark or suspicion of the faith proceeded, save deceitful and contrived.\nThen thirdly, since the said Joan openly refused the then Bishop of Beauvais as judge, as a capital enemy and no judge; who, thus albeit refused, proceeded in fact, every form of law being omitted by him.\nThen fourthly, since the said Joan expressly submitted herself to the judgement of the supreme Pontiff and of the general Council, and asked to be brought to them; against which submission it was lawful for none to proceed further.\nThen fifthly, since this cause is to be accounted among the greater, since it concerns secret and hidden revelations, which are unknown to us and of which it is for God to judge; and so the cause itself was to be remitted and judged by the apostolic See.\nThen sixthly, since the horror of the prison and the terror of the guards are equal to questionings and tortures, and infect the trial with nullity, especially in a young woman and in matter of faith, such as were applied to this daughter of nineteen years of age.\nThen seventhly, on account of the counsel denied her in so great a matter. For an advocate and director ought to have been given her, by the humanity of the law and the favour of charity.\nThen eighthly, since she was a minor in years; nor are sentences or proceedings valid which arise or are made against minors of twenty-five years undefended.\nThen ninthly, since the severity, and more truly the austerity, of the judges infects the proceedings. For in this cause the proceedings, her minority, inexperience, the compassion due to her sex, ought to have moved the judges to moderation of the penalty; so that, in the first pretended sentence passed against the Maid, not abjuration, not perpetual prison, but a moderate salutary penalty should have been imposed. But in the second sentence all perniciousness and cruel rigour are made known, since she could not be called relapsed who does not relapse with mind and certain knowledge; and this young Maid had neither fallen into heresy before, nor had understood the abjuration written in Latin, as is plainly manifest from the proceedings.\nThen tenthly, since the judge presiding there leaned upon a false and mutilated record. For he forbade the excuse of this innocent daughter Joan to be set down by the notary or scribe, and commanded her express submissions to the apostolic See to be suppressed, staining the whole deed with falsity and deceit.\nThen eleventhly, since those deceitful judges themselves, not content with the aforesaid corruption, caused twelve false articles to be calumniously extracted from the confessions of the said Joan, mendaciously and surreptitiously, the truth being suppressed and falsehood expressed; and transmitted them thus calumniously extracted to many notable persons, saving the peace of all. Upon which illusive articles the consultants gave their deliberations, the proceedings not having been seen, upon the concealed truth. Whence also, the deliberators being thus seduced, nothing is to be imputed to them, but they are to be excused (for penalties ought to hold to their authors); and whatsoever followed from such calumnious seduction is stained with nullity, deceit and falsity, and is null.\nThen twelfthly, since other seducers also were secretly sent to the same Joan, inducing her utterly to offer no submission to the Church, feigning that they were specially sent by the party of the faithful French to speak for her salvation; nay, her woman’s garments were in fact taken from her, so that she was compelled to resume the man’s dress forbidden her.\nAll these points severally, with many other causes and reasons, have been deduced and manifested by me more clearly than light; both by the sacred allegations of law divine and human alike, and the sanctions and writings of the holy Fathers, and by the narration and patent evidences of the said iniquitous proceedings. And since in the present conduct of the sacred proceedings, in the petition of the plaintiffs, in the concluding articles and other passages, the same nullities, deceits, calumnies, the truth also of the things narrated in the apostolic rescript, the innocence of the said Joan, and all the other things pertaining to the matter proposed, are to be brought in here and there, and most fully to be elucidated by the lucid proofs and productions to come, by God’s grace and the evidence of the fact: by your mandate, most worthy fathers, it is concluded not to bring them in here in ampler writing, for brevity’s sake; humbly beseeching and requiring, in the names of the said plaintiffs or of their procurator, that the instant apostolic rescript, here read through, be by you duly committed to execution; and that justice be speedily ministered to the same, restorative of the fame and honour of the deceased herself and of her parents, and declarative of the nullity and iniquity of the said proceedings and sentences and of her execution and its consequences; and that, for everlasting memory, public reparations and intimations be ordained to be affixed, and conclusions decreed in the instant proceedings, afterwards to be expressed in their places; with the due and accustomed protestations. The reward moreover of your most renowned and most worthy labour in this behalf, since ye are full of love and replenished with all knowledge, shall be the eternal Guardian of His poor in the glory of heaven. Amen.\nSummons of the cited and petition of contumacy against those not appearing # When therefore the aforesaid lords Delegates had heard the said proposition, at the great instance of the said widow and her kinsfolk or their procurators and assistants, ever awaiting the parties, both generally and specially summoned and cited, with all patience; the proposition being accomplished, they diligently inquired and caused inquiry and proclamation to be made oft-times, whether there were any of those who had been cited and summoned, or who in their name would then say or propose aught; since the aforesaid lords Delegates were prepared patiently to hear all and each in this matter committed to them, both by word and in writing, as well concerning the preparatory matters of the judgement as concerning the decisive, if it should behove them to proceed further; and with full and plenary peace and security, which they plenarily offered to all the cited and others appearing for them — nay, to all. And since the aforesaid lords had already learned, by public fame and the report of certain persons, that some of those who are mentioned in the said trial, whereof mention is made in the proposition then made and in the rescript obtained and presented on behalf of the widow, had closed their last days; the aforesaid lords offered to all the heirs or successors in offices or benefices, executors, kinsfolk, servants and friends, to hear them willingly and always at full, whenever it should be fitting; nay, and to receive with benignity from them all whatsoever things they could and ought to bring for the justification or excuse of the said cited, living or dead, and for the justice of the trial conducted, for which at first sight they said it was to be presumed, ever inquiring and preferring the truth in this behalf; since, although they were full of love and charity, according to the words of the lord proposer, they were nevertheless disposed and prepared so to show love and charity, and to impart whatsoever of knowledge and power was in them concerning the matter to be treated, that they should ever seem both to honour above all and to love above all the integrity of truth and justice; so loving men as to love the errors of none, so as to show favours to none against justice.\nThese and other things the aforesaid lords Delegates then said, for the expectation and support of those summoned and cited, and caused the said cited or their procurators to be summoned again and yet again. But when none of the said cited and summoned, nor any for them, had appeared or were appearing on the said day, the same Master Guillaume Prévosteau, the aforesaid procurator and in the name of procuration of the plaintiffs themselves and for them, reproducing the citations and summonses of the parties and their executions, exhibited and produced at the first assignation from which this day depends by continuation, and which are inserted above: accused the contumacy of the said cited and not appearing, nor sending anyone for them; asking and requiring of us that the said cited not appearing be reputed contumacious by us, and that in their contumacy the way of henceforth saying, opposing or objecting against the apostolic letters directed to us, and the citations and summonses, and all the things following thereupon, be foreclosed, and that they be held foreclosed; and also that, in their contumacy, a day be prefixed for the same plaintiffs and adverse parties to libel, and that they be assigned by us to see a libel or summary petition given in a cause of this kind; and that we be decreed and declared to be competent judges.\nInstitution of the notaries and of the promoter of the cause # The aforesaid lords Delegates moreover, the aforesaid requisition having been heard, before they should ordain aught or proceed\n(1) So the text. Read: and lest ye should think that I make your praises rather indeed with the mind of a flatterer.\nfurther, attending that in judicial acts, and especially in arduous matters and those touching the faith itself, faithful notaries ought to be instituted and from them the oaths accustomed in such matters to be received; and that a promoter would be necessary in such matters, who should inform them in the premises and promote their office (1):\nTherefore we institute and ordain our beloved and faithful, the venerable masters Denis Comitis, priest, bachelor in canon law, and François Ferrebouc, licentiate in the same law, public notaries by apostolic and imperial authority and of the court of Conservation of the apostolic privileges indulged by the holy apostolic See to our alma mother the University of Paris, to be our notaries and the notaries of the present cause in the matters above written committed to us; and we have received from them and from each of them the oath of faithfully exercising their office. Giving to the same and to each of them licence, faculty and authority to register the acts and things done by us; to examine the witnesses produced; to collect word for word or in writing the confessions of the parties and the sayings and attestations of the witnesses, as also the opinions of the doctors and masters to be required, if need be, and to report them to us; and to set down in writing all and each of the acts and things done and to be done in this matter; and to draw up the whole proceedings in due form, and to do the rest, as pertains to the office of notaries, wheresoever and whensoever it shall be opportune.\nMoreover we create and constitute the venerable and discreet man Master Simon Chapitault, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, being sufficiently informed of his fidelity, industry and circumspect knowledge, our promoter and the promoter of the present cause. Giving to the same power and special mandate to stir up and promote our office, and power to constitute himself against whomsoever, if he shall see it expedient; to stand and appear in judgement and out of it; to produce, administer and exhibit witnesses, letters, instruments and whatsoever other kinds of proofs for the eliciting of the truth; to accuse, denounce and inquire against whomsoever culpable; and to do and exercise all the other things which are recognised to look to and pertain to the office of a promoter. Commanding all and each in the premises to obey and attend to the same, and to afford him aid, counsel and succour alike. And we caused him to swear of faithfully exercising this office, all favour and hatred being cast aside, as is ordained in such matters and causes of faith, according to the constitutions of the laws and the style and statute of the inquisition of the faith.\nAssignation made to the defaulters, to speak against the lords Delegates or the mandate directed to them # The aforesaid lords Delegates therefore, after the said constitution of the notaries and promoter, the said Master Guillaume Prévosteau again accusing the absence and contumacy of the cited and summoned, now awaited under a second assignation, and, as he had done above, requiring the ordinance and declaration of the said lords Delegates; the parties being again summoned by one of the newly constituted notaries and not appearing; assenting to the petition or requisition of the same procurator of the said plaintiffs, as just and consonant to right: the aforesaid lords Delegates reputed, and by the tenor of the presents do repute, contumacious as of this day the said cited, summoned before the aforesaid lords Delegates by one of the notaries constituted by them and not appearing nor sending anyone for them; the aforesaid lords Delegates being competent judges in this behalf; declaring nevertheless to the same cited and others believing themselves interested, as also to the others summoned by their ordinance at the doors of the church of Rouen, the next Saturday, the twentieth of this month, assigned, lest they should seem to act amiss in a cause of this kind; that, if on the same day they shall be willing to say, propose or object aught (which they ought to have done today) before the aforesaid lords Delegates, the aforesaid lords Delegates offer benignly to hear them, and to minister justice to each according to the exigency of the fact, and to provide them with counsel. Nevertheless to the same cited and contumacious, if they shall in no wise appear on the said Saturday, the lords Delegates themselves foreclosed the way of henceforth saying, proposing or opposing against the aforesaid lords Delegates, or the letters directed to them, and the citation decreed by the aforesaid lords Delegates and the execution commanded, as from now so for then, and have held and do hold it foreclosed. Decreeing further that in this cause, notwithstanding the absence or contumacy of the same cited, there is to be proceeded with the same plaintiffs to the further acts; and, lest this cause be drawn out beyond what is due, ordaining that in the meantime and within the said day the plaintiffs themselves shall give in writing their petition, by way of libel or summary petition, to be delivered and communicated to the same often-said lords Delegates or their notaries on the aforesaid assigned day, as shall be reasonable.\nProduction of the codex of the interrogatories of the first trial # These things moreover being accomplished, the same Master Guillaume Prévosteau, in the name aforesaid, and the aforesaid Simon Chapitault, promoter constituted as above, required with due instance that, since the notaries in the first trial, of whose nullity or annulment inquiry is now made, were then present, and especially the venerable man Master Guillaume Manchon, the principal notary in the same trial, and certain others constituted notaries and officials in the same trial: they were to be inquired of, and he required them to be inquired of, whether they would make themselves parties in this matter, or allege aught to the defence or justification of the same trial. Who, and chiefly the aforesaid Master Guillaume Manchon, when they had answered that they in no wise wished to undertake the defence or justification of the aforesaid trial, at the instance of the aforesaid promoter and the requirement of the aforesaid procurator, were required, and admonished by the aforesaid lords Delegates by apostolic authority, that if they had with themselves aught concerning the aforesaid trial, they should deposit it with the said lords Delegates, and should faithfully and duly recognise the seals and signs upon each of the books, proceedings and instruments, so that the aforesaid lords Delegates might the more conveniently ordain both in the preparatory and in the decisive parts of the present cause, and might either annul or even confirm the trial itself, from the acts of the same cause, for which at first sight they much presumed.\nWhich being done, the same venerable Master Guillaume Manchon exhibited a certain paper codex deposited with himself, in which is contained the whole minute of the trial formerly made against the same Joan the Maid, in French; asserting that the codex itself was written by his own hand, and that upon it, as he asserted, the trial in Latin, written in a certain book then shown, was made. Which trial in Latin was also made by the same Manchon and the honest men Masters Guillaume Colles, alias Boisguillaume, and Nicolas Taquel, public notaries; and confirmed by the signs and subscriptions of the same notaries and the seals of the late lord Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, and of Brother Jean Magistri. Of which notaries indeed he publicly recognised his own sign first and then those of the other lords; recognising also the seal of the aforesaid Pierre the bishop and of Brother Jean Magistri; the signs and seals of all which aforesaid were also recognised by the notaries and other practisers there present. After the recognition of which signs and seals, the aforesaid lords — the aforesaid Masters Guillaume Colles and Nicolas Taquel not then being present — faithfully received the aforesaid minute and the book written in Latin and confirmed by the signs and subscriptions of the aforesaid notaries, and publicly deposited them in our hands; to inspect them and to act as reason should dictate, according to the form of the mandate directed to them by apostolic authority.\nRequisition of the promoter concerning certain informations made at Rouen in the year 1452, and their production, recognition and inspection # And moreover the aforesaid promoter and the aforesaid procurator required that, since certain informations were formerly made both by the most reverend father in Christ the lord Guillaume, Cardinal of the title of San Martino ai Monti, then legate in France of the apostolic See, and by the venerable and learned man Master Philippe de Rose, treasurer of the venerable church of Rouen, commissioned and deputed by the same lord legate, and deposited with the said venerable father Master Jean Bréhal, the Inquisitor assumed with the said lords: that it would please the aforesaid lords to receive the said informations, and to cause the signs and seals set upon them to be recognised by some of the notaries who received them, then present, and witnesses knowing the signs and seals of the absent. The aforesaid lords Delegates moreover, willing to bring the truth to light, and lest hesitation should be had in the premises, since they doubted of the absence of witnesses, delivered the said informations to Master Socie Voles. Who acknowledged his manual sign set both upon a certain citation and upon the said informations; and he and the venerable man Master Guillaume Manchon likewise recognised the manual signs of Master Guillaume Mesardi and Jean Dauvargne set upon the same informations, commission and citation inserted; asserting, upon their oath, that the said Master Guillaume Mesardi was and is a notary and secretary of that most reverend father in Christ, and that the said Dauvargne is a notary and such an one that full faith is given him in such matters.\nAfter the recognition of which signs and seals, the same Master Simon Chapitault, promoter constituted as above, required that all the premises should be communicated to him, so that, where it should seem expedient, he might inform himself upon the fact of this trial from the acts of the cause itself, and stir up the office of the aforesaid lords Delegates. The aforesaid lords Delegates moreover decreed among themselves that, pending the delay and the assignation prefixed to the parties summoned, they would read and inspect the said minute and book and the aforesaid informations, the notaries of the former cause also being called, and ourselves and certain of those who had been officials and counsellors in the aforesaid first trial; as they also severally read and inspected them, noting each thing contained in them, that they might the more conveniently ordain both in the preparatory and in the other matters; ordaining also that they be communicated to the aforesaid promoter, for the justification or defence of the trial, or its impugnment, as, according to God and justice, he should see it expedient.\nCertain acts during the pending assignation # And during the pending of this assignation, and before the coming of the said twentieth day of the month of December, the things which follow were done:\nAnd first, on the sixteenth day of the same month, there appeared before the aforesaid judges, in a certain chamber of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, the aforesaid venerable and discreet men and masters, Simon Chapitault, promoter of the aforesaid lords Delegates in this cause, in the aforesaid name of promoter, on the one part; and Guillaume Prévosteau, the aforesaid procurator, in the name of procuration of the plaintiffs and for them; asserting that in this city of Rouen and the neighbouring places there are certain witnesses, aged and infirm, of whose death or absence there is not undeservedly doubt. Wherefore, lest by reason of the death or absence of the same witnesses the truth of this matter should be hidden and the proofs of the deeds should perish, they humbly required the same lords Delegates that they would deign to decree to them a citation against such witnesses, aged and infirm, for a certain and competent day. Whence the aforesaid lords Judges, willing to attain, so far as possible, the truth of the fact and of the deeds, the same promoter and procurator having first sworn that they necessarily needed the testimony of the witnesses named in the underwritten citation for the elucidation of this cause, decreed a citation against the same witnesses, under this tenor:\nTenor of the citation of the witnesses in the diocese of Rouen # Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, the other Inquisitor of heretical pravity in the realm of France, judges and commissioners in this behalf, specially deputed for the underwritten by our most holy father and lord in Christ, the lord Calixtus, by divine Providence the third of that name, together with the reverend father in Christ the lord Bishop of Coutances, our colleague in this behalf, with that clause: In that ye, or two or one of you: to all priests, curates and not curates, vicars, and the other rectors of churches, and public notaries and other notaries wheresoever constituted, throughout the city and diocese of Rouen and elsewhere wheresoever constituted, and to each of them in solidum, to whom or to which these our present letters shall come, greeting in the Lord and firm obedience to our mandates, nay rather the apostolic mandates. To us, on behalf of the venerable and discreet man Master Simon Chapitault, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter deputed in this behalf, and of Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of Isabelle d’Arc, mother, and of Pierre and Jean d’Arc, brothers, of the late deceased Joan d’Arc, commonly called the Maid; asserting that, in our instruction in the business deputed to us, and for the conservation of their own right, so far as it touches each of them: they need the deposition and testimony of certain witnesses, aged and infirm, about to depart, and others; fearing lest, by reason of the penury of witnesses, their right should happen to perish and the truth of the business be hidden: it was humbly supplicated that we would deign and be willing to decree letters of citation under the form underwritten. Willing therefore, so far as possible, of this business committed to us in this behalf\n(1) Here is a fresh example of the negligence with which this trial was drawn up. The registrars, who up to this point have spoken in their own name, suddenly introduce the delegates as subjects of the discourse. The manuscripts read: et officium nostrum promovere — and to promote our office; because from this point the registrars have copied textually the commissions of offices which were decreed in the name of the judges. See the following paragraph.\ncommitted, to bring the truth forth to light and to minister justice to each, as is incumbent upon us; by the apostolic authority which we exercise in this behalf, we command you all and each above named, and each of you in solidum, by virtue of holy obedience and under the penalties of suspension and excommunication which we shall pronounce upon you and each of you unless ye shall do what we command, straitly enjoining: that, for the executing of this our mandate, one of you shall not wait for another, nor shall one excuse himself by another. Ye shall cite peremptorily and personally before us or one of us, at the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, for the day and hours at which ye shall have been required on behalf of the same promoter, Isabelle, Pierre and Jean d’Arc: the lord Nicolas Taquel; the lord Pierre Bouchier; Master Nicolas Houppeville; the lord Jean Mussieu; Master Nicolas Caval; the lord Guillaume Manchon; Pierre Cusquel; Brother Isambert de la Pierre; Master André Marguerie; Master Richard de Grouchet; Brother Pierre Miget; Brother Martin Ladvenu; the lord Jean Fabri, Bishop of Demetriade (1); the lord Thomas de Money; the lord Jean Requier; Brother Bardin de la Pierre (2); the lord Raoul Veret, priest; and all others whomsoever, of whatsoever degree, sex and condition they be, at whose instance ye shall have been required by them: to bear witness to the truth in a certain business touching the trial formerly conducted in matter of faith against the aforesaid late Joan, called the Maid, by the late Bishop of Beauvais and the sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity, at the instance of Master Guillaume d’Estivet their promoter; and the nullity of the same trial and sentences, and the purgation of the same deceased woman, in a matter moved and hoped to be moved before us. And ye shall faithfully write back to us what ye shall have done therein, with the names and surnames of those to be cited and the assignations of days and hours, with the informations accustomed in such matters. Given at Rouen under our archiepiscopal seal, in the year of the Lord 1455, on the sixteenth day of the month of December. So signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nChapter III # Written petition of the procurator of the plaintiffs # Item, in the year of the Lord 1455, on the eighteenth day of the month of December, the same often-said procurator Master Guillaume Prévosteau, obeying the assignation made to him by the aforesaid judges, delivered his petition in writing to the same often-said lords Delegates or their notaries, in this manner:\nThe eternal Truth, the Wisdom of the Father, which taught every justice to be fulfilled, from whose mouth as he sat upon the throne a two-edged sword was seen to go forth, promises the rewards of blessed glory to them that understand concerning the needy and the poor, and deliver the afflicted from those that spoil him. For so your justice has compassion upon the wretched and oppressed, represses the impious, and cherishes and protects the innocent in its tranquil embraces, restraining the things anxious and reducing the rough into plain ways. Most worthy fathers and most renowned judges, in these writings the plaintiffs presently to be named say and propose before you, venerable judges, against the said defendants, that: The holy apostolic See indeed, the chief unerring follower of justice, ever condoling with the desolate poor of their wonted poverty, lately gave ear to the most just prayers of the afflicted, the commendable and honest Isabelle d’Arc, mother, and the noble Pierre and Jean d’Arc, german brothers of the late Joan d’Arc, called the Maid, who long since ended her life by the punishment of fire, together with their parents supplicating, in this behalf the plaintiffs; against the reverend father in Christ the lord Guillaume, by divine providence Bishop of Beauvais, and the sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, and the promoter of criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and all and each others believing themselves interested and lawfully intervening in judgement, the defendants. Of which Joan, an honest virgin, the aforesaid mother and parents took care to set forth the lamentable destruction to the said holy See a short time since, and obtained from our lord the supreme Pontiff a rescript of justice directed to you; and disposing to present it openly and publicly to you, ye first granted them public audience for the presentation of the apostolic mandate solemnly to be tendered to you. On the twenty-second day (3) of November then last past, and the third hour after midday, being prefixed for them, in the greater hall of the episcopal house of Paris; where then, in copious multitude, there assembled with you many prelates, doctors and masters of divine and human law, and others, religious, clerks, secular and lay citizens, and much of the commonalty; the said mother and brothers, the plaintiffs, by the mouth of their counsel distributed to them by you in this behalf, in a solemn and public proposition laid open the aforesaid complaining matter of the apostolic rescript first — which stain of faith or of heresy and idolatry the adversaries of the same Joan formerly falsely pretended her to bear, by their pretended deceitful and iniquitous trial; and the manifold injustice shown openly against the same Joan, not without deceit and iniquity committed by certain then pretended judges, and perpetrated by them adverse to the same Maid; the taint of nullity also being detected, both in matter and in form, the deceit, fraud, subreption, iniquity and manifold falsity, to which the said plaintiffs said the proceedings, sentences and all the things following thereupon of the said adversaries and judges, done, uttered and conducted in the city of Rouen, were subject: ye, these things being heard, together with the supplications and requisitions humbly tendered to you by the said mother and parents, the plaintiffs; received with due reverence the solemn presentation then made of the same apostolic mandate, and caused the same apostolic mandate directed to you, inserted at length above among the acts of this cause, to be published word for word, and openly and publicly read through. After the publication of which apostolic rescript, conformably to the supplications tendered to you, ye created in due time the promoter of your office, in your name or in the name of justice, to take heed of and to stir up this cause, and the notaries, faithful scribes of your future proceedings. From whom ye caused the solemn, due and in such matters accustomed oaths to be given; and decreed your peremptory citation, at the instance of the said plaintiffs and promoter, to be made by name against those expressed in the same apostolic rescript, and all others whatsoever believing themselves interested, the defendants — to appear in the same city of Rouen, in the archiepiscopal palace, at the day and hour specially then expressed in your said citation; to say against the same rescript, or against you and the faculty committed to you; and to object whatsoever they should dispose to object and say, and to hear the petitions and requests of the said plaintiffs and of your said promoter for the eliciting of the due ends; and to answer, say, do and further proceed as should be of right and reason. Which day and hour assigned having come, before you most worthy fathers and most discreet judges, the Archbishop of Reims and the Bishop of Paris and the Inquisitor being present in the same city and archiepiscopal palace of Rouen, and the plaintiffs themselves appearing in person or by their procurator, and accusing the contumacy of the said defendants summoned and not appearing in person or by another: the petition of the same was again laid open by the counsel or advocate of the plaintiffs in a solemn proposition, prelates, doctors and a very great company of the people assisting; saying, proposing and requiring in effect, and framing their petition, as follows.\nIn the first place the said plaintiffs indeed said and proposed, say and propose, that the said defendants are and ought to be decreed by you contumacious; and that in their absence your jurisdiction, replenished with divine prudence, lawfully founded by the apostolic rescript itself, your citation and the execution thereof, all which things were there exhibited and read openly and publicly, ought to be declared by you; further protesting that they would be willing to inflict injury upon none by the things said or to be said by them (which they expressly submitted to the disposition of the holy apostolic See, of yourselves and of the others whom it concerns); nor to bring aught against those who were present at, or opined upon, the trial conducted against the said Joan; the aforesaid defendants and their accomplices nevertheless excepted; and proposing and saying that they, the plaintiffs, their kinsfolk and the said deceased Joan, were hitherto and are persons of good name, laudable fame and honest conversation, faithful and catholic; and that the said Joan uttered nothing, so long as she lived, nor believed aught adverse to the faith and the Church, but rather frequented the divine offices, reverently and oft-times most devoutly received the ecclesiastical sacraments, especially of Confession and the Eucharist, stood fast in works of mercy, nor at any time departed from the obedience and unity of holy Church; so that against the same, ill-fame or suspicion of error or heresy could in no wise have arisen, nor ought a pretended trial in matter of faith to have been occasioned or begun against her on any side.\nThe same plaintiffs subjoining that nevertheless the said defendants, excited rather by a spirit of fury and iniquity, deceitfully, fraudulently, mendaciously and iniquitously, against the same Joan, no previous information existing save invalid if there be any; by a trial falsely pretended in matter of faith, presumed to impose upon her error, idolatry and divers contrived crimes in faith and Church; and judicially vexed her, made over to a hard prison and bound with iron fetters and chains, with threats, terrors and divers and difficult interrogatories, although a young woman, a minor in age, ignorant of the law and innocent and unskilled in deceit; manifestly incurring the penalties of the law, to wit of suspension by him then asserted Bishop of Beauvais, and of excommunication by Jean Magistri, then pretended vicar of the Inquisitor, by reason of the matter of heresy or question of faith falsely imposed. Which nevertheless bishop and vicar, the pretended judges thus commissioned, further, albeit proceeding nullly and in fact, deputed the said Joan to be guarded by the armed English, her capital enemies, thrust into a secular prison, assiduously afflicting her with opprobriums, threats and terrors and injuries without number; and although she was, by their judicial ordinance, visited by fit matrons whether she was a virgin, and ascertained a virgin and intact, yet they deceitfully and iniquitously decreed, as is reported, that her laudable virginity of integrity, the visitation and the judgement of the matrons themselves should be wholly concealed and cut off from their proceedings; continually disquieting her with so great vexations that, fallen into grave infirmity, they willed her to be diligently cherished in the hands of physicians: not of charity or piety, but that they might ignominiously destroy her by a premeditated punishment, as they publicly boasted. For the same defendants persevering, when the said Joan was convalescent, in the arduous and difficult interrogations concerning her touching the heights of the faith and the Church; and perversely searching out and interpreting sinisterly certain visions, as is believed, of good spirits, which they strove to turn to the damnation of the same innocent Maid. Upon which she gave congruous answers, most acceptable, directed, as is believed, by the Lord; submitting her sayings to the clerks not adverse to her, to the Church and to the supreme Pontiff, and asking that they be remitted; declining and refusing the judges in effect, and appealing to the supreme audience of the Pope: yet she was not heard, but was troubled further with a long and manifold vexation of the questioners.\nAnd the deceitful fraud of the furious men being continued, from the pretended confessions of the same innocent daughter Joan there were sorted out articles twelve in number, by no means faithfully extracted, beginning A certain woman; at which certain grave men are said to have been struck, so that from appearances they gave certain forms of opinions, founded upon the truth believed to be expressed in the said articles. Which articles nevertheless were expressly falsely extracted, unlike the confessions of the said Joan, iniquitously composed; and the consultants seduced upon the things thus expressed are deservedly to be esteemed worthy of excuse concerning the things opined by them; if nevertheless they uttered nothing of sinister affection.\nAnd verily, besides the circumspect notaries who from the beginning inscribed in French words the truth of the things said by the same Joan in her trial, certain other pretended notaries, deceitfully lying hid in a hidden place, added to the same trial false and iniquitous things, dissonant from the intention of the aforesaid Joan, against the truth, unjustly, wickedly and iniquitously.\nUpon which things, although the said asserted judges could not and ought not to be founded so as to proceed to further acts against the same Joan, the innocent Maid, yet the said defendants, blinded by their perverse affections, especially the Bishop of Beauvais and the Inquisitor, setting aside the fear of God, feared not to rage sententially against the same innocent Joan; first uttering, albeit falsely and injuriously, that the said Joan was by her own confession guilty of manifold offences touching the faith and the Church, to wit of idolatry, error, superstition, rashness, invocation of demons and heresy; the abjuration of which offences indeed, in a certain schedule not understood by the same innocent Joan, they extorted by force, deceit, fear and fraud. After the abjuration thus tendered, they publicly condemned the said Joan, hoping to be restored to the promised refuge of the Church out of the wicked hands of such her adversaries, with too hard austerity, in the sight of the people, to perpetual prisons; and a few days having thence been fulfilled, they\n(1) Jean Lefèvre, Augustinian, bishop in partibus of Demetriade. It is the same who figures so often in the procès-verbaux of the first judgement, with the title of professor in theology.\n(2) A useless repetition of the name of Isambard Delapierre, given six lines above in another form.\n(3) So the text. Read: the seventeenth.\npronounced her relapsed into heresy unjustly, again in a public place of the city of Rouen, and delivered her to the secular arm. Who, being straightway put to the last punishment to be burned with fire, constant in the faith and steadfast in the honour of the catholic religion, persevering, embracing the sign of the holy cross, and imploring with tearful voice aloud the sacred name of our Lord Jesus the Redeemer, amid the tearful wailings of those standing by, rendered back her soul, as is piously believed, to the Saviour.\nThe aforesaid plaintiffs further proposing, that by these perverse proceedings, sentences and execution of the same, albeit false, iniquitous and infected with the taint of nullity; the fame, honesty and honour of the said Joan, faithful and innocent, who neither departed from the unity of the Church nor in aught strayed from the catholic tradition, and of the plaintiffs themselves, were manifoldly offended; and the consciences of many, even of faithful persons, fluctuated in trouble. The iniquity moreover and nullity, the deceit, fraud and malice of the same proceedings and sentences, the said plaintiffs proposed to be evident from the manifest fault and sins of the same both of form and of matter, by many intermediate reasons and causes. And that, by reason of the form, with the fault of nullity, the said proceedings and sentences, such as they are, with the things following thereupon, are subject at least to the judgement of cassation, the plaintiffs themselves showed:\nFirst, from this, that, by most known law, a judgement is rendered null: by reason of the competent judge, by reason of the unfitting jurisdiction, by reason of the litigants. And it is so that the then Bishop of Beauvais was not the competent judge of the same Joan the Maid, nor she his justiciable. For he who draws the forum draws it by reason of the offence or of the domicile; but she neither kept her domicile within the jurisdiction of the said bishop, nor was she there accused of having obtained the crimes imputed to her; as the plaintiffs said was manifestly established from the first trial itself; nor was matter of faith present. And so the judgement halted by reason of the judge, by reason of the jurisdiction, and by reason of the litigants.\nSecondly they said, as above, it is shown that the then Bishop of Beauvais, and that pretended vicar of the Inquisitor, since the one could not proceed without the other in the matter of the pretended heresy, were manifestly bound by the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the law; since they falsely imposed that the crime of heresy had been committed by the same Joan, and so could in no wise exercise jurisdiction or decree aught valid against her, save nullly, in fact, and uselessly.\nThirdly, since, as the plaintiffs themselves said, the said Bishop of Beauvais had been refused by the said Joan as incompetent and suspect, and as the capital enemy of the same Joan; so that thence his proceedings and sentences, with their consequences, are known to be subject to the taint of nullity: as is manifest by express law; since such a judge neither could nor ought thenceforth to proceed further, save nullly, according to all the doctors of law. For appeal, refusal and relation are purifying as regards the supposed authority and office of the judge.\nFourthly, since it is ordained by law that the things known to have been done by force or fear do not subsist in force. And so the plaintiffs themselves said it was, since upon the pretended vicar of the said Inquisitor, by the English then assisting at that trial, a terrible fear of menaced death was cast, falling upon a constant man, unless he should pronounce sentence against the same innocent Joan. And it is expressed by the sacred canon that a just judgement and an unjust definition, ordained by the judges even under royal fear or command, is not valid.\nFifthly, the said plaintiffs superadding that the most known laws have expressed that by a lawful appeal the jurisdiction is suspended; and since the same Joan appealed from those pretended judges, that her ensuing trial, with the sentences and consequences, was infected with manifest nullity. And that the said Joan sufficiently appealed, the plaintiffs themselves pretend to be established from this, that, in express words, the said Joan said many times to that refused judge, whom she abhorred as a capital enemy, that she submitted herself to the Pope; asking to be remitted to him and to his judgement. And they said that these words are equivalent to a lawful appeal, according to the canonical sanctions (especially uttered from the mouth of a simple person ignorant of the laws), even though that word I appeal was not expressed.\nSixthly, the said plaintiffs thereupon pleaded that concerning arduous matters, especially secret and hidden revelations, unknown and unknowable to men, which causes are accounted among the greater, no cognisance could pertain to these pretended judges, save nullly; since the laws will also that the greater causes be remitted without delay to the greater apostolic See; and especially where the faith is pretended to be touched or the matter of faith is ventilated, every such cause ought to be referred without delay to the See of Peter, or of his successor, as is ordained by the sacred laws.\nSeventhly, the aforesaid plaintiffs said that the trial itself with its consequences is infected with nullity from the violent form of proceeding, such as it was in so young a person, frail and innocent. For hard prisons, bonds of iron, terrible guards, the cruel injuries of armed capital enemies, torments, terrors, menaces and the assiduous vexation of those commanding did violence to her; so that the said Joan often said that she would rather die than sustain such wickedness any further; nay, the guards themselves oft-times strove with violent hand to attempt upon the modesty of her virginity. All which things, if they be well attended to, the plaintiffs themselves said are to be equalled to torments and questionings; so that, if the said Joan said aught against herself, it comes rather to be ascribed to violence than to truth; nay, and every confession extorted by violence and questionings, while such a cause of opprobrium stood, is to be esteemed. For by questionings are not to be understood torments only, but also other pains, hunger, thirst and that which the laws call the evil dwelling, the sordid and most foul prison.\nAnd again the plaintiffs themselves said that the same nullity is established from this, that to the same Joan, frail and innocent, all counsel and aid of the law was denied, although she was smitten with questions touching the heights and arduous things of the faith. And such a denial is esteemed inhuman and the enemy of justice.\nThey said moreover that, when a certain honest man assisting at the trial wished to direct the same Joan, he was driven out with threats and terrors, as is said to be established from the trial itself; adding that the same Joan was a minor in years, who could neither be presented in judgement, nor plead without a curator, nor be capable of a judicial sentence, save nullly and invalidly; the contrary whereof was openly done in this act.\nThe plaintiffs themselves confirming their sayings, since, albeit by the benefit of the law succour is to be brought to youthful and minor age; so that compassion for her age should lead the judge to moderation and a remisser penalty: yet to the same Joan, a minor, no moderation was extended, as is established from the immoderate and wicked rigour of the pretended sentences; so that, from the excessive severity of the judges, the trial is either infected or is esteemed worthy of cassation with its consequences.\nElsewhere the plaintiffs themselves impugned the same pretended judgement and trial, since, although it is ordained by law that all the acts in a trial be duly and fully set down in writing by a faithful notary or by two chosen persons, for proof (1); so that otherwise nor otherwise credence be given to the judge: yet the same neglected to do this. Nay, the judges and defendants themselves did the contrary and transgressed; for they caused or commanded the confessions of the said Joan to be mutilated, and forbade her excuses to be inscribed, manifestly leaving their trial thence, with its consequences, infected with nullity and iniquity, mutilated, faulty and useless.\nAnd the nullity of the trial and sentences, and of the things contained in them, the plaintiffs themselves argued openly, and the falsity, deceit and open iniquity; for by deceit and perfidious malice those twelve articles, beginning A certain woman, of which mention has been made above, were thence falsely abstracted, oft-times omitting from the sayings of the same Joan those things which she uttered for her sincere intention and valid excuse; and converting and interpreting all things into the sinister part; nay, and by an officious malice growing beyond bounds, adding many pernicious things which could not be elicited from her confessions; suppressing the excuses, limitations and determinations of the said confessions, more truly to be reduced to a good sense; and omitting the submission to the apostolic See oft-times made by the same, and the other things propitious to her justice.\nAnd since the plaintiffs proposed that the said judges founded their judgement chiefly upon the articles thus falsely elicited, therefore the plaintiffs themselves inferred that all the things following thereupon were false, iniquitous, calumnious and null, at least to be quashed; confirming this their reason, and saying that to the same Joan, thus long afflicted in the prisons, certain other seducers were applied by the permission of the judges, feigning that they held and cherished the party and obedience of the said Joan’s lord, our lord the King of France, and that they had been secretly sent to the same to impart salvation and counsel. Who persuaded the same that she should never submit herself to the Church, and that she should forthwith resume her man’s dress, the woman’s garments also being taken away from the same Joan; so that, if aught sinister thence befell in the person of Joan, it ought to have been ascribed to such condemned fraud, deceit and craftiness, like to the serpent seducing the first woman; and that thence, neither fall nor relapse could stand as a cause, if with faithful zeal there be attended the oft-repeated said submission and request, whereby the said Joan oft-times sought the judgement of the apostolic See. And since fraud and deceit ought to avail none, it remains that this trial thereon founded, or the judgement proceeding thence, and the pretended abjuration, and the pretended sentences with their consequences, are subject to the taints of manifest nullity and iniquity, or at least deserve to be quashed and annulled, as the plaintiffs themselves said. And so by the premises the plaintiffs themselves inferred that the faults of the said proceedings and sentences on the part of their form were and are detected and laid open.\nYet further the plaintiffs themselves alleged and proposed that the nullity, iniquity, falsity and many faults of the said proceedings, pretended abjuration, sentences and consequences are and are manifest by reason of the matter expressed or heaped up in the same, or of the crimes and vices falsely imputed and ascribed to the same Joan. Which verily, especially as they are qualified and treated by you, and inscribed and expressed in the said sentences, the same Joan did not commit, nor were they confessed by her or truly elicited from things confessed by her; nay rather, as the plaintiffs themselves said, the things confessed by the same Joan in the trial itself are consonant, not dissonant, from the catholic faith, the unity and the determination of the Church; which, interpreted in a sounder sense, can stand and be catholically defended, according to the series of holy Scripture and the sound and approved doctrine of the catholic doctors.\nThe said plaintiffs therefore proposed, upon the matter of the proceedings conducted and of the sentences uttered by the said defendants, certain pretended crimes falsely imputed to the said Joan. First, upon the visitation, revelation and adoration of certain spirits, whom the defendants named malign, striving thence to cause her to be accounted an idolater, an erring one or a heretic, an invoker of demons, departing from the Church; whereas the said visions and revelations are rather to be deemed to have proceeded not from malign but from good spirits; nor ought they otherwise to have been esteemed by the same defendants or by any other human judge, nor Joan herself to have asserted aught mendacious in the same, to have heresied or idolatrised in any wise. Which visions nevertheless, if they were from God, as the plaintiffs said, the defendants, seduced by a sinister affection, could not or would not understand; and so, since they were not ignorant that these things were hidden and concealed from themselves, they ought not judicially to have declined to the other part. For from whom such hidden visions proceed is known to God alone, the knower and searcher of secrets; nor concerning these things, according to the laws divine and human, could any inferior judge give a certain sentence. For the Church does not judge of things utterly hidden, but God alone: the laws to this effect are most known and express.\nAnd that such revelations and apparitions proceeded from Angels of light and good spirits, the said plaintiffs manifested by several reasons:\nFirst, since the said Joan was a virgin intact in body, as she constantly asserted when interrogated, and was luminously manifest when shown to the matrons, very many noble women assisting, as has already been said above. In such a virgin moreover, pleasing to God, the overshadowing or inspiration of the Holy Spirit is fitting; since she is the temple of God, according to the ecclesiastical doctors.\nSecondly, since the same Joan was very humble and simple; who neither sought worldly honour, but the salvation of her soul; nor answered proudly to those interrogating her. And virginity and humility joined together the laws praise with admiration, and they marvellously please the most high God; and upon these the spirit of the Lord rests.\nThirdly, since the same Joan was of a laudable and honest life, loving to the poor, exercising fastings, honourably frequenting mass and church; and most devoutly frequenting the sacraments of Confession and of Penance and of the Eucharist. And such an one is to be esteemed worthy of the apparitions of good spirits.\nThe said plaintiffs further adding that the especial sign of good spirits is said to be this: ever to persuade good works to their followers; as the spirits appearing to the said Joan induced her to many good things: to wit, that she should frequent the church and the sacrament of Confession, should govern herself honestly, should keep the virginity of her soul and body, and that so she should attain eternal beatitude. Again, when the spirits appeared, Joan signed herself with the sign, and they did not depart, as the malign spirit departs terrified at this sign. Moreover when the Angel at the beginning appeared to the said Joan, she was at first fearful, and in the end consoled with gladness; as it is read of the angel appearing to the blessed Mary and to many others. Also those spirits spoke to Joan with a clear and loud voice; but malign spirits\n(1) Such is the reading, evidently incomplete, of all the manuscripts.\nspeak obscurely and in wrapped words. All which things are, according to the Scriptures, manifest signs of blessed spirits. And that she faithfully and catholically finished her days, the sacred body of Christ being most devoutly taken and the name of Jesus invoked until the end, is a sign that she was led by good spirits; since the malign spirit induces pestiferous faith, and at last leads down its worshippers to hell. And there is another good sign of the goodness of the spirits; for the same Joan, by the revelation of the spirits, announced the truth in every wise, and the things which she foretold had an almost miraculous effect, as: at the time when the enemies most flourished, when the greater part of his realm was taken from our lord the King, the realm was recovered as she had foretold, the English driven out, the coronation of the king, the siege suddenly and swiftly raised from the city of Orléans with few against a very great multitude of adversaries; so that these things were held to be reputed as miracles. And these things, according to the traditions of the sacred doctrines, cannot proceed from the father of lies, the malign spirit, but are to be esteemed in every wise announced by divine revelation and by good spirits. The said plaintiffs again saying, speaking suppositively and not otherwise, that if such apparitions had been of malign spirits, the said Joan was deservedly to be excused, as deluded by error; since she both believed them to be good spirits, appearing in the form of Angels of light, and believed she was adoring and reverencing Saint Michael and the holy virgins Catherine and Margaret. Nor does such error harm her, since she both submitted herself to the Church, nor was she stubborn; and, as the sacred canons have it, the error is not perilous if at that time a malign spirit is believed to be a good Angel, while he changes himself into an Angel of light, since reverence is rendered not to the malign one but to the good one whom he feigns.\nFurthermore, the plaintiffs themselves saying that the same Joan was rather to be excused than reproved by the defendants, if she mingled in wars in aid of herself and of our lord and king. First, since the war itself was meritorious against the enemies and most just, and had all the conditions of a just war inscribed in the sacred laws. Secondly, since, as the said Joan oft-times constantly asserted upon her oath, she did it at the command of God, nor would she ever have done it otherwise. And at the command of God she commanded the English to return to their own, and those who are moved by the spirit of God are not under the law; for the law of inspiration surpasses every law; the manifest signs whereof are the aforesaid events and effects, well-nigh miraculous. In these things moreover she is to be esteemed not blameworthy but rather excusable; as the sacred laws excuse Samson from homicide, Abraham from adultery, David from plurality of wives.\nAnd the plaintiffs themselves also said that the same Joan was unduly reproved for this, that she wore man’s dress, forbidden in the canon, since she did it lawfully also, for many reasons, the circumstances of the things to be done by her being weighed; the plaintiffs themselves assigning many reasons upon this. First, since she took such dress for a reasonable cause, to wit by the believed command of the Lord; for where the spirit is, there is liberty. Secondly, since the laws set forth to the contrary say that this is not lawful for women by reason of luxury; and all the doctors agree therein; but the said Joan assumed it for the contrary cause, to wit to avoid lust and the provocation of men to luxury towards her, with whom she had to consort and live in the army; nay, and sometimes for the protection of her own virginity, which the English attempted to assail. And it is sometimes permitted even to clerks to change their dress for a lawful cause, according to the canonical sanctions. For far be it that the things which we do for good should be imputed to us as fault! For the said Joan oft-times offered to resume woman’s garments, if she were placed among women in an ecclesiastical prison, or elsewhere than among enemies; which woman’s garments she also at last willingly resumed, obeying the pretended judges; and thence left them off of necessity, they having been taken from her by the fraud of her enemies, and for the repelling of violence, as has been said. Nor is it true, as the plaintiffs say, that the same Joan left off hearing mass lest she should resume woman’s dress, or that she confessed to our lord the King that she would not lay them aside; nay the contrary is true, since she both laid them aside. Or she will be excused on account of the revelations and divine voices inducing her to the contrary, or which she believed to have proceeded from God; nor did she thence believe herself to be named relapsed if she at last resumed man’s dress, since she was necessitated to do it by the deceit, violence and malice wrought upon her, for the protection of her body and the conservation of her virginity, and for the other causes above touched.\nThe plaintiffs also said that the same Joan is not to be blamed if she is accused of having departed from her own parents (1) or against their will, since she did it by divine command or believed she did it, and judged that God must be obeyed rather than men; although she also thereupon repented in the sacrament of confession, so that the fault can no more be imputed to her, nor can she thereupon be proceeded against in a cause of faith.\nThe aforesaid plaintiffs further proposing that the said Joan is to be esteemed blameless if she caused or permitted the name of Jesus to be inscribed in her missive letters, whereby she urged that war (2) should be avoided, since she also answered that the war itself was just, and that her secretary did it, not believing that he did ill, since all things seem to be done in the name of the Lord, according to the canonical sanctions; and this answer was sound. And that she answered soundly at last, that she did not leap from the tower either out of desperation or tempting God, but hoping by leaping to defend herself and succour the besieged; willing of fruitful charity to lay down her life for her friends. And that finally she did not lie if she said that an Angel bore to the king a certain precious sign with genuflection, etc.; since, if it be not lawful to lie, yet truth is lawfully concealed, in place and time, by a good feint or circumlocution of words, as Moses of old before Pharaoh; and, since Angel is the name of an office, and the same as messenger of God, she could say of herself that she the Angel, to wit the messenger of God, bore to the king the crown and the palm of victory which he should enjoy; nor in this did she lie, but spoke cautiously. And if she said that that Angel was Saint Michael, she did not speak ill, since she asserted that she had done it by the command of Saint Michael, and since she did it by another, etc. Nor did she exceed in saying that she was certain of being saved, since, if her sayings be then joined together, they are true. For she added: if she kept what she had promised to God, namely the virginity of body and soul. And in like manner she did not exceed if she said she knew the future, as when she told the king certain things (3); for prophets also do not prophesy nor speak true things, according to the Scriptures, when they speak not prophesying. Nor did she say that Saints Catherine and Margaret had hatred of the English; but she said that they love those whom God loves, and hate those whom God hates. Nor also did she confess that she had said she had not sinned, or had sinned; but that she knew not that she had mortally sinned, nor would she herself have done aught whereby her soul should have received a stain. In all which things, moreover, none would say that she sinned.\nFurthermore the said plaintiffs proposed that the defendants falsely and deceitfully pretended that the said Joan was unwilling to submit herself and her sayings to the Church, whereas the said plaintiffs said the principal truth to the contrary: first, since she was not veritably bound so to submit herself by the tradition of the Scriptures; secondly, since she truly did it, and submitted herself to the Church faithfully and catholically.\nAnd that she was not bound to do it, it is plain that manifold reason persuades:\nFirst, since she was led by the spirit of God or believed she was veritably led, and so by the law of inspiration she was exempt from every common law, as the laws divine and human alike will; and so in this she followed the doctrine of the Church; nay, if she had done otherwise, acting against her own conscience she would have built unto Gehenna.\nThe second reason: since, be it that it had remained doubtful whether those visions proceeded from a good or an evil spirit: upon these hidden things the Church willed to judge nothing, and the most open laws will that such judgement be altogether reserved to God alone. Also, albeit in the things which concern the articles of the faith or the doctrine of the Church, written in approved books, the judgement of the Church must be followed; yet in others liberty is given and the option of holding what better pleases, as: whether king Solomon is saved, or not; whether there are so many to be saved as to be damned; and such like, in which the doctors of the Church are wont sometimes to differ. And so if the said Joan in these visions followed her own opinion not dissonant from the See and the Church, she is not to be reproved in any wise.\nAnd there is another most potent reason: since the said Joan, young, inexperienced, a virgin, innocent, if she did not from the beginning submit herself to the Church, it is not to be marvelled at, because she then utterly knew not nor in any wise understood what the Church was, as her confession manifests; but then, when it was expounded to her what the Church was, she was altogether open, and submitted herself to the Church humbly.\nMoreover for the confutation of the said defendants and of their proceedings and pretended sentences, and for the manifestation of their inordinate affection, the plaintiffs themselves proposed that certain worthy and lettered men, assisting at the aforesaid trial, and wishing of loving charity to admonish her upon the difficult interrogatories put to her, and saying to her that the general Council of Basel was then being celebrated, where very many most worthy men from every region, even of her party, were present, to whom she could and ought to submit herself: were in no wise heard, but ignominiously repulsed, severely rebuked by the said defendants and judges and provoked with injuries, and straightway proscribed from the city of Rouen and expelled under penalty of death.\nNor was it to be dissembled, the said plaintiffs proposed, as they touched above, that certain deceitful hypocrites, in feigned garb, feigning to cherish the party of our lord the King, ministered deceitful counsels to the same; persuading her with bland speeches that, if she would escape the prisons, she should never submit herself to the judgement of the Church. Which things, if the innocent virgin so seduced uttered aught sinister, are to be imputed not to her but to those deceitfully doing and permitting it, and she is deservedly to be excused herein. The said plaintiffs also saying further and proposing that, if the things confessed by the said Joan in her trial be looked upon with sincere affection and duly interpreted, all things can lawfully be saved, without the case of error, stubbornness or offence against the faith and the Church on the part of the pretended defendants; as these things are most known to one contemplating and understanding the trial.\nThe said plaintiffs also expressing that the same Joan, from the words of her confession and the sincere intention of her mind, submitted herself manifoldly to the judgement of the Church implicitly and explicitly; first, since she said that she would do nothing against the Christian faith which the Lord established; and that if she had done or said aught, or aught were upon her body, which the clerks should know to say was against the Christian faith, she would not sustain it but would cast it out. And again the same Joan, as appears expressly by her pretended confessions, asked to be remitted to the Pope, who should hear her, and to whose judgement she wished to stand. Moreover the same Joan further submitted herself to the Church when, it being expounded to her what the Church was, she said that she submitted herself to the judgement of the Church and of the general Council; and asked that the articles imputed to her should, before the pretended abjuration, be visited and deliberated by the Church; which was utterly denied her by the defendants, by whom rather the judgement of the Church is to be said to have been spurned, and not by the said Joan. The said plaintiffs subjoining that the then Bishop of Beauvais, the pretended judge, expressly forbade the notaries, and under grave penalties, that they should inscribe the said submission thus made in the trial itself in any wise; whereof the said Joan complained; so that thence the trial of the defendants is to be esteemed mutilated, iniquitous and mendacious, with the things following thereupon. And the aforesaid plaintiffs pretended that the manifest sign of this submission is that, before her destruction, a short space of hours before, the said defendants caused and willed that the body of Christ or the sacrament of the Eucharist be ministered to the same Joan. Which they would not have done if she had not faithfully submitted herself to the Church; since otherwise, she abiding in mortal sin without submission, this venerable sacrament would not have been given her.\nThe said plaintiffs further proposed that the same Joan, from the contents of her pretended trial, could not be called relapsed, since relapse presupposes a fall; but she never fell into any heresy; nay, the things she said can be sustained without offence and without hurt to the catholic truth, as clearly appears from the things said above. Therefore she cannot be called relapsed; and especially since the said plaintiffs said that the said Joan did not understand the reading of the pretended abjuration, suddenly exhibited to her openly in the popular tumult and public spectacle and in vehement fear. And it is clear that one does not abjure what one does not understand. And that she did not understand it, the deliberations manifest of those summoned upon her pretended relapse, who well-nigh all, following the deliberation of the then Abbot of Fécamp, said that she should be asked whether she had understood the said pretended abjuration. Yet it is established that nothing was done upon this, whether she had understood the abjuration, the deliberation being had (4) and the interrogation to be made. Who, if she had been interrogated, would never have said that she was suspect of heresy, mendacious, and had committed or abjured such crimes; nay rather that she had neither said nor committed them, and things which her judicial confession contradicts. It was not lawful therefore to call her relapsed. Nor, as the plaintiffs said, is the schedule inscribed in the pretended trial of the said Joan, prolix and great, that which was publicly read and exhibited to the same Joan at the hour of the said pretended abjuration; which was short, containing few things and unlike this. And so the trial is faulty and false; and especially since, if the words of the said Joan contained in her pretended confession upon the relapse be well attended to, she cannot be called relapsed. For she said in\n(1) So the text.\n(2) The manuscripts read bellicum — warlike things.\n(3) Should we read: or although the defendants said the contrary at times?\n(4) The manuscripts read deliberate. See vol. I, p. 463 et seq.\neffect, just fear of death and the article of death impending over her, that she had falsely confessed herself to be a heretic, to save her life, when she was not, nor had she understood the things unjustly read to her; ignorantly oppressing herself by her own voice, and so expounding her own sayings, namely that she had not intended to revoke them, save provided it should please God. Which could well be uttered sanely and without the mark of relapse by one understanding well.\nThe plaintiffs themselves also expressing with great animadversion, to refer openly to the calumny, falsity, deceit and iniquity of the said proceedings, sentences and consequences, that certain deceitful articles, twelve in number, beginning A certain woman, contrived and falsely extracted from the pretended confessions of the said Joan, were transmitted to Paris, to our alma University of Paris, upon which there emanated certain deliberations founded upon a false reckoning. And the false and deceitful extraction of the said articles is manifested by the pretended confessions of the said Joan inserted in her trial, which truly are not consonant but greatly dissonant in many of the aforesaid articles, as appears most openly from the mutual comparison of the pretended confessions and the said articles. Whence the consultants themselves were deceived, to whom not the trial itself but the deceitfully extracted articles were officiously exhibited, so that, the truth of the confessions being concealed, they should opine at the nod of the defendants, purposing to deliberate, the truth being abandoned. And the consultants themselves truly, besides the judges or the defendants themselves, are esteemed worthy of lawful excuse if they truly opined according to the things exhibited; from whom the truth itself was hidden by manifest deceit, fraud and iniquity; and since upon the said falsely founded opinions the ensuing sentences uttered by the defendants were founded. Therefore the plaintiffs themselves said that the sentences ensuing thereupon were false and iniquitous, deceitful and iniquitous, and infected with the taint of nullity and prevarication, with their executions and all dependencies and consequences; and so and in so far as is needful, that all such proceedings and sentences, executions and consequences, come to be utterly voided by just judgement, or to be esteemed infected with nullity.\nAnd these aforesaid reasons, means and conclusions they fortified, supported and adorned with many sentences and opinions of the sacred Scriptures and of the divine, canonical and civil laws, and of the most approved doctors, and they said and proposed that all these things had now been drawn up in writing by them; from all the premises, with many other things said and proposed by the same, the plaintiffs themselves at last concluding, supplicating and inferring, that by you, most reverend and reverend fathers and most renowned judges, by the better way, right, manner and form whereby the laws, usages, observances and your judicial office could avail them, it be by you and your sentence said, pronounced and adjudged that the said pretended process of inquisition or of matter of faith against the late Joan d’Arc, virgin and maid, and the pretended sentences ensuing thereupon, presumed and presumed, made and made, and pronounced by the said Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Magistri, the sub-inquisitor as is aforesaid, with her abjuration, execution and all the things following thereupon, are subject to the taint of nullity, deceit, falsity, mendacity and manifest violence and iniquity; and that the same and they, with the said execution and the same consequences, be expressly declared null, deceitful, false, mendacious, and infected with the stain of violence and manifest iniquity, and by the law itself void and of no effect; or at least that ye would quash and annul, revoke and utterly annul it and them, with all their dependencies and executions whatsoever, decreeing under grave penalties and ecclesiastical censures that no faith of any kind be henceforth rendered to them by the faithful of Christ; and that ye would forbid it to be otherwise, under the censure of anathema to endure perpetually; and nevertheless that ye would take care, by the same your judgement and definitive sentence, purging the innocence of the said deceased Joan, fully to determine and decree that she remained faithful and catholic until her death inclusive, and was and is free and immune from every stain of heresy, perverse credulity or error of faith, and departure from ecclesiastical unity, and every other crime imputed to her by the defendants; and that ye would pronounce her and the said plaintiffs, being freed from every mark of infamy and guilt which they could in any wise incur or attain by occasion of the said proceedings, sentences and executions following thereupon, to be free and fully restored to their fame so far as should be needful; and that the truth of your sentence and definitive judgement, the innocence also of the said deceased Joan, and the justice of the plaintiffs themselves, and the iniquity of the preceding proceedings, sentences and executions, may be manifest to all present and future in memory: that by the same your judgement ye would deign to decree the said iniquitous proceedings, sentences and consequences to be burned with fire by the secular justice, openly and publicly, in the place where the same Joan closed her last day or elsewhere, or to be torn by you and torn; and that in the same place and in other notable cities of this realm, by solemn preachings, ye would cause this your sentence and the execution thereof to be made manifest and published, with the erection of a cross, images and epitaphs in the city of Rouen itself and elsewhere where it shall be fitting; and if any solemn foundation of a chapel can be erected, decreeing also that it be built in the same place for the perpetual beseeching of the saints for the faithful departed; and that ye would will and ordain to decree that your sentence be inserted also into the chronicles of France, if it shall please our lord the King, and into the chamber of his Treasury of Charters; and lastly that, for the injuries, amends, losses, damages and expenses, ye would condemn the defendants themselves in grave sums of money to be paid to the plaintiffs themselves, such as your discretion should provide. The plaintiffs themselves instantly requiring that the adjunction of your promoter be imparted to them by your decree; or at least that such and so great conclusions, reparations and amends for the due, just and canonical ends be adjudged and decreed to the same plaintiffs by you, as the order of reason should dictate and the canonical sanctions decree; humbly imploring your judicial office, and the said plaintiffs offering to prove the premises so far as should be needful, with the other due and accustomed protestations, and every benefit of law also being reserved to them.\nGiven in the year of the Lord 1455, on the eighteenth day of the month of December.\nProduction and reception of the witnesses # On the nineteenth day moreover of the same month, to which day the aforesaid Masters Simon Chapitault and Guillaume Prévosteau, in the names aforesaid, had caused the underwritten witnesses to be cited by the venerable man Richard de Saincte Mareglise, priest, notary of the court of Rouen; as could be established by his report, the tenor whereof is inserted below: the aforesaid Chapitault and Prévosteau appeared at the aforewritten citation, with its underwritten execution, which they exhibited for the foundation of this judgement; and produced before the Delegates themselves the reverend father in Christ the lord Jean Fabri, Bishop of Demetriade, and the venerable men the lords Nicolas Caval, Nicolas de Houppeville, Guillaume Manchon, Brother Pierre Miget, Jean Riquier, André (1) Marguerie, Jean Massieu, Brother Martin (2) Ladvenu, aged and infirm. Whom they received and caused to swear upon the holy Gospels of God to depose the full and mere truth in this matter, hatred, love, favour, gift, prayer or price whatsoever being set aside.\nThe tenor moreover of the report of the said lord Richard follows, and is this:\nTo the most reverend father and lord in Christ Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, and to the reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Guillaume, by the same divine mercy Bishop of Paris, and also to Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, etc., etc.: your humble subject Richard de Saincte Mareglise, priest, bearing the office of the Dean of Christianity of Rouen, and notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, due reverence with all honour. Let your most reverend and reverend paternities know that I, by virtue of your mandate to which my present report or rescription is annexed, have cited peremptorily and personally before you or one of you at the archiepiscopal house of Rouen: Masters Nicolas Caval, Nicolas de Houppeville, and the lords Jean Fabri, Bishop of Demetriade, Guillaume Manchon, Brother Pierre Miget and Jean Riquier, priests, for Friday the nineteenth day of the month of December; and also Masters André Marguerie, the lord Jean Massieu and Brother Pierre Ladvenu, priests, for the Saturday following thereupon; to bear witness to the truth in a certain business touching the trial formerly conducted in matter of faith against a certain deceased Joan, called the Maid, by a certain Bishop of Beauvais and the sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity, at the instance of Master Guillaume d’Estivet their promoter, and the nullity of the same trial and sentences, and the purgation of the same deceased woman, moved and hoped to be moved before you; and have done and fulfilled all and each according to the tenor of your mandate. Which things I certify to your said most reverend paternities under my manual sign and the seal of the said Dean. Given in the year of the Lord 1455, on Thursday the eighteenth day of the month of December. So signed: R. de Saincte Mareglise.\nPresentation made on behalf of the heirs of the late Pierre Cauchon # On the twentieth day moreover of the month of December in the aforesaid year, to which day were cited all and each of whatsoever dignity, pre-eminence, degree, honour, state and condition they be, or in any wise believing themselves interested, or in the form of law the formal parties, denouncers or accusers of the late Joan the Maid, or defenders of the same pretended proceedings, or others willing to show themselves parties; to say and propose by word or in writing whatsoever they should be willing to say against the apostolic letters and the summonses, reports or execution of the same; and also to answer concerning justice and right to the said complainant plaintiffs or the said promoter; before the lords Delegates should sit for the tribunal on that day in the chamber of the most reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Archbishop of Rouen: there appeared the venerable and learned man Master Jean de Gouys, canon of Rouen, who, for and in the name of Master Jacques de Rivelle and the other co-heirs of the late lord Pierre Cauchon, formerly Bishop of Beauvais and at the time of his death Bishop of Lisieux, delivered a certain paper schedule to the lords Delegates (3), which he promised to cause to be ratified by the said Master Jacques. Which schedule the lords themselves received, and delivered to one of us the notaries to be read, and willed and ordained it to be inserted in the acts of this cause. Which being read, they answered the same Master Jean de Gouys that it was not their intention to do or make aught in prejudice of the composition or abolition made by our lord the King to the inhabitants and dwellers of the duchy of Normandy (4). There being present at these things the venerable and learned men Masters Guillaume Bouille, professor of sacred theology; Hector de Coquerel, doctor of both laws, and Pierre Maugier, doctor of the Decretals, witnesses specially called and required for the premises.\nThe tenor moreover of the said schedule follows, and is this:\nSince to the knowledge of me, Jacques de Rivelle, master of arts, first-born son of Jean de Rivelle (5) and of Guillemette his wife, nephew by his sister of the late lord Pierre of good memory, Bishop of Lisieux and heretofore of Beauvais; heir and having the cause of the said deceased, together with my other brothers and sisters, both to the cause of my aforesaid mother and of the venerable man Master Jean Bidault, brother of the same, my uncle; nephew, heir and executor, together with my said father and others, of the said late lord bishop: it has come to my notice that the most reverend and reverend fathers in Christ, the lords Archbishop of Reims, and Bishops of Paris and Coutances, judges deputed by the holy apostolic See to take cognisance of and decide upon the cause of nullity of a certain trial in matter of faith, made by the aforesaid lord Bishop of Beauvais and the Inquisitor of the faith at the instance of the promoter of the said faith, in the time of the English and of the wars lately raging in this realm, against and upon a certain Joan called the Maid, then being of the obedience of our lord the King, although among the great ones of this realm she was reputed of holy, upright and catholic life; have caused all and each believing themselves interested to be cited and summoned by edict: therefore I, both in my own name and in that of my other co-heirs and of those having the cause of the said lord bishop, make known, say and declare that I do not believe it concerns me, nor is it my intention, to sustain or defend the aforesaid trial as valid, juridical, or the sentences following thereupon; since, by the things which I have afterwards heard and understood (for at the time of the said trial and sentence I was four or five years old, and some of my brothers little children, and some not yet born), the said Joan was proceeded against in matter of faith by the envy and suggestion of the adversaries of our lord the King, namely because she was of his obedience and inflicted the greatest losses upon them in the business of the wars, they willing thereby to aid their party and quarrel; and that, if she had been of the party of the said adversaries, she would in no wise have been treated in matter of faith. I protest nevertheless expressly, and ask that it be admitted by the said lords Judges, that the proceedings to be made by them or the sentence to be given, against me or my co-heirs or others\n(1) Read: André.\n(2) Read: Martin.\n(3) The manuscripts read nobis — to us, instead of D. Delegatis — to the lords Delegates, by an error analogous to that which has been remarked at p. 151.\n(4) See Ord. des rois de France, vol. XIV, p. 75.\n(5) Secretary of Charles VI, and later of Henry VI. The King of England himself married him after having enriched him with the spoils of several Armagnacs. (Archives du Royaume, Trésor des Chartes, reg. 172, pièce 310.)\nhaving the cause of the said late lord bishop, shall in no wise prejudice, as neither ought it to prejudice, regard being had especially to the compositions and abolitions mercifully and benignly made by our lord the King in the reduction of the country of Normandy; of which I am capable, and I ought to use and enjoy them, and my co-heirs and others having the cause of the said lord bishop ought; by virtue whereof I and they ought to be guarded and defended before all; requesting the Lords that they cause them not to be summoned henceforth, since they do not intend to appear in this cause. Which schedule indeed, and the things contained in the same, the said Master Jacques de Rivelle, appearing for this purpose before the above-written notaries deputed by the Lords for this, held ratified and agreeable, and so far as was needful delivered and exhibited it anew, asking an instrument upon these things from the said notaries. These things were done in the house of Master Simon Cayet, on the twenty-first day of the said month of December; the aforesaid Master Simon Cayet and Pierre Ogier, clerk of the diocese of Nantes, being present.\nPetition of contumacy against those cited and not appearing # On the same day moreover, the twentieth of the month of December, before the aforesaid lords Judges sitting for the tribunal in the palace or great hall of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, a copious multitude of the people assisting there, the aforesaid Masters Simon Chapitault, the promoter and in the name of the promotership aforesaid, and Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the plaintiffs themselves, appearing in the name of the plaintiffs themselves and for them: the said Master Guillaume Prévosteau, in the name aforesaid, spoke, asserting that since on the fifteenth day of this month he had appeared before the Lords and had accused the contumacy of certain ones expressly named and cited, in no wise appearing before the Lords nor sending anyone for them, and had petitioned and required from the Lords and by the same that the aforesaid thus by name cited and not appearing be reputed contumacious, and that in their contumacy they proceed to further acts: which they had deferred to do until this present day, if they should in no wise appear before the Lords on the same day; to which day also all and each were cited, of whatsoever dignity, pre-eminence, state, degree, honour and condition they be, or in any wise believing themselves interested, or in the form of law the formal parties, denouncers or accusers of the late Joan the Maid, or defenders of the same pretended proceedings, or others willing to show themselves parties, to say or propose by word or in writing whatsoever they should be willing to say against the apostolic letters and the summonses and citations, and to say and do other things, as is more fully contained in the same letters of citation inserted below: that they would cause those already long since cited and awaited until this present day, and others believing themselves interested, summoned for this present day, to be called by the aforesaid notaries; and if they should in no wise appear and should render themselves contumacious, that they would repute them contumacious, and in their contumacy proceed further in this cause, and declare the judges themselves to be competent in this cause. And to show the summons made against those summoned for this present day, Prévosteau himself exhibited and produced the citation formerly decreed by the Lords, with the report of its executor. He exhibited also and produced certain concluding articles, asking that the same be admitted by the Lords; asserting that the same contain the truth, asking from them and by them that a citation be decreed to him again against those cited, and all others believing themselves interested, to say and propose before the Lords everything and whatsoever they should be willing to say or propose against these articles, and to proceed further as should be reasonable. The tenor of which articles indeed is inserted below.\nExposition of the promoter’s request # These things being thus exhibited, the said Master Simon Chapitault, the aforesaid promoter and in the aforesaid name of the promotership, to whom formerly, by the mandate of the Lords, it had been ordained that the proceedings, the sentence and all the things following thereupon, and certain informations and advisements touching these proceedings, and exhibited among the Lords for their information, should be communicated, that he might stir up his office and take cognisance of them concerning the truth of these proceedings; before them, in French words, under the underwritten form, made an exposition, taking the words contained in the Clementine Multorum on heretics: since, as it is too grave not to act for the extermination of heretical pravity as its contagious enormity requires to be done, it is grave also and most worthy of condemnation maliciously to impose the same pravity upon the innocent:\nThat, after the office enjoined upon him and the solemn oath given by him of faithfully prosecuting, promoting and requiring, both for the trial and against the trial, whatsoever things should be opportune for the faith, justice and the commonweal; having only God before his eyes, all human fear, hatred and favour being cast away, and every particular consideration and affection of whatsoever parties being laid aside; the trial formerly conducted against the same Joan the Maid having first been visited and perused unhurriedly and wholly, worthy and honest men skilled in the law being called with him, and the informations and other things communicated to him by the ordination of the Lords: from the same trial and informations, and from other things which he perceived and heard, fame reporting and by the telling of worthy men, he wished to propose in the midst before the same Lords certain things stirring up the office of the said Lords; protesting that in the things thus to be said he did not intend to injure anyone, or to say, propose or prosecute aught which should not be consonant with the catholic faith; submitting whatsoever things said, done and to be done to the holy apostolic See and to themselves deputed by the same apostolic See.\nHe intended moreover to admonish them upon three things:\nFirst, upon the instruments and acts of the cause and of the trial formerly made against the same Joan the Maid, and the notaries of the said trial.\nSecondly, concerning the preparatory matters of the trial.\nThirdly, concerning the trial in itself, with the things following thereupon.\nUpon the instruments and acts of the cause and of the trial, and the notaries of the said trial, it is found that, beyond the notaries appointed in the said trial, of whose appointment it appears by the letters in the trial, there were other notaries hidden in windows; also writing up the confessions of the said Joan and the acts of the cause, omitting many of the things justifying and excusing the said Joan, and mendaciously adding not a few things, to her injury; and from which certain articles were elicited and sent to those deliberating. In the same matter it is also found that very many trials were made which in some parts deviate from the confessions of the said Joan made in French, and that, a long time after the death of the said Joan, the said trial had been put together, many things being added and taken away, and many things set down in another form.\nAnd concerning the preparatory matters of the trial, the promoter himself said that many things are to be attended to. For in the beginning of the trial it is narrated that certain preparatory informations were made, which nevertheless are not inserted, because no one ought to be drawn in matter of faith save upon previous information and fame reporting against him. Which, though they were made, were not placed in the trial, since, as is presumed, they made for the justification of the said Joan. Yet they ought to have inquired by whom, where and when they were made, and why they were not inserted in the trial. It should also be attended to with what zeal the Bishop of Beauvais and the other co-judges proceeded in the beginning of this trial, since it is established well enough, both by the said trial and by the informations already made, that the Bishop of Beauvais himself used the greatest diligence with the princes for the having of the same Joan, so that for having her there were given ten thousand francs and three hundred pounds of revenue; and yet, she being delivered, he did not place her in the hands or prisons of the Church, nay he placed her in the hands of the English and left her in a most strong tower, to wit in the Castle of Rouen, although by many worthy and lettered men summoned by the same bishop for the consultation and direction of the trial he was oft-times admonished and advised to place her again in the hands of the Church. Which nevertheless he did not do; nay, he consented that she be kept in fetters and iron manacles and, as is reported, in a certain iron cage (1); nay, the bishop himself, feeling that he was in no wise proceeding juridically, willed to have letters of warrant, indemnity, permission, expense and defence to be undertaken for him if the case should happen, from the secular English princes, before he should proceed to the execution and examination of the said trial; to wit, as the promoter himself said was established by the letters of warrant communicated to him. The promoter himself said also that they should attend to how it was voiced and famed in the town of Rouen that, straightway after the said Joan was brought into the Castle of Rouen, the said Joan, by the ordination of the Duchess of Bedford and of the same Bishop of Beauvais, was visited by matrons, that certitude might be had of her virginity and chastity; and at last being found a virgin and intact, yet the visitation itself was not inserted in the trial. Nevertheless the visitation itself came to the ears of certain counsellors, who afterwards refused to take part in this trial, asserting that such integrity could not be in the same without other virtues, regard being had to her long converse with armed men.\nAnd concerning the trial in itself, the promoter himself said that several things ought to be attended to. For in the exordium of the trial, when the said Joan was summoned to judgement, she answered that she would willingly appear; but she required two things: first, that certain clerks of the obedience of France should be called; secondly, that she might hear mass. Which requisitions, namely regarding the first, of calling clerks of the party of France, he utterly passed over in silence. And the second indeed, of hearing mass, he was unwilling to put in deliberation; but said that he had from certain ones that she ought not to hear mass. Item, that after this summons there were several meetings which are designated in the trial as sessions; and in many of those sessions the same Joan is seen implicitly to refuse the bishop himself. And the Inquisitor was not present at the beginning of the trial; for the trial was begun on the fourteenth day of January, and he was only summoned on the nineteenth day of February, albeit unwilling and refusing; upon whom, as is reported, many threats were wrought, because he refused to take part in the trial on account of the manners which were kept in the trial. Also after she had been interrogated during some sessions and outside the prisons, and before many notable men, it was ordained that thenceforth she should be examined in the prison and before fewer, because many of those standing by were not content with the manner of proceeding. For certain counsellors made captious interrogations to the same Joan, sometimes translations and inculcations of impertinent matters, and sometimes very seditious ones; whereof not only the said Joan but also some of the counsellors complained. She nevertheless answered them most wisely; as when she was asked whether her king had done justly in slaying the Duke of Burgundy: she answered that the death of princes was a great loss; but whatsoever there was between the lords of France, she was sent to the King of France on the part of God. Item, whether the sacred Scripture proceeded from God; and she answered that it is good to know that it is so. Item, to which of the Roman Pontiffs obedience was to be rendered; she answered, to him who was in Rome. Item, whether she was in a state of grace: she answered that if she was, may God maintain her in it; and if she was not, may He deign to place her in it. And they made many other impertinent interrogations, as could be established concerning these things by the trial. The same Joan was also infirm at the time of this trial, and during her infirmity required to confess, to receive the Eucharist and to have ecclesiastical burial. And the English are asserted to have said to the physicians who visited her that they would rather lose twenty thousand salus than that she should die otherwise than by fire, and that they should take good care of her lest she die of that infirmity. And the guards injured her most often.\nAnd the promoter also said that the same Lords ought singularly to attend to certain twelve articles put together and elicited from seventy other articles; for, as he said it appeared from the tenor of the same, many things serving for her justification and excuse had been omitted in them, and many things mendaciously and perniciously added of which she had made no mention; and that many threats were wrought upon many of those counsellors and deliberators, so that some were made exiles, others incarcerated; others in fear had left the city of Rouen, as is said to have befallen Master Jean Lohier, because he had rebuked the said trial of nullity. Item, that many illusions, deceptions and frauds are asserted to have been made upon the said Joan in the prison, that she should be induced to say or be silent upon certain things, and specially that she should render herself difficult in the submission to the Church; and this, as is said, by a certain Master Nicolas Aucupis (2), who feigned himself a prisoner of the parts of Lorraine, striving to deceive the same Joan.\nItem, the promoter himself said it ought not to be passed over in silence that the same Joan is accused of being unwilling to submit herself to the Church militant; yet she in her interrogations and answers most clearly and very catholically answered concerning the said submission, since she most often said, and especially when the solemn admonition was made by Master Guillaume Evrard, that she willed all her sayings and doings to be remitted to the Roman Pontiff, to whom she referred herself. And they caused her to abjure certain things, induced, seduced and coerced by certain ones; for the fear of the fire and the presence of the torturer and the threats wrought upon her induced her to abjure things which she did not understand. And that she was also induced to take man’s dress after this abjuration, because her woman’s garments had been taken away; and her guards presumed to attempt upon her chastity; wherefore, being coerced and not having woman’s garments, she was compelled to take man’s dress for the protection of her chastity. Which notwithstanding, she was judged relapsed and rendered to the secular judgement and, without any other sentence, burned with fire, the sacrament of the Eucharist having first been received by her.\nAnd many other things the promoter himself said and put forth to move the mind of the said Lords; asking that diligent inquiry be made of and upon all the premises, and that justice be ministered to each according to the exigency of the case; asserting further that it was useful to the same trial\n(1) Cage.\n(2) The Notre-Dame manuscript reads: Loyseleur.\nto make a certain inquest upon the life and manners of the same Joan, and the manner of her leaving (1) her country; asking from the same and by the Lords that commissioners be deputed to examine certain witnesses upon certain interrogatories to be given by him and inserted below (2).\nOrdinance upon the inquests to be made in the place of Joan’s origin # Then moreover the aforesaid Judges, willing to inquire the truth upon all things, deputed and ordained the venerable and discreet men Master Reginald de Chichery, dean of the collegiate church of Blessed Mary of Vaucouleurs, of the diocese of Toul, and Wathier Thierry, canon of the church of Toul, that upon certain articles or interrogatories sent to them they should inform the same. Which things being thus done and enacted, the aforesaid Judges pronounced their ordinance or appointment in this cause in writing, by the mouth of the lord Archbishop, in this manner:\nAppointment made by the lords Delegates concerning the state of the cause # The apostolic mandate having been seen and weighed, committed to us and directed on behalf of the honest woman Isabelle d’Arc, mother of the late Joan d’Arc, vulgarly called the Maid, and of Pierre and Jean d’Arc, sons of the said Isabelle and brothers of the said deceased, and of their kinsfolk and relatives, the plaintiffs, and by the same or by their procurator lawfully deputed for this, many times presented to us in the cities of Paris and of Rouen, to us Jean, Archbishop and Duke of Reims, first peer of France, and Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, with a certain colleague of ours, with that clause, etc., specially delegated by apostolic authority in this behalf, and to us Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, assumed by the same authority as co-judge; with the instant petition of the same for the due execution of the apostolic mandate according to its tenor;\nThe citations and summonses directed having also been seen, with the execution of the same and the authentic reports of the executors, both of those specially and by name and of those generally summoned and cited;\nThe petitions and requests having also been heard, openly, solemnly and judicially, before us, both by the plaintiffs themselves and their procurators and by our promoter, made and instantly required against and upon those specially cited, to wit the reverend father in Christ the lord Guillaume de Hellande, the present Bishop of Beauvais, the promoter of criminal causes of his court of Beauvais, and the procurator of the causes of the holy inquisition, and also against the lord Pierre Cauchon, formerly Bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Magistri, formerly pretended sub-inquisitor or vicar of heretical pravity in the same place, or their heirs and those having their cause, and against all and each believing themselves interested, generally summoned, the defendants in this cause of nullity and injustice and of purgation and innocence; and afterwards delivered and presented to us in writing, duly and in the manner of the Roman court, in the form of concluding articles; the procurator of the said plaintiffs and our promoter accusing the contumacy of the said defendants, generally and peremptorily summoned for this present day, and of others, formerly specially cited for certain days already past, and until this very present day awaited and prorogued of our grace, not appearing nor sending anyone for them:\nWe, at last, the apostolic Delegates, all and each things being weighed and digested with mature counsel, say and declare ourselves to be and to be competent judges in this instant cause, with its executions, dependencies and consequences, by the same authority. And moreover, justice requiring it, we have reputed the said defendants, whom we caused to be summoned aloud after the wonted manner, since they did not appear nor sent anyone for them, contumacious, as we also do repute them; nevertheless, of abundant grace and good caution, ordaining, on account of the arduousness of the cause, that the same contumacious ones be again summoned by our peremptory citation or edict, both specially and generally, both to the place, city and church of Beauvais and to the doors of the church of Rouen, for the day, to wit the first juridical day after the first Sunday of Quadragesima, on which in the holy Church of God shall be sung Invocavit (3), in the present hall, at the ninth hour of the morning, to appear peremptorily before us or one of us, or a subdelegate or subdelegates, by themselves or by a fit and instructed procurator, with all their writings, allegations and muniments, ready and instructed; and to say and propose all that and whatsoever they shall will to say or propose against the articles of the said plaintiffs exhibited before us this day; and to see further canonical and juridical proceeding in this cause; and to act and do whatsoever shall be of necessity and congruity against this petition and articles and the other things exhibited, to be exhibited and to be produced, their absence notwithstanding. Decreeing also, the procurator of the said plaintiffs and our promoter insisting, that a copy of the trial formerly made against the said deceased by the defendants themselves or some of them be ministered to them for due ends; upon the adjunction of our promoter required by the plaintiffs, purposing to deliberate and dispose after the manner that shall be reasonable.\nIt was pronounced by the lord Archbishop of Reims, his co-judges the Bishop of Paris and Brother Jean Bréhal the Inquisitor standing by; there being present the reverend father the lord Jean, Bishop of Demetriade; the lords Jean (4), Abbot of Saint-Ouen, and Jean (5), Abbot of Sainte-Catherine du Mont of Rouen; Masters Hector de Coquerel, vicar-general of the lord Archbishop of Rouen, Nicolas de Bosco (6), dean, Jean de Gouys, Jean Bec (7), canons of Rouen, with many other doctors, licentiates and a copious multitude of the people.\nWhich ordinance or appointment being thus made, they ordained that letters of citation be made for the said plaintiffs or their procurator in the form required by them, decreeing that further proceeding should be had in this cause. Given and done in the year and on the day aforesaid.\nThe tenor moreover of the things thus produced follows, and is this (8).\nFirst, the tenor of the citation:\nJean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, judges and commissioners in this behalf, etc.; to all and each priests, vicars, curates and not curates, etc., health and eternal direction. Among the catholic works of the faithful shines the embrace of charity, by whose most pure ardour the tearful complaints of the oppressed oft-times obtain opportune remedies for the ministry of truth and of justice. Now, a few days ago, with mournful voice, loving insinuation and grave bitterness of heart, prostrate before our sight, by repeated turns, the honest woman Isabelle d’Arc, mother, and the renowned man Pierre d’Arc, knight, brother, both in their own name and in the names of the other kinsfolk of the deceased Joan d’Arc, constantly asserted and offered that they had obtained a certain open mandate of the apostolic See, directed to us under the apostolic bull; and instantly petitioned that we should receive it. And because with provident gravity a solid foundation must be established in things discreetly to be conducted, we assigned a day and place to the same complainants and afflicted, that they should lay open the causes of their supplication, difficult of approach, and should solemnly demand that the presentation of the pretended mandate be admitted, the patronage of counsel being distributed to them. Who again, at the term assigned to them, to wit on the seventeenth day of the present month of November, in the episcopal hall of Paris, a copious multitude of certain prelates and venerable masters, professors of both laws, licentiates, bachelors and others regular, secular, ecclesiastical and lay being convoked and assisting; ourselves being solemnly seated for the tribunal to this end; with sonorous voice by the mouth of their counsel they tearfully set forth that, some time since, Joan d’Arc, the natural and legitimate daughter of Isabelle and sister of Pierre and Jean, the same complainants, was offended and enormously hurt by a grave mark upon her fame and the loss of all her kindred; chiefly from this, as they said, that certain of her rivals, etc. Subjoining with mournful desolation, etc., to have had recourse to the holy apostolic See, to which also the Maid herself oft-times, while the judgement was thus conducted, sought to have recourse (9); where also her tears and her complaints being heard and received, provision at last, in the form of justice decreed, etc. (10)\nThen follows the report:\nTo the most reverend and reverend fathers and lords in Christ, the lords Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, and Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, judges, etc.; your humble subjects Socius Voles, priest of the diocese of Rouen, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority and of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, and Gérard de Sale, of the diocese of Reims, sworn notary by the same apostolic authority, reverence, etc. (11)\nChapter IV # Tenor of the articles presented by the plaintiffs # The sacred sanctions have said: He is to be blamed who neglects his fame, and who does not defend the innocence of his parents oppressed by deceitful fraud. Therefore, that by you, most renowned and in Christ most reverend and reverend fathers, the lords Archbishop and Duke of Reims, first peer of France, and the illustrious Bishop of Paris, eminent doctors of both laws, and the most venerable Bishop of Coutances (12), and the venerable and famous doctor of sacred theology Brother Jean Bréhal, of the order of Preaching Friars, inquisitor of heretical pravity, judges and commissioners in this behalf specially delegated by apostolic authority; to the honest persons Isabelle d’Arc, mother of the late Joan d’Arc, vulgarly called the Maid, and Pierre and Jean d’Arc, german brothers of the same deceased and sons of the said Isabelle, both in their own names and in the names of their kinsfolk and relatives or kinsmen, or their procurator in their name, and for them, both conjointly and severally, the plaintiffs in this cause; against and upon the Sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity constituted in the diocese of Beauvais, and also against the promoter of the criminal causes of the episcopal court of Beauvais, and a certain\n(1) The manuscripts read aggrediendi — approaching. Should we not rather read egrediendi patria sua — leaving her country?\n(2) See below, in Chapter V of the Trial.\n(3) That is, the first Sunday of Lent, 15 February 1456.\n(4) Jean de Corguilleray, Abbot of Saint-Ouen since 12 October 1455. He was counsellor of Louis XI, who made him Bishop of Lodève in 1462.\n(5) Jean Lefrançois, Abbot of Sainte-Catherine, from 1453 to 1465.\n(6) Nicole Dubois, called Dubosc, dean of the chapter of Rouen, protested vigorously against the appointment of Guillaume d’Estouteville in 1445; he was compromised in the war of the Public Weal and lived until 1491. (Gallia christ., vol. XI, col. 119.)\n(7) Otherwise Du Bec. In 1449 he sustained a long suit against Jean de Castiglione, Bishop of Coutances, for a prebend in the cathedral of Rouen which the Archbishop had conferred upon a certain Guillaume de Châtillon-sur-Marne. The affair was made void by decree of the Parlement, dated 14 February 1450. (Gallia christ., vol. XI, col. 892.)\n(8) Here is a quite useless repetition, for the two pieces which follow have already been given above, pp. 113 and 123, which was their true place. Nothing in what precedes indicates that they were produced anew at the audience of 20 December. Their presence here must therefore still be attributed to the negligence of the clerks. For our part, if we reproduce something of them, it is because this new text, more complete than the first in divers places, may facilitate the understanding of the document.\n(9) Although the phrase is more complete than that of the first transcription, it still halts in this place. See above, p. 115.\n(10) The rest as above, pp. 110–123; same date, same subscriptions, with the difference that the signature of the last clerk is given in French: P. Roche, instead of P. de Rupe.\n(11) The rest as above, pp. 123–125.\n(12) The Bishop of Coutances is named here although he did not sit in the proceedings.\nGuillaume d’Estivet, and the formerly reverend Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Magistri, formerly pretended inquisitor or vicar of the same pravity in the same diocese, if they survive, or their heirs and those having their cause, if need be and they have said that it concerns them; against the reverend father in Christ the lord Guillaume de Hellande, the present Bishop of Beauvais, and all and each others believing themselves interested in this behalf, and each of them respectively, both conjointly and severally, the defendants; upon the reparation of the underwritten molestations, infamy, injuries and losses and of the unjust condemnation and destruction of the said Joan, and of the declaration of the iniquity, falsity, deceitfulness and nullity of the proceedings, sentences, censures and executions infected with every deceit, falsity and subreption and obreption and iniquity and pravity, made or attempted by the said defendants or their accomplices, or by some one or ones of them, and uttered and executed, with all their dependencies and consequences, or at least the cassation, revocation, annulment and annihilation thereof; and also upon the promulgation of the purgation and innocence of the said deceased Joan d’Arc, called the Maid, and to the ends here at last to be expressed below; that justice be ministered for the causes, means, deeds and reasons, and with the protestations presently to be inscribed, and that what is just be decreed: the plaintiffs themselves affirm, say, propose and exhibit in writing the petitions, articles, deeds, causes, reasons and the things which follow.\nI. First they protest that they intend maliciously to injure none, nor in any wise to inveigh or detract to the prejudice of his fame and honour; but specially to say and prosecute the things which make for the truth and elucidation of this their just cause and prosecution. And the plaintiffs themselves likewise protest that, against those and each of them who were present in the trial made against the said Joan, or gave counsel or opinion thereupon, since, the false, mendacious, corrupt and evidently extracted character of the articles communicated to them for giving counsel being seen and weighed, of which it will be said below, they are held excusable: they do not intend to say aught to the prejudice of their honour and fame or to the loss whatsoever of their honours, the judges and promoter nevertheless excepted. And nevertheless they submit the things to be said and done alike to the correction and reparation of the holy apostolic See and of your most renowned paternities and of the others whom it befits, if aught be to be corrected or repaired.\nII. Item, these things being presupposed and hitherto held and reputed as repeated in the pleading, the plaintiffs themselves say and assert that both they and the same Joan the Maid, their kinswoman, are and were, and intend to be, in the company of their life, of good name, good fame and conversation, peaceable and quiet, living honestly and, the Lord leading, without infamy or perverse mark of deceit or crime; passing the course of their days in faithful and catholic communion; and they are and were reputed and found such openly, publicly and manifestly by all their known compatriots and neighbours and others.\nIII. Item, that the said Maid, while she lived among men, detested every heresy, nor did she believe or affirm or assert aught which should savour of heresy or stand in the way of the catholic faith and the traditions of the holy Roman Church. And so it was, and is true.\nIV. Item, and verily, as a good and faithful catholic, the said Joan while she lived faithfully worshipped God; frequented churches and the divine offices, devoutly hearing masses; oft-times received the sacraments, especially of penance and the Eucharist, and piously exercised works of mercy, bestowing alms upon the poor of Christ, never swearing but rebuking and chiding all swearers, especially blasphemers; and in nothing ever departed in any wise from the rite of the catholic religion and the worship of the Christian faith, the articles and the unity of the Church. And so it was, and is true.\nV. Item, and neither against the said Joan, since she was faithful and catholic, did any mark of ill-fame or suspicion, error or heresy precede; nor against her upon rumour of such ill-fame or public voice did any inquisition, the accustomed prelude of a process of faith, precede; as she was never suspect of doubtful faith or of error. And so against her a process in matter of faith could not nor ought to have been begun or conducted, save nullly and in fact, since whatsoever is done in a process of faith or of heresy, the said previous inquisition being omitted, is void and null; at least to be quashed by the law itself. And so it was, and is true.\nVI. Item, and nevertheless the said judges and promoter, led by their own passions and inestimable hatred of the said Maid, or by too great favour of her rivals and of the adversaries of our lord the King and of his counsel at that time, no order of law being kept and no legitimate inquisition preceding, apprehended the said innocent Joan, of the age of nineteen years or thereabouts and ignorant of all law and worldly science, and as if besprinkled with heresy inscribed her upon a process of faith or of the office of heretical pravity; and proceeded against her as such, contrary to the doctrine of the law, falsely imposing upon her crimes and errors against the faith and the Church and striking into her the penalties of the law in matter of notoriously contrived heresy. And so it was, and is true.\nVII. Item, and that, although the said Joan, when she was first cited in the cause of faith, required in her prison that lettered men of the party and obedience of France as also of England should be called and admitted, and also that she might hear mass; yet the aforesaid Pierre Cauchon refused these things and was unwilling to put them in deliberation before the counsellors, saying in the presence of the counsellors called that the said Joan required to hear mass, and that he had it from certain others that he ought not to grant her to hear mass; utterly passing over in silence the other requisition. And this was, and is true.\nVIII. Item, and especially the said Magistri, then pretended vicar of heretical pravity, then incurred the penalty of excommunication, and Cauchon himself, then Bishop of Beauvais, the suspension and censure pronounced by the law, by thus imposing the false mark of heresy upon the said Joan the Maid and thus unduly beginning the process of inquisition without legitimate cause. And so that trial of theirs, from that head of excommunication, with its dependencies and connexions, was thenceforth infected with nullity, since, an excommunicate or suspended judge abiding, jurisdiction cannot be exercised save nullly and in fact. And so it was, and is true.\nIX. Item, and the said Cauchon and Magistri and their accomplices or the said defendants straightway, from the beginning of their trial, delivered the said Joan, a young and tender girl, to a hard prison, ordained rather for punishment than for custody, against the form of the law, and burdened and bound her with iron fetters and chains, impiously and unjustly; and thrust her into a strong prison then, to wit of the Castle of Rouen, a prison not of justice but of wickedness and violence, and not ecclesiastical but secular; and placed her to be guarded into the hands of armed laymen and of her capital enemies, to wit armed Englishmen, pursuing her assiduously with capital hatred in words, menaces, terrors and derisions. Which young Maid nevertheless, delivered into the hand of the Church, committed to an ecclesiastical prison not penal, associated with honest women, ought, competent liberty being granted, to have been humanely treated, at least while the course of the pretended trial stood, as the laws will and all equity demands. And so it was, and is true.\nX. Item, and it is true that the said bishop and vice-inquisitor, by their judicial ordinance, decreed that the said Joan, a girl and virgin, should be visited by matrons and ladies upon the integrity of the virginity pretended by her; as she was visited, in the part of the womanly sex, by many fit women, very noble and many ladies assisting. Which Joan, being carefully visited, was found a virgin and intact; and this visitation, albeit judicial, the said judges deceitfully kept silent, lest they should express aught to the praise or excuse of the said virgin Joan; nor did they make or will mention to be made of it in their trial, nay they forbade it; and those who saw the said visitation and knew the things found in the same they bound by solemn oath that they should utterly conceal them and should never in any wise reveal to anyone that the said Joan had been found a virgin and intact. And from this beginning, with the taint of deceit, fraud, mendacity and false truncation, they stained their trial, which is worthy of note. And so it was, and is true.\nXI. Item, and the said Joan abiding in the aforesaid prison, state, place and company, a girl of the aforesaid youthful age, nay and thus afflicted by the terrors, fear and violence of the hostile presence and hard prison; the said defendants did not blush to proceed to many interrogatories, even difficult, very seditious, captious, pernicious and impertinent, against the same Joan, approaching divers matters, even theological, to which lettered men also, enjoying liberty, might sometimes have failed to give answers. With which manifold and repeated interrogatories, often with threats, they oppressed the same Maid with so great vexation that she fell into a grave bodily weakness or infirmity, even near to mortal; whereof not only the said Joan but also very many of the counsellors themselves and assistants oft-times complained, and some withdrew utterly from the trial itself, seeing the manner of proceeding, others were repulsed. And so it was, and is true.\nXII. Item, and that the said defendants, that they might the more easily fulfil what they had conceived against the said Joan and at their nod, and might seclude all the directors and consultants having God and justice before their eyes from the examination of the same Joan, changed the place and time of the examination, and constituted that the same Joan should thenceforth be examined in the place of the prison, in the presence of the English and the guards, by few counsellors and with few, whom they changed almost at each examination, and appointed divers persons, both for interrogating and for being present, according to the variety of the days, and in small number; whereof no small question was made among the experts and consultants. And this was, and is true.\nXIII. Item, and since the said defendants — to speak without any injury, led by their own or their rivals’ wickedness — tended not only to the natural or honest consummation of death of the said Maid, but rather had conspired her immortal destruction of public infamy: that the same Joan might be cured of that infirmity, her service being reserved, they employed the greatest solicitude of several physicians about her; certain also of the greater of her adversaries, under and by whom she was detained, frequently saying that they would rather lose twenty thousand nobles than that the said Joan should so die, save by fire, a condemnatory and ignominious sentence preceding against her.\nXIV. Item, and straightway when she recovered, the said judges vexed her again with many interrogatories, especially interrogating her of certain things touching visions or apparitions of good spirits and the unity of the Church and the heights of the faith; and asked many difficult things of her, to which she gave faithful, catholic and competent answers, honest and congruous, her youthful age, the condition of her sex and her ignorance being especially weighed and attended to. And so it was, and is true.\nXV. Item, and among the other answers honestly, quietly and prudently given by the said Joan the Maid, afflicted by the manifest passions and rivalries of the said defendants and by hatred, vexation and trouble, she oft-times declined the forum of the judges themselves. Which is openly established chiefly from two things: first, since she expressly refused the judges as her capital enemies, and from this her lawful refusal, by most known law, all their jurisdiction is suspended, in which if they proceeded further, especially the article of the refusal being undiscussed, they manifestly proceed nullly; the second is, since the same Joan oft-times required the judgement of the Roman Pontiff, where an equivalent lawful appeal is pleaded (1); for the Apostle said for an appeal: I stand at the tribunal of Caesar; especially since such arduous businesses are known to pertain to his supreme See by the law itself. Whence and thence all the proceedings of the said defendants, with their consequences, are infected with nullity. And so it was, and is true.\nXVI. Item, and similarly upon the visions themselves the same Joan gave answers holy and not dissonant from salutary truth; since she both believed the visions themselves to proceed from a good spirit, as it is so to be piously and catholically esteemed, the integrity, humility and simplicity of the same Maid, and the necessity of the commonweal to which she was sent, and her most just cause and end, being duly and without malign affection weighed, with other opportune circumstances; nor did the same Joan err herein or in aught deviate from the truth of the faith. And this was, and is true.\nXVII. Item, and the same Joan, although at last counsel was denied her unfittingly, yet faithfully led, as is believed, by the direction of the divine spirit, submitted all her answers, sayings and assertions, by repeated turns also, to the holy Church, not departing from its unity; and in express words instantly required many times that all things be visited by clerks not suspect or affected, nay and that all things be referred to the judgement of the Pope and of the sacred Council. And so it was, and is true.\nXVIII. Item, and since certain lettered men, moved by loving compassion, wished to admonish the said ignorant Joan upon the things which were said, counselling her to submit herself to the sacred Council of Basel in which clerks of both obediences were present: such were contumeliously expelled by the said bishop. Nay, to one of them the bishop said: Be silent in the name of the de-\n(1) So the text. Read rather: is esteemed lawful.\nvil! Nay, upon very many counsellors and notable men, doctors and licentiates, manifold threats and terrors were wrought, and some were proscribed from the city of Rouen, even in peril of their lives; of whom some will be named below; nor did they afterwards dare to appear or take part in the said trial. In which things the sinister affection of the said judges lucidly appears. And so it was, and is true.\nXIX. Item, and nevertheless the said plaintiffs, seeking to terminate the same Maid in a judgement of ignominious death, although she stood free and innocent of all the crimes imputed to her, as will be openly manifested below; nevertheless for the continuation of their iniquitous trial they straightway descended thereto after her said infirmity, the aforesaid promoter of Beauvais prosecuting the business.\nXX. Item, and the same Joan oft-times interrogated and vexed by them, at last certain articles were composed by the said defendants and by their command, which they said were excerpted or extracted from the confessions of the said Joan, beginning A certain woman, etc., which they transmitted to many notable and lettered persons; and upon the same they had very many opinions and votes.\nXXI. Item, and verily the said articles were falsely extracted and iniquitously composed, nor are they conformable to the confessions of the said Joan, nor do they contain the refusals, submissions, excuses, appeals, or the true understanding of the said Joan and of her confessions; nay, the consultants ought verily to be said deceived and seduced herein, nor ought any mark thence to be ascribed to them, the seducers themselves and the defendants and their accomplices nevertheless excepted.\nXXII. Item, and although in the said trial there had been assumed public notaries, worthy of faith, who openly in French words registered the trial and acts of the said Joan, yet certain other suspect notaries lay hid in a hidden and neighbouring place, who willed to write many false things, and by whom hidden notaries, or from their writings, the said false articles are believed to have been put together. Nay, and a certain other trial was put together in authentic form, very distant and dissimilar from the said former trial. And this was, and is true.\nXXIII. Item, and although the said judges, by such iniquitous writings, false reports and confessions and contrived articles, the premises being weighed, ought not to have proceeded further, especially in matter of faith, as neither could they save nullly and in fact; yet straightway, after the cured infirmity of the said Joan, she being thus thrust into hard prisons forthwith, neither the evidence of the deed nor the vehemence of suspicion nor the clamour of fame requiring it, although it was not established to them, as neither was it, that she had been besprinkled with any heresy or had committed any excesses or crimes contrary to the faith, or had adhered to any errors contrary to the faith, as they pretended; and although she had required the same bishop and Inquisitor that, if they pretended she had said or done aught which should savour of heresy or be contrary to the faith, they should remit it to the examination of the apostolic See, to whose judgement she was ready to submit: against the same Joan, all defence of her innocence being taken from her and the order of the law being pretermitted, proceeding nullly and in fact in this pretended business of inquisition forbidden to their will, they uttered two manifestly iniquitous sentences. And this was, and is true.\nXXIV. Item, and by whose beginnings the said defendants, narrating certain articles in great number which, albeit falsely, they pretend to have emanated from the spontaneous confession of the said Joan, and by which they intend that she was, concerning the crimes pretended by them, not only culpable but confessed: proceeded in fact to a certain premeditated abjuration, that nothing should be wanting to their malice, although, as is aforesaid, matter of faith was in nothing offered; and at last, a certain schedule of this pretended abjuration, of difficult terms, and which the said Joan verily did not understand, being read through, they nevertheless, cruel in inhuman austerity, definitively condemned the same Joan, of youthful age, although stained with no crime, nay utterly innocent of the errors imputed to her, and although returning to the bosom of the Church, as they said, nay and by them absolved from the pretended censures, without mercy, to perpetual prisons, on the bread of sorrow and the water of sadness, albeit iniquitously, deceitfully and in fact. And this was, and is true.\nXXV. Item, and although in this their iniquitous sentence the iniquitous judges set forth certain previous contrived words wherein they might pretend their grace and moderation were preserved; yet straightway they delivered and placed the said Joan, utterly desolate, not in an ecclesiastical prison, not into the hands of the Church, not in the company of honest women, although she had received her woman’s dress and it had been so promised her; but into the hand and custody of her capital enemies, the English, in the fortress and prison of a secular (1) lord, alone, without woman companion, burdened with fetters and iron chains, against the precepts of charity, against the form of the Church, and that, as is likely, they might seclude from her all matter of good perseverance and afford occasion of maligning or falling. And this was, and is true.\nXXVI. Item, and thenceforth the defendants themselves, or their accomplices, tempting the said Joan with a stronger goad, in the Castle itself, while she lay at night in bed and had laid her woman’s garments upon the bed that she might resume them on the morrow; the woman’s garments were taken away by them and man’s dress placed, so that even for the necessity of nature, for the purgation of the belly or other things, no woman’s garment was left her to cover her nakedness. And so it was, and is true.\nXXVII. Item, and what is far more pernicious, there was afterwards afforded to the bed of the same sleeping (2) Joan the Maid the personal or permitted access of a certain one of the said adversaries, who, with violence of deed, endeavoured to attempt upon her chastity; so that she, impelled by the necessity of her own defence and of preserving her virginal honour, resumed man’s dress, not having wherewith else to cover her limbs or to repel the said invader from the instant violence. And so it was, and is true.\nXXVIII. Item, and thence, deceit, malice and fraud cooperating, the said defendants endeavoured to plead, accuse and interrogate Joan upon the relapse into the heresy or error pretended by them from the beginning. Who, although to the things interrogated she gave congruous and catholic answers, and, being disquieted upon the pretended relapse itself, manifested that she had abjured nothing, since she had first fallen into no species of heresy, as will be said below; moreover the same Joan manifested that she had in no wise understood the schedule of the pretended abjuration aforesaid by them; so that thence it must needs be said and inferred that the same Joan could have been accused of no relapse, save nullly and in fact: yet the defendants themselves, against God and justice, falsely concluded that the same Joan had relapsed into heresy. And so it was, and is true.\nXXIX. Item, and although such a conclusion did not result from the votes of the many deliberating, even far exceeding the others in number, nor could or ought to have been collected from the many or greater part, as will be established from the tenor of the trial: yet the defendants decreed that the same should come to be condemned as relapsed, thirsting for the final destruction of the same Joan to be consummated by public death and infamous commerce. And so it was, and is true.\nXXX. Item, and thereupon the defendants proceeded swiftly to the utterance of the second more damnable sentence for the final long-desired extermination of the said Joan, a short space of six or eight days being interposed between the two sentences; so that, in a public place of the city of Rouen, wont to be deputed for the extermination of criminals, the said Joan being led forth, was iniquitously condemned and unjustly declared relapsed into heresy and abandoned to the secular arm. And by a solemn preaching also, albeit woven of false propositions, iniquitous accusations and answers, and besprinkled with opprobriums and injuries, the said Joan was greatly defamed before all the people of the same city, there publicly assembled and convoked. And so it was, and is true.\nXXXI. Item, and (a thing which with loving, lamentable and most sorrowful compassion must be wept in eternal memory!) delivered and abandoned by the arm of secular justice, and more verily by the defendants themselves, her capital enemies, the same innocent virgin, openly, publicly and under ignominious title of heresy straightway apprehended, no form of further judgement, deliberation or sentence, or delay being awaited, was delivered to the last punishment and cruelly deputed to the vehement combustion of a great fire, and finished her life. And so it was, and is true.\nXXXII. Item, and with what ineffable patience, with what catholic confession of the divine majesty openly made, and with what most devout imploration, oft-repeated, of the name of Jesus our Lord and of the Saints, most especially of Saint Michael and Saints Catherine and Margaret, she sustained the torments of the burning; with how clear a voice, deliberate mind and virginal sincerity she manifested the catholic end of her consummation with persevering constancy, the multitude of hearers and seers standing by (3), of friends and also of enemies bursting forth into tears on every side, openly made and attested, as the informations drawn up upon these things, clearer than light, will openly demonstrate. And so it was, and is true.\nXXXIII. Item, and thence, according to the faithful doctrine of the Church, it is to be inferred that the same Joan led her days without stain of heretical pravity or other grave crime, as a catholic, and faithfully passed the term of life conformable to the Christian religion, to attain unto the glory of the divine (4) inheritance under the grace of our Redeemer; so that, until the term of her life, she is to be esteemed and said to have been comforted and accompanied by the good spirit. And this was, and is true.\nXXXIV. Item, and since by such damnable proceedings and sentences and their cruel execution, albeit null, deceitful and iniquitous, the innocence of the said Joan is believed by many to have been contaminated, albeit unjustly, and the fame of her kinsfolk to have been greatly hurt and scandalised: therefore not undeservedly, for the purgation of the same deceased, or more verily the declaration of her innocence, and for the reintegration of their own fame and of her kinsfolk, deservedly an apostolic mandate or rescript, obtained by the said plaintiffs, has been directed to your providences, most reverend and most discreet (5) Judges. Which rescript commanding, justice and truth cooperating, your reverend paternities will seasonably provide for the same plaintiffs, to the ends here underwritten; since this also is just and true.\nXXXV. Item, and although the premises seem to suffice for founding the intention of the same plaintiffs and attaining their ends here inscribed at last; the proof and verification whereof also will be manifest, both by the iniquitous trials of the adverse parties and by the legitimate answers of the said deceased, comparison being made according to the truth, and by the greater informations and depositions of all the witnesses made and to be made, if need be; and again although the deceit, iniquity, fraud and odious and pernicious intention of the adverse parties, to speak without any injury, likewise become known, and the manifest nullity, prevarication and falsity of their proceedings, sentences and consequences: yet, for the elucidation of the premises concerning the nullity and iniquity of the said trial and of the sentences thereupon, in which the edifice of the defendants is founded, certain things are to be said in brief series of words, that so all things which followed thereupon may be esteemed null, iniquitous and invalid; since so it was and is true.\nXXXVI. Item, and since in judgements form and matter, ordained with truth, are to be presupposed; it will forthwith be manifested clearer than light by the things which follow, first that by reason of the form, with the fault of nullity, the aforesaid proceedings and sentences, such as they are, are subject at least to the judgement of cassation; and then that, by reason also of the matter, the said proceedings and sentences are infected with deceit, falsity, prevarication and the stain of manifest iniquity. And this was, and is true.\nXXXVII. Item, and since form is that which gives being to a thing, and the things which are contrary to law ought indeed to be held as not done; and the rule of law, that an impediment which does not take effect by law is no impediment (De re judicata, in VI), does not stand in the way: it is consonant enough to reason that, in the first place, the very nullity and instability, at least the future cassation, of the said proceedings and sentences be deduced by the causes, means and reasons which follow; since so it was, and is true.\nXXXVIII. Item, and since proceedings, sentences and judgements of this kind are infected with nullity manifoldly, or are duly quashed and retracted; of which by Henry (6), after other doctors (in ch. i, De sententia et re judicata), and by Hostiensis (in the Summa, same title, § Qualis, v. Juxta), and by Guillaume (in the Speculum, title De sententiarum prolatione, § Juxta ea), and in causa xxxv, quæst. 9, § In summa, and in the chapters Cum inter vos, De sententia et re judicata, and Multis sum: the plaintiffs themselves say and propose that such sentences and proceedings, presumed by the said defendants against the same deceased woman, are infected with nullity or invalid, by reason of the form, especially for the causes which follow. And so it was, and is true.\n(1) So the text. Read: sæcularis — secular.\n(2) Manuscript 5970 reads documentis — at the documents.\n(3) Both manuscripts read assisti — that she was assisted.\n(4) Thus written in full letters. Read rather: divinæ — divine.\n(5) Manuscript 5970 reads disertissimi — most eloquent.\n(6) Henry of Segusio, called Hostiensis; the reference is to the doctors on the nullity of sentences.\nXXXIX. Item, and first, since by law most known to you a judgement is rendered well-nigh null by reason of the incompetent judge, by reason of the unfitting jurisdiction and by reason of the litigants (in ch. At si clerici, De foro competenti; Code, Si a non competenti judice, l. fin.). And it is so that the Bishop of Beauvais was not the competent judge of the aforesaid Joan, nor was she subject to him; for each one draws his forum by reason of the offence or of the domicile; but she neither kept her domicile within the jurisdiction of the said bishop nor was she there accused of having perpetrated the crimes imputed to her, as is established from the trial itself. Wherefore, etc. (1) Ch. fin. De foro competenti and l. fin., Dig. De accusationibus, and ll. i and g, Code, Ubi de crimine agitur, with the Summa, make excellently for this. And so it was, and is true.\nXL. Item, and as has been touched above, the Bishop of Beauvais himself being bound by the censures of suspension, and the said vicar of the Inquisitor by excommunication, since the one could not proceed to sentence without the other in the matter of the pretended heresy, they could decree nothing valid or exercise jurisdiction, save nullly and in fact. And that they were bound by the same censures is established; for they had falsely imposed the crime of heresy upon the innocent deceased, who had not committed it, as will be said below; and so they straightway incurred them. Of which in the Clementine Multorum, De hæreticis, book VI.\nXLI. Item, and since the aforesaid Bishop of Beauvais was refused by the said Joan as incompetent, suspect and her capital enemy, the proceedings themselves and the aforesaid sentences are infected with nullity by the law itself, nor ought he to have proceeded further save nullly; and so hold Jean the Cardinal Archdeacon and Johannes Andreæ in ch. Legitima, De appellationibus, book VI; and especially since appeal, refusal and relation work alike as regards the suspending of the judge’s authority and office. And so whatsoever the judge shall have done thenceforth is null by the law itself; as in can. Multum stupeo, caus. iii, quæst. 6; and in ch. Licet, De officio delegati; and the Summa. And so it was, and is true.\nXLII. Item, and if the things which are done by force or fear do not subsist in force, as in ch. Perlatum, De his quæ vi metusve causa, title XL, and through the whole title; since verily upon the said pretended vicar of the Inquisitor by the English then assisting at the trial a terrible fear of menaced death was cast, falling upon a constant man, unless he should pronounce sentence, as is aforesaid: it remains clear that the trial and the things following thereupon are either null by the law itself or at least to be utterly annulled. For it is expressed by the sacred canon that an unjust judgement and an unjust definition, ordained by the judges under royal fear or command, is not valid (caus. xv, quæst. i). And indeed every human judgement is perverted in four ways (caus. xi, quæst. 3, § Quatuor modis). Wherefore, etc. And this was, and is true.\nXLIII. Item, and if the laws will that jurisdiction be suspended by a lawful appeal; since the same deceased appealed from the judges themselves, her trial with the sentences following thereupon is infected with nullity. And that the same Joan appealed with sufficient expression is established; for from the moment when anyone submits himself to the protection of a superior, and most of all of the Pope, albeit from simplicity or for another cause he does not express the word of appeal: yet he is esteemed to have made a lawful appeal, and the trial thence made against such an appellant is null (in ch. Ad audientiam, De appellationibus). And this is indubitably true, especially when a grievance has preceded, from which one veritably fears to be further aggrieved by the judge. And so it is in the proposition, since the same deceased, who already abhorred the refused judge as a capital foe, asked to be remitted to the judgement of the Pope, and oft-times submitted herself to the same. And these words are equivalent to words of appeal, even though this word I appeal be not expressed, as in the alleged ch. Ad audientiam; for appeal is made by deed without words, in ch. Dilecti filii, De appellationibus; and Paul appealed from the hostile governor to Caesar, saying I stand at the tribunal of Caesar (Acts xxv).\nXLIV. Item, and most of all, since concerning arduous and obscure things, to wit secret and hidden revelations, which those judges willed to treat, and which are esteemed unknown to us, and concerning which it is very difficult to judge, since they are of the greater, nay of the greatest matters, all cognisance and determination pertains to the apostolic See and ought to be remitted thither; of which kind was the cause of the said Joan herself. For, according to the canons, arduous causes are to be remitted to the apostolic See (caus. xv, quæst. i, can. Frater noster); title De baptismo, ch. Majores), and as often as a reckoning of faith is ventilated, all bishops ought to refer the cause to the See of blessed Peter, that is to the authority and successor of his name and honour (caus. xxiv, quæst. i, can. Quotiens). And this was, and is true.\nXLV. Item, and otherwise the nullity or iniquity of the said proceedings and sentences is manifestly to be prepared, to wit by reason of the bonds, the hard prison assigned and the terrible custody of the said deceased Joan; since, albeit very young in age, as has been said, an austere prison, the custody of her capital enemies, cruel injuries, torments and terrors assiduously stood by her; so that she asserted she would rather die than live longer in such honour or remain there further. Whom, the fragility of her sex and the tenderness of her age being weighed, it behoved to be succoured, and at least committed to an ecclesiastical prison, associated with honest women: it is to be reputed, against the sanctions of the laws, a great injury and violence wrought upon her that she was shut up in a profane prison, not deputed for laymen or public criminals, but in the strong hand of her enemies, against the things read and noted in the Authentic Ut nulli judicum liceat, § Necessarium; whence is taken the Authentic signed in the new law, upon l. Quoniam in unum conclave, title De custodia et exhibitione reorum. And it does not seem worthy of silence that her guards and armed enemies oft-times with violent hand endeavoured to attempt upon the modesty of her virginity. And this was, and is true.\nXLVI. Item, and such cruel injuries, prisons and terrors are well-nigh equivalent, nay and are equalled, to questionings and torments; so that, the same enduring, whatsoever the same Joan confessed against herself is to be ascribed to the trouble and torments; and such a confession does no harm, as is read and noted in ch. Cum in contemplatione, De regulis juris, in the old law. And so the trial itself with the aforesaid sentences founded thereon are of no efficacy and vigour. For it is ordained by law that by the word questioning we ought to understand not only torments applied to the body, but also other pain, to wit hunger, the straits (1) inflicted upon the detained until they should confess the objected crime. Also to be understood by the word questioning is that which we call the evil dwelling, to wit the sordid, most foul prison (Dig. De injuriis, l. Item apud Labeonem, § Quæstionem; and § Quæstionis, Dig. Ad Silanianum Senatusconsultum (2), l. i). Wherefore, etc. And this was, and is true.\nXLVII. Item, and for another reason that trial with its consequences is to be said altogether iniquitous, since to the same Joan, of so great youth, ignorant of the law and inexperienced in the things upon which she was interrogated, counsel was denied, a director and interpreter of terms was denied through well-nigh the whole trial, whom she oft-times sought, although she was smitten with the heights of the faith and arduous questions. And such a denial is rather to be esteemed inhuman and the enemy of justice. Nay, as is established from the trial itself, if anyone wished to direct her or expound the things asked of her, he was driven from the company of the others, afflicted with threats and opprobriums. And the laws fight to the contrary (Dig. Ad legem Juliam de adulteriis, l. Si postulaverit, § Quæstioni). And if an advocate be employed in civil causes, by greater reason he ought to be admitted in criminal causes also; for where the state and life of a person are in question, since there the greater peril impends, the more cautiously it is to be proceeded (Code, De episcopali audientia, l. Addictos, and in ch. Ubi majus, De electione, lib. VI). And to this Guillaume in the Speculum well makes, title De depositionibus, § Septimo videndum, v. 17; and title De adversariis, § Utriusque, v. Sed nunquam potest. And this was, and is true.\nXLVIII. Item, and from another head the nullity of the proceedings and sentences themselves is declared; for it is ordained by law most known to you that proceedings and a judicial sentence emanating against minors under twenty-five years undefended are not valid by the law itself, nor is it needful to appeal (Dig. De re judicata, l. Acta), nor is restitution in integrum to be sought (Code, Si adversus rem judicatam, l. Cum minores). But these proceedings and sentences were made against the said Joan, a minor under twenty-five years, undefended, comforted neither by the aid of a curator nor an advocate nor a consultant nor a director, but utterly undefended and destitute of all aid save herself. Therefore, etc. And this was, and is true.\nXLIX. Item, and although by the benefit of the law succour be brought at least to this, to youthful and minor age, that compassion for age lead the judge to moderation and a remisser (3) penalty, as Dig. De minoribus viginti quinque annis, l. Auxilium, § In debitis; although offences be also the sharper, albeit succour be not wholly brought to minors themselves in crimes committed of set purpose: yet in this cause to the same Joan, a minor, not even offending of set purpose, no compassion is extended, no moderation is imparted, as is established from the rigour of the sentences; and so, from excessive severity, the judgement is infected with nullity, or the trial itself is at least worthy of cassation, with its consequences, etc. Wherefore, etc. And this is true.\nL. Item, and otherwise the iniquity and nullity of the said proceedings and sentences are manifest, since it is also ordained by law that all acts in a trial be faithfully set down in writing by a public notary or by two fit men, nor otherwise is the judge believed, but he himself is punished, nor is credence presumed for his trial save in so far as it shall have been established by legitimate documents, as in ch. Quoniam contra falsam, De probationibus. But it is so, and the said plaintiffs propose in fact, that the said pretended judges in the trial of Joan, especially the Bishop of Beauvais, were not only negligent to keep this constitution of the law, but were adversaries of the same and prevaricators; since they both commanded the confessions of the said Joan to be mutilated and forbade her excuses to be inscribed. And so the things done by the judges themselves do not subsist in force; nay, the whole trial is to be esteemed faulty, false and suspect and useless. And to this makes ch. Cum dilecti, De accusationibus, with the things there noted. And this was, and is true.\nLI. Item, and verily this trial with its consequences is blamed with manifest falsity; for, since mendaciously, imperfectly and calumniously there were elicited from the aforesaid trial and confessions of the said Joan articles, upon which the consultants of the judgement and of the aforesaid sentences were consulted, sometimes omitting what the same Joan had expressed for the limitation of her excuse or the determination of her confessions and the submission to the Church and the apostolic See; and cruelly, deceitfully and truncately expounding the things confessed by the same Joan which could be burdensome to her; sometimes adding false and aggravating things; and since thus the judgement proceeded from those opining upon falsely elicited articles: it is clear that the sentences are iniquitous and the trial likewise, nay utterly null and mendacious, to speak without injury, as lucidly appears from the comparison of the said articles and the confession of the said Joan. And to this excellently makes l. Si petitor, Dig. De judiciis; and the things read and noted in ch. Cum Bertholdus, De sententia et re judicata, with the Summa. Since nevertheless in matter of faith the whole trial ought to be set forth wholly and in series, by the final chapter De hæreticis, lib. VI. And so it was, and is true.\nLII. Item, nor is the iniquity and deceit of the said sentences and trial to be passed in silence, fabricated with the consent, as is verily presumed, of the judges; for deceitful counsellors were sent to the devoted Joan, who feigned themselves faithful Frenchmen and promised to counsel and direct her wholesomely, and persuaded and counselled the same that she should not submit herself to the Church. It has also now been touched that her woman’s garments were taken from her and man’s dress placed in their stead, which she thus resumed; or if perchance she did not plainly submit herself to the judgement of the Church, the cause of this would be that deceitful and calumnious counsel thus suborned and induced upon her. And since fraud and deceit ought to avail none, it is esteemed clear that the aforesaid sentences founded thereupon are void of force; and l. i, Code, De advocatis diversorum judiciorum, makes well for this. For since the same Joan of her own spirit had submitted herself to the apostolic See and had previously asked instantly to be led thither, as is established by the trial; the sentence of the pretended relapse of the same Joan seems to have arisen from such a feigned and prevaricating counsel, which on this occasion is manifestly null. And that such a sentence is null, Jacques de Ravenne and Thinus (4) hold, in the said first law alleged, De advocatis diversorum judiciorum. And so it was, and is true.\nLIII. Item, and from the premises, articulated facts, reasons and causes, the open iniquity, deceit, fraud and prevarication and the nullity of the said trial and of the sentences published against the said Joan seem sufficiently manifested, to be declared at last by your judgement; at least the cassation and annulment, as regards those specially which render the form of this trial null and\n(1) The conclusions are thus replaced by an etc. in the manuscripts.\n(2) In the manuscripts, fuerit, deberet.\n(3) The manuscripts read remissionem — remission.\n(4) The manuscripts read adsilley. sena. consul.; but there is no such title in the Digest. Moreover, paragraphs 25 and 27 of law 1 upon the senatus-consultum of Silanianus contain the definition alleged by the plaintiffs (Dig. lib. XXIX, tit. 5).\ninvalid. Therefore enough has been written upon the things which manifest the trial and the sentences themselves to be exorbitant in form.\nLIV. Item, and it remains consequently to manifest by the things which follow, as is needful, under few articles, that the said proceedings and sentences alike are infected with deceit, falsity, prevarication and the stain or fault of manifest iniquity by reason of their matter. Which matter is to be said nothing else than the very crimes, excesses, offences and relapse wherewith the said Joan was falsely marked by the adverse parties; which were treated and expressed in the trial and sentences themselves; which verily were not committed or perpetrated by the same Joan, under the pretended qualification of the adverse parties or otherwise, nor can they be elicited as such from her deeds, sayings and confessions. Nay, it will be established clearer than light from the things to be said that the things confessed by the same Joan in the said trial do not deviate from the catholic faith and the determination of the Church; nay, interpreted in a better and surer sense, they can stand and be defended, according to the series of the sacred Scriptures and the doctrine of the approved masters; under the aforesaid protestations also, and with all reverence, and always speaking without injury.\nLV. Item, and in the first place, since the adversaries strive to accuse and mark the said Joan upon the vision, revelation and adoration of spirits, whom they say are malign, and thence feared not to plead her an idolater, an erring one or a heretic, or an invoker of demons and such like: the plaintiffs themselves say and propose to the contrary that the visions and revelations themselves were not of malign spirits but of good, as is verily to be esteemed, nor could or ought they otherwise to have been determined by human judgement by the pretended judges themselves, nor that she herself said aught contrived or mendacious, as is likely, in the aforesaid, or fell into any error, or heresied or idolatrised in any wise. And so it was, and is true.\nLVI. Item, and since the said adversaries would not or could not understand the aforesaid visions and revelations if they were of God, suffocated by their own sinister affection: since they were not ignorant that these things were at least hidden and concealed from them, they ought in no wise to have judged to the other part. For hidden revelations of this kind, whether they proceed from God or not, are open to God alone, who is the knower of secrets, nor can any inferior give a certain sentence concerning these. For God alone judges of things utterly hidden and secret (in can. Si omnia, caus. vi, quæst. prima; in can. Erubescant with its gloss, dist. xxxii; and in can. Christiana, caus. xxxii, quæst. 5); for the Church does not judge of hidden things (in ch. Sicut tuis at the end, and in ch. Tua nos, De simonia). Nay, Paul also, full of the Holy Spirit, could not discern the secrets of the divine counsel (in can. Beatus, caus. xxii, quæst. 2). And in these things the judgement of the Church can oft-times deceive and be deceived (ch. A nobis, De sententia excommunicationis, with its gloss). And so it was, and is true.\nLVII. Item, the plaintiffs themselves say and propose that the revelations and apparitions themselves verily proceeded from Angels of light and good spirits, as is to be said from every pious and likely credence and conjecture, for the reasons which follow. First, since the same Joan was a virgin intact in flesh, as she herself also constantly asserted and offered herself to be visited by matrons; who being inspected and visited, very many noble women also being present, was at last found an intact virgin, as has been said above. In such a virgin moreover, most pleasing to God, innocent and pure, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is fitting; since virginity itself is the temple of God, Ambrose witnessing (in can. Tolerabilius, caus. xxxvii, quæst. 5). Secondly, since she was humble and simple, as appears in her assertions, nor ever sought worldly honour but the salvation of her soul, nor ever answered proudly to those interrogating her; and virginity and humility joined together are praised with admiration in can. Hæc diximus, dist. xxx; and most pleasing to God, and upon these the Holy Spirit of the Lord rests. And this was, and is true.\nLVIII. Item, and since the same Joan was of laudable and honest life, loving to the poor, exercising fasting, visiting the church, frequenting mass and church and the sacrament of penance and of the Eucharist; and such an one is to be esteemed worthy of good apparitions. And this was, and is true.\nLIX. Item, and the especial sign of good spirits is that they ever persuade good works. And the spirits appearing to Joan induced her to frequent the church and confession, to govern herself honestly, to keep the virginity of soul and body, and that so she should attain eternal beatitude; which are signs of good spirits: For by their fruits ye shall know them. Again, when the spirits themselves appeared, Joan signed herself with the sign of the cross, and the spirits did not depart, as the malign spirit is terrified and departs; concerning which can. Postea signatur, De consecratione, dist. iv. Item, and when the Angel appeared to the said Joan, she was terrified at the beginning, and in the end consoled with gladness; which is the sign of a good Angel, as is known of the Angel appearing to Mary and to many others. Also, as the said Joan asserted, the spirits gave voice with clear voice and open understanding; but the malign spirit speaks involvedly and obscurely, that by the evil interpretation of the obscure word he may retain his authority among his worshippers (in can. Sciendum, caus. xxvi, quæst. 4). And this was, and is true.\nLX. Item, and another sign of good spirits is that catholic end of the said Joan, who died religiously; for she first received the sacrament of the Eucharist with the greatest tears and highest devotion, and in the midst of the flames, at the hour of death, cried aloud with clear voice the glorious name of the Lord Jesus; but malign spirits lead down their worshippers with an evil (1) end to hell, as Augustine says, giving the example of Saul who adored the devil raised by the Pythoness in the form of Samuel (can. Nec mirum, caus. xxvi, quæst. 5). And this was, and is true.\nLXI. Item, and a further sign of the goodness of the spirits, revelations and apparitions, and most worthy of note is this, that the same Joan announced the truth in many things (2), and the things which she foretold obtained an almost miraculous effect. For what is found more to have the truth than that foreannounced by her, at the time when no appearances impended, at the time when the English most flourished in strength and prosperous successes, at the time when the greatest part of the realm lay open adverse or taken from the King: namely, that our lord should recover his realm, should expel the English, should be crowned king, should raise the siege of Orléans, etc.? All which things came to pass in truth thence; nay, the said expulsion of the siege is to be esteemed well-nigh miraculous, where in so great strength and multitude the said Joan with few expelled the besetting enemies and openly raised the siege. Wherefore, etc. And this was, and is true.\nLXII. Item, and such foreannounced truth is to be esteemed to proceed not from a malign spirit and the father of lies, but from God, who is Truth, the Lord saying: It is not yours to know the times, etc., and it follows: But to whom the Father shall will to reveal; and that: Announce to us the things which are to come, and we will say that ye are gods. And according to blessed Bernard, it is ascribed to the greatest miracle of Christ the Lord that he subdued the whole world to his Christian law in a few poor and simple ones, as Hostiensis and Johannes Andreæ relate in ch. Venerabilis, De præbendis. So also we can say that if one girl of eighteen years, untaught in arms, of the humble commonalty, at the time when the condition of the realm was desolate, raised the spirits of all, and by her courage exercised, put to flight and overcame the enemies; if cities and towns occupied by enemies lay open to her with open gates: this is to be esteemed to have been done by divine miracle, and by true preannunciation and a good spirit, not a malign. Wherefore, etc. And this was, and is true.\nLXIII. Item, and verily thence the same Joan comes to be excused if she mingled herself in wars in aid of her king and our lord; first, since the war itself was meritorious against the enemies and most just, and had all the conditions of a just war. (Of which in can. Si nulla, caus. xxiii, quæst. 8; in can. Quoniam culpatur; in can. Apud veros; in can. Non, caus. xxiii, quæst. i; in can. Justum, same causa, quæst. 2.) And that the war made against the English is just, Baldwin de Perusio notes and expresses in l. prima, Dig. De vi et vi armata, item nota. Secondly, the same Joan is to be excused since, as she oft-times constantly asserted upon her oath, she did it at the command of God, nor would ever have done it otherwise; and at the command of God commanded the English that they should return into their own region; and those who are moved by the spirit of God are not under the law. For she thus followed the law of inspiration, which surpasses every law (the manifest signs whereof are the conjectures of the events already said), she ought not to be blamed in these things, according to the things read and noted in ch. Ex parte, De conversione conjugatorum; in ch. Licet, De regularibus; in can. Duæ sunt leges, caus. xix, quæst. i; and in can. Dixit, caus. xiv, quæst. 5. For this law excused Samson from homicide, Jacob from lying, Abraham from adultery, David from plurality of wives, as is much expressed in the Scriptures and laws, and many like; of which in ch. Gaudemus, De divortiis. The same Joan therefore is deservedly to be excused. And so it was, and is true.\nLXIV. Item, and it being supposed suppositively and not granted, since the contrary is sufficiently established, that such apparitions were of evil spirits, and that the said Joan was deluded or deceived by error: yet she would nevertheless be excusable, since she both believed them to be good spirits appearing in the form of Angels of light, and thought she was adoring and reverencing Saint Michael and Saints Catherine and Margaret; whence this error is not perilous to her nor harmful, nor is she thence to be esteemed an idolater (caus. xxix, quæst. i, verse Aliter); and especially since in her opinion she was at last unwilling to persist with stubborn mind, nay submitted herself to the judgement of the Church, as will be said below. And the notable text in the said verse Aliter has: The devil sometimes transforms himself into an Angel of light; nor is the error perilous if he is then believed to be good, when he feigns himself good, etc. And let the whole text be seen consequently, as far as there: which that heretic feigned himself to have, for it much makes to the purpose. And this was, and is true.\nLXV. Item, the adversaries strive to burden the said Joan thence that she wore man’s dress, forbidden in can. Si qua mulier, dist. xxx, and Deut. ch. xxii. To which it is answered that the same Joan could lawfully wear such dress, the circumstances of the things to be done by her being weighed, for the causes and reasons which follow. And this was, and is true.\nLXVI. Item, and the first reason can be assigned, since she took the dress for a reasonable cause. Since she was instructed by all divine inspiration, she is not culpable; for where the spirit is, there is liberty (in the alleged ch. Licet, De regularibus, and the other laws alleged). Secondly, since the laws alleged by the adversaries say that it is not lawful for a woman to use man’s dress by reason of luxury or lust, as the doctors say there; but Joan took this dress for the contrary cause, to wit to avoid lust and the provocation of men to luxury, with whom it was needful to consort in the army. For the most part the change of dress is permitted to clerks, as in ch. Clerici ulterius last, De vita et honestate clericorum. Nay, the same Joan used man’s dress for conserving her virginity and for the defence of her chastity, which the English sometimes attempted to violate, as is established both by her confessions and by legitimate proofs, and will be able to be established more widely. And so she is lawfully excused; for far be it that the things which we do for good should be imputed to us as fault (caus. xxiii, quæst. 5, can. De occidendis). And this was, and is true.\nLXVII. Item, and especially since the same Joan oft-times offered to take woman’s garments, if she were placed in the company of women, in an honest prison of the Church, or elsewhere than among enemies. Nay, and at last she resumed the wonted woman’s garments, obeying the persuasions of the pretended judges, and left them off of necessity, they having been taken from her by hostile deceit and fraud, and for the repelling of violence, as has been said above. Wherefore, etc. And so it was, and is true.\nLXVIII. Item, nor is it true that the same Joan set aside hearing mass lest she should resume woman’s dress; nay, it is true that she instantly required to hear mass and to receive the sacrament of the altar; and she required that the dress of a woman be given her, after the manner of the daughter of a burgher. And if it be said that she confessed she had sworn to the king not to lay aside man’s dress, the contrary is to be presumed. Even by the things already said, if she had sworn this, it is to be presumed that she had it from that law of inspiration which is not subject to law, as is aforesaid. Nor is it to be marvelled if she was perplexed in the opinion given her that she should choose either not to hear mass or to wear man’s dress, since she was unwilling to derogate from her revelation which she knew or thought to be of God, and desired to hear mass. Yet at last she resumed woman’s dress, and so it appears that she presumed to do nothing against the exhortations of her pretended judges, or to decline from their commands. And so it was, and is true.\nLXIX. Item, and from the resumption of the dress she did not deserve to be called relapsed, since she was necessitated to do it by the deceit, malice and violence wrought upon her, for the protection of her body and the conservation of her virginity, as has oft-times been said, and for the other causes touched above. Where-\n(1) Or maligno — malign?\n(2) So the text.\nfore, etc. And so it was, and is true.\nLXX. Item, and the adversaries again strive to argue against the said Joan in this, that she is said to have confessed she departed from her parents without paternal licence, etc. To whom she answered opportunely that she departed obeying the divine command, or believed she had departed with good zeal; and that God must be obeyed rather than men. Therefore, etc. And thence she also made sacramental confession, asked pardon of her parents and obtained it. Wherefore, etc. And so, since she corrected herself, it appears she cannot be blamed from this (caus. xxiv, quæst. i, can. Hæc est fides). And this was, and is true.\nLXXI. Item, it is imputed to the same Joan that she caused the name of Jesus to be inscribed in her letters whereby she commanded evils to be done, etc. She answered opportunely also in this that she committed no sin, since the war was just; also her secretary did it; nor did she believe (1) it to be evil, since we ought also to bow the knees of the heart at the name of the Lord Jesus (in ch. Decet dominum, De immunitate Ecclesiæ, lib. VI); and all things ought to be done in the name of the Lord (dist. xxiii, can. In nomine Domini). Wherefore, etc. And this was, and is true.\nLXXII. Item, and it is frivolous to have blamed her that she leaped from the tower out of desperation, tempting God, etc.; since she also validly answered that, not moved by desperation nor otherwise iniquitously did she leap, but in hope of saving her life and succouring the oppressed, according to the counsel of Gregory (dist. xiii, can. Nervi). Nay, and in her this was the sign of the greatest charity, to be willing to lay down her life for her friends; and so she is well excused. And this was, and is true.\nLXXIII. Item, and again the adversaries blame her, since she lied that an Angel bore to the King that precious sign with genuflection, etc. And this is the answer: since, albeit it is not lawful to lie, yet it is lawful, by feigning or cautiously answering, to conceal the truth in place and time. So Abraham spoke before Pharaoh (in can. Quæritur, § Ecce, caus. xxii, quæst. 2). Since therefore angel is the name of an office and is the same as messenger of God, according to that: Behold I send my angel, etc., speaking of John the Baptist; therefore also Joan could say of herself this, that the angel, to wit herself the messenger of God, bore to the King the crown, that is the palm of victory, which crown he should enjoy; nor in this did she lie, but spoke cautiously. And if she said that that angel was Saint Michael, this she could; since he who does a thing by another is seen to do it himself, and she did it by the precept of Saint Michael and believed she did it. Wherefore, etc. And so it was, and is true.\nLXXIV. Item, and if Joan said she was certain and firmly held that she would be saved, indeed she could say this if her sayings be joined together wholly, namely if she kept what she promised to God, namely the virginity of body and soul. Which virginity of soul he keeps who in no wise sins, as in can. Si enim inquit, De pœnitentia (2), dist. ii. And so it was, and is true.\nLXXV. And similarly, if she said she knew the future, in which she sometimes, as the adversaries say, lied, she does not come to be blamed if all things did not come to pass as she foretold, as concerning her liberation from the prisons; since this liberation could also be understood of her death; nay, the voices also which had foretold to her at last said to her that she should patiently sustain martyrdom and that she would be saved. And so she spoke the truth in all things. It is also found well enough that those having the spirit of prophecy did not always speak true things nor spoke by the spirit of prophecy, as Gregory says upon Ezekiel; and we have the text in can. Quærendum and in can. Potest, De pœnitentia, dist. ii. Wherefore, etc. And so it was, etc.\nLXXVI. Item, and similarly she is falsely blamed for having said that Saints Catherine and Margaret love the French and hate the English; since she expounds that she said and understood that they hate whom God hates and love whom God loves; nor did she err in this. Nor did she say either that she had not nor had had sin; but she well said that she knows not whether she had mortally sinned, and that God would not will that she had done or should do aught whereby her soul should be burdened, which would be when she had sinned and had not done worthy penance. And so Joan offended not in all these things, and in these she is excusable. And this was, and is true.\nLXXVII. Item, and the adversaries falsely and deceitfully said that Joan was unwilling to submit herself and her sayings to the Church; the contrary whereof must nevertheless be said in the judgement of right reason: first, since it is to be presumed by likely conjecture and judgement that she was not bound to do it; secondly, since she both truly did it and submitted herself to the Church faithfully and catholically. From the first head it is to be said that, if she did not do this, she is altogether excusable for many causes and reasons: first, since she acted by revelation from a good spirit upon the things done by her, by which, following the private law of divine inspiration, she was exempted from every common law, as has been sufficiently shown above. And this is granted to be done also in ch. Ex parte, De quær. con. (3); in ch. Gaudemus, De divortiis; in ch. Licet, De regularibus, and many others. And so in this she followed the Church; and if she had done otherwise she would have walked against a well-informed conscience, building unto Gehenna, as in ch. Per tuas, De simonia, and the Summa.\nLXXVIII. Item, and the second reason is this, that, even standing in doubt whether such inspirations and revelations proceeded from a good or evil spirit, since that would be utterly hidden and known to God alone, the Church could judge nothing of these (in can. Erubescant, dist. xxxii; and in ch. Sicut tuis, and in ch. Tua nos, De simonia, with the Summa). Nay, the judgement of the Church reserves it to God alone and leaves it to the proper conscience (in ch. Inquisitioni, De sententia excommunicationis). And this reason is confirmed since, albeit in the things which concern the articles of faith we are bound to follow and hold what the judgement of the Church holds and follows, else we should be heretics (ch. i, De summa Trinitate et fide catholica, lib. VI), and similarly in the things which it expressly holds and teaches (as in can. Nolite, dist. xl, with the things there noted; and in can. Novit, dist. xii, with the Summa); yet in others liberty is given of holding what pleases, as whether king Solomon is saved or not; whether so many men are to be saved as have fallen, or as remain; since there is also contrariety between the doctors of the Church Augustine and Gregory. For in these secrets each one can follow his own opinion. So notes Johannes Andreæ, ch. i, De summa Trinitate, lib. VI, and Innocent in ch. Ne innitaris, De constitutionibus. Therefore to our purpose, to believe such inspiration is not of the articles of faith; nor does the Church hold or teach that it is of an evil spirit; nay, it leaves such arcana to the judgement of God, as has been touched above. Therefore Joan, following her opinion here, did not err. And this was, and is true.\nLXXIX. Item, and for another reason the same Joan, a simple, young and ignorant virgin, is verily to be excused if, even speaking suppositively, she did not openly submit herself to the judgement of the Church, because she did not sufficiently understand what the Church was, as appears there when she said: I am not such that I ought not to go to church; also when she said: I make no difference between the Saints and the Church, and such like. For as will appear by the information of the witnesses, she from the beginning, in the judgement of all the assistants, knew not what the Church was; but after she understood and it was declared to her, she ever submitted herself to the Church. And it is most to be attended that such a virgin, young and ignorant, could not comprehend these subtleties of herself. She is deservedly therefore to be excused. And so it was, and is true.\nLXXX. Item and, for the confutation of the judges and the elucidating of their sinister affections, it is not to be dissembled that, when certain lettered men assisting at the judgement, stirred by piety, charity and good conscience, wished to admonish the same Joan upon the obscure interrogations, to declare the things asked, or told her that the sacred Council of Basel of the universal Church was then sitting, in which worthy and chosen men from every catholic region stood by, even some of the obedience of her king, to whom she could submit herself and her sayings: such worthy men indeed were not heard; nay rather with the austere objurgation of the judges, and especially of the Bishop of Beauvais, with threats and injuries they were expelled from their company and straightway proscribed from the city of Rouen under penalty of death; nay, if they had not forthwith departed, they would not have escaped the peril of drowning prepared for them. Among whom there can verily be named, thus terrified and expelled, men of great letters and worth, Masters Nicolas de Houppeville, bachelor in the sacred page, Jean Lohier, licentiate in both laws, and Master Jean de Fons, licentiate in canon law and elegant masters of arts and solemn practicians; whom it behoved forthwith to return to their own, as will openly appear by the testimony of men worthy of faith. And so it was, and is true.\nLXXXI. Item, and it will be proved that there were deceitfully led into the prisons of the said Joan certain deceitful hypocrites in feigned garb, who feigned with bland speeches to cherish and love the party of our lord the King; who, ministering deceitful counsels to the same, oft-times persuaded her that, if she would escape the prisons, she should never submit herself to the judgement of the Church in any wise. And the said Joan, seduced by this pernicious deceit, if she uttered aught sinister, it is to be imputed not to her but to those thus deceitfully acting, and she comes deservedly to be excused. And so it was, and is true.\nLXXXII. Item, and the said plaintiffs propose that, if the confessions of the said Joan be seen profoundly and attentively and considered with sound interpretation, all the sayings of the same could faithfully be saved without the cause of error, stubbornness and offences perpetrated against the faith and the Church, as will be established from the trial itself and otherwise duly. Wherefore, etc. And this was, and is true.\nLXXXIII. Item, and the said plaintiffs further say and propose in fact that verily the said Joan, as is duly established and will openly be established by her confessions joined together and interpreted with good affection according to the ignorance of her capacity and the sincerity of her good mind and otherwise, verily the same Joan submitted herself to the judgement of the Church implicitly and explicitly. For first, albeit implicitly, she sufficiently submitted herself to the judgement of the Church when her confession expressed that she would do nothing against the Christian faith which the Lord established, and that, if she had done or said aught, or aught were upon her body, which the clerks should know to say was against the Christian faith, she would not sustain it but would cast it out. And by this it is sufficiently elicited that she submitted herself to the judgement of the Church, to wit of the clerks in the things in which the Christian faith and the Church will her to submit knowledge. And who wills the antecedent wills also necessarily the consequent; wherefore, etc. And so it was, and is true.\nLXXXIV. Item, and the same Joan submitted herself also more openly to the judgement of the Church; for she also, in express words written in her confession, oft-times asked to be remitted to the Pope, who should hear her and to whom judgement in this behalf is known to pertain as concerning the greater causes, as in ch. Majores, De baptismo, and caus. xxxiv, quæst. i, can. Hæc est fides. Wherefore, etc. And this was, and is true.\nLXXXV. Item, and further, and very explicitly, she submitted herself to the Church when she understood it expounded to her what the Church was and the submission to the Church. For she uttered in express words that she submitted herself to the judgement of the Church and of the general Council; nay, she asked also that her articles be deliberated by the Church before she should abjure; which nevertheless was denied her by those judges. And so it is to be said rather and better that the judgement of the Church was spurned and refused by the judges themselves, not however by the same Joan. And these things the plaintiffs themselves will prove by the contents of the trial and by the informations of the witnesses, if need be. And this was, and is true.\nLXXXVI. Item, and the sign and insoluble argument of the said submission is that, after the said submission also, a little time before her end, the body of Christ was ministered to the same Joan by the ordination of the same judges. Which would not have been done if she had not submitted herself, since she also manifestly abiding in mortal sin, without such submission, the body of Christ would not have been ministered to the same, nor ought to have been ministered, as in ch. Si sacerdos, with the things there noted, De officio ordinarii, and in can. Quotidie, De consecratione, dist. ii; and in ch. Vestra, De cohabitatione clericorum et mulierum. And so it was, and is true.\nLXXXVII. Item, and the plaintiffs themselves propose that the said Joan, from the contents of her trial, cannot be called relapsed; since relapse presupposes a fall; but she never fell into any heresy, by the things already said. Nay, the things she said can be sustained without offence, without hurt to the catholic truth. Therefore she is not esteemed relapsed. And so it was, and is true.\nLXXXVIII. Item, and by the schedule of the pretended abjuration read to her she understood nothing of the things which were read to her; and it is clear that one who does not understand does not abjure. And that she did not understand the aforesaid schedule is sufficiently established from the last deliberation in the trial of the Abbot of Fécamp and of the others for the greater part there consulting, who all said that she should have been asked whether she had understood it. Yet nothing was done thereupon. Nay, she would never have said, if she had understood, that she was suspect of heresy, mendacious, and had at any time committed such perverse crimes there contained. If therefore she understood that she had abjured none of these things, she is not to be adjudged relapsed. And so it was, and is true.\nLXXXIX. Item, and it will be proved most openly that the schedule inscribed in that trial is not the schedule then exhibited and read to the same Joan when they made her\n(1) The manuscripts read credebat — believed.\n(2) The manuscripts read de consecratione — of consecration.\n(3) There is no such title in the Decretals.\nabjure in their manner; nay, it was a certain little schedule, containing few things and far dissimilar. And so it was, and is true.\nXC. Item and, if the words of Joan in her confession, reputed as for relapse (1), be well taken, she cannot be reputed relapsed. For the same Joan said that she had damned herself for the saving of her life. This is, to one well understanding the saying (2), that she had said she was a heretic, for saving her life, when she was not; and because she had understood nothing; and so had damned herself by her own voice unjustly and ignorantly; and she concludes that she did not intend to have revoked, save provided it should please God (she does not say, provided it should please the revelations or the voices). Whence, since she was not such as the schedule expressed, she could say that without relapse. And so it was, and is true.\nXCI. Item, nor is it worthy of omission, for manifesting the falsity, deceit and iniquity of the said proceedings and sentences, that by the judges or their mandate there were extracted certain articles twelve in number, beginning A certain woman, which were transmitted to the University of Paris, at least to the faculties of Theology and of Decrees; upon which certain deliberations were transmitted. And this is the truth, that the said articles were falsely and mendaciously extracted from the same trial, since the same Joan did not confess the contents of the said articles; nay, they are dissonant and diverse from her confessions, and deceitfully composed and fabricated with false comments and interpretations, as evidently appears from the mutual comparison of the confessions and the articles. And since upon the articles themselves and the deliberation following thereupon the whole trial itself and the sentences depend, the manifest nullity, falsity and iniquity of the same trial and sentences remains patent. And so it was, and is true.\nXCII. Item, and the deliberations made at Rouen cannot be without deceit, likewise also proceeding upon the mendacious excerption of certain articles thus placed, to speak without any injury. And not without mystery it is believed to have been done for bringing the deliberators to the intended end, that particular schedules and articles were thus sent severally to each of the canons and other lettered men and practicians being in the city of Rouen, that each should send in writing his deliberation signed with his sign; whereas nevertheless they could far better, being collected and congregated together, have deliberated more attentively and seriously, and heard the reading of the trial, and attended to the matter and the cause, the matter and form of the trial, and the circumstances. But this is presumed to have been done deceitfully, to speak without injury. And so it was, and is true.\nXCIII. Item, and such a reason of caution seems most likely to be assigned, to wit that no one should thus severally know or hear the truth of the confessions and of the things done in the trial, otherwise than the said fallacious articles, put together at the nod of the judges and enemies, expressed; and that the deliberators themselves should regulate their opinions according to the intention and affection of the aforesaid, always speaking with all reverence. And so it was, and is true.\nXCIV. Item, and verily the lords deliberating themselves are worthy of much excuse and utterly immune from all stain, if they had God and conscience before their eyes, as it is so to be esteemed; since according to the case limited to them, albeit iniquitous and false, they transmitted, as is believed, their right counsels, inferring judgement from the presupposed narratives; nor against them, the defendants themselves and their accomplices excepted, do the said plaintiffs intend or will to say, conclude or impute aught; since they so esteem it to be and to be true.\nXCV. Item, and since from the said iniquitous, null, void, false and invalid trial, and the deliberations following thereupon which were founded upon the deceitfully extracted articles not containing the truth, the said iniquitous sentences at last emanated: it is established and must needs be concluded that the said sentences, infected with the fault of nullity and iniquity, deceit, fraud and falsity, do in no wise subsist in force, and that the same such, or even utterly invalid and void, or at least to be quashed, annulled and revoked, deserve to be declared. And this was, and is true.\nXCVI. Item, and not only the said sentences or their cruel execution, to wit the deceitful, perverse, iniquitously and unjustly done burning of the said Joan; and the scandalous extermination and defamation of the same innocent Maid, presumed against law and justice; not subsisting in force and infected with like fault, it is established to be detestable to be sententially damned and openly and publicly repaired; since this also is just and true.\nXCVII. Item, and likewise and conformably to the aforesaid apostolic mandate, it is needful to manifest the integrity, innocence and purgation of the said Joan the virgin; and to repair and reintegrate the fame offended by the aforesaid iniquity of the proceedings, sentences and execution, both of the said Joan and of her kinsfolk, is necessary, as also the apostolic mandate itself directed to you, justice persuading, is known sufficiently to express; since it is just that it be so done.\nXCVIII. Item, and since from the premises the intention of the said plaintiffs is duly founded to the ends to which they tend, to be canonically obtained, for the causes, means and reasons expressed above, together with the others to be supplied of right by your dominions, most reverend Judges: the said plaintiffs ask and humbly demand that their conclusions be decreed to them by your providences, in the manner and form presently to be expressed.\nXCIX. Item, and especially since, according to your ordinance, their said deeds, means, reasons and conclusions judicially sought are to be concluded in this form of articles containing the petition, positions and probatory articles: they offered in writing, as they also offer and exhibit and deposit before your most reverend paternities or your special notaries in this cause.\nC. Item, and they judicially sought the adjunction of your promoter, as the said plaintiffs also still instantly ask and require against them, to all their other propitious and canonical ends, in and under the protestations expressed above.\nCI. Item, and all and each the premises are true, notorious and manifest, and the said defendants knew them, and upon these things the public voice and fame labour.\nFrom the causes therefore, means and reasons aforesaid, and others to be supplied of right by your most reverend paternities and most renowned providences, protesting as above, the plaintiffs themselves infer, conclude, supplicate and require by the way and better form whereby the laws, usages and observances can avail them through you, that your definitive sentence and irrefragable judgement be said, uttered, decreed and adjudged; that the said pretended process of inquisition or of matter of faith against the same Joan d’Arc, the oft-said Maid, and the pretended sentences ensuing thereupon, presumed and presumed, made and made and pronounced by the said Cauchon the bishop and Magistri the sub-inquisitor as is aforesaid, with their execution and all the things following thereupon, are subject to the taint of nullity, deceit, falsity, mendacity and manifest violence and iniquity; and the same and they, with the execution and the same consequences, be expressly declared null, deceitful, false, mendacious and infected with the stain of violence and manifest iniquity, void and of no effect by the law itself; or at least that ye would quash, annul, revoke and utterly annul it and them with their execution and dependencies whatsoever; decreeing, under grave penalties and ecclesiastical censures, that no faith whatsoever be henceforth rendered to them by the faithful of Christ, and forbidding it to be otherwise, under the sentence of anathema already pronounced, written in the termination, to endure perpetually; and nevertheless purging by the same your judgement and definitive sentence the innocence of the said Joan; most fully determining and decreeing that she remained faithful and catholic until her death, and was and is free and immune from every stain of heresy and perverse credulity or error of faith, or departure from ecclesiastical unity, and every other crime now imputed to her; and freeing the same and the said plaintiffs from every mark of infamy and guilt wherewith they could in any wise be argued or marked by occasion of the said proceedings, sentences and executions following thereupon, and pronouncing them free and most fully restored to their fame. And that the truth of your sentence and the innocence of the said deceased and the justice of the plaintiffs themselves and the iniquity of the preceding proceedings, sentences and executions may be manifest in memory to all present and future: that by the same your judgement it be decreed that the said iniquitous trial, sentences and consequences be burned with fire by the secular justice, openly and publicly, in the place where the same Joan closed her last day; that in the same place and in other notable cities of this realm, by solemn preachings, this your sentence and the execution thereof be made manifest and published; also with the erection of images and epitaphs in the city of Rouen itself and elsewhere where it shall be fitting; and, if any solemn foundation of a chapel can be erected, decreeing also it, for the perpetual instituting of saints to be besought there for the faithful departed (3). Moreover, that this your sentence and reparation be not blotted from the memory of men, if it shall please our lord the King, that it be inserted and laid up in memory in the chronicles of France and in the chamber of his Treasury of Charters, likewise decreeing; and lastly, for the injuries, amends, losses, damages and interest, likewise condemning the defendants themselves in grave sums of money to be paid to the plaintiffs themselves, such as your most provident paternities shall determine; decreeing that the adjunction of your promoter be henceforth imparted to the same plaintiffs; or at least that ye adjudge and decree to be executed with effect to the same plaintiffs such and so great conclusions, reparations and amends for the due, just and canonical ends, as the order of reason demands and the canonical sanctions decree: the plaintiffs themselves humbly imploring your office, offering to prove the premises so far as shall be needful, with express protestation also of adding, diminishing, declaring, correcting and interpreting, every other benefit of law being reserved to them, and with the other due and accustomed protestations in such matters.\nAppearance of the procurators of the Bishop and of the Preaching Friars of Beauvais # Item, in the year of the Lord 1455, on the sixteenth day of the month of February, which was the Monday after the instant Sunday on which was sung in the holy Church of God, for the introit of the mass, Invocavit; to which day, at the instance and request of Masters Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the aforesaid plaintiffs Isabelle d’Arc, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, and Simon Chapitault the promoter aforesaid; there had been cited before the aforesaid lords Judges the aforesaid lord Bishop of Beauvais, the Sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, and the promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and all and each of whatsoever state, degree, sex, dignity and condition they be, jointly or severally, believing themselves interested: there appeared before the same, the reverend father and lord in Christ (4) the lord Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal the Inquisitor, the others, the Archbishop of Reims and the Bishop of Coutances, being absent, in the great hall or palace of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, the aforesaid Guillaume Prévosteau in the name aforesaid, and the venerable man Master Jean Le Rebours, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, procurator of the aforesaid Master Simon Chapitault, promoter in this behalf, as legitimately was and is established by the procuratorial letters inserted below and passed among the acts, on the one part; and the venerable men Master Reginald Bredouille, procurator, as he said, of the reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Guillaume, Bishop of Beauvais, and also of the promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais; and Brother Jacques Calciator, of the order of Preaching Friars, prior of the convent of Évreux, for and in the name of the convent of Preaching Friars of the city of Beauvais, on the other part. Which appearances being thus made before the Lords (5), they continued the said present day of their office until the morrow, accepting the present day for presentation. Given and done in the year and on the day aforesaid.\nThe tenor of the procuratorial letters of the said Master Jean Le Rebours follows.\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. By this present public instrument let it be evidently manifest and known to all that, in the year of the same Lord 1455, the fourth indiction, on the thirteenth day of the month of February, in the first year of the pontificate of the most holy father and lord in Christ our lord Calixtus, by divine providence the third Pope; in the presence of me, the public notary, another scribe of this cause, and of the witnesses underwritten specially called and required for these things, there was personally constituted the venerable and circumspect man Master Simon Chapitault, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter given and deputed in the cause to be spoken of below, appearing, saying and asserting: that he, in good manner and without his own greatest loss, upon certain assigned days and for accomplishing certain acts before the most reverend and reverend fathers and lords in Christ, the lords Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop of Reims, and Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, one of the inquisitors of heretical pravity constituted in the realm of France, or two of them or one of them, judges and commissioners, together with the reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Richard, Bishop of Coutances (6),\n(1) The manuscripts read relapsa — relapsed.\n(2) Manuscript 5970 reads dictu — in the saying.\n(3) The manuscripts read execrandas — to be execrated.\n(4) Such is the redaction of the Notre-Dame manuscript. In manuscript 5970 the clerks wrote coram nobis — before us, by an inadvertence analogous to that already signalled at pp. 151 and 153.\n(5) Manuscript 5970 reads coram nobis — before us.\n(6) The Bishop of Coutances is here named among the delegates.\nwith that clause: Inasmuch as ye or two, etc., could not appear in the cause and causes of certain nullity of the proceedings and sentences formerly made against a certain Joan, vulgarly called the Maid, by the late lords Pierre Cauchon, then Bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Magistri, then sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais. Therefore, of his certain knowledge, by the better way, right, manner and form whereby he better could and ought, and can and ought, he made, constituted, created, named and solemnly ordained the venerable and circumspect man Master Jean Le Rebours, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, alone and in solidum, to wit specially and expressly, for appearing in the name of the constituent himself and for him before the abovesaid lords Judges or two of them, in the palace or greater hall of the lord Archbishop of Rouen, on all and each days already assigned and to be assigned; and for excusing him and his person; and for receiving certain interrogatories in deed and in writing for the witnesses already produced and to be produced, and for interrogating upon them; for producing and exhibiting; for choosing judges and commissioners, and consenting to them and each of them; for making whatsoever supplications and humble requests; and generally for doing and procuring all other things necessary concerning this, which the constituent himself would or could do if he were personally present and intervening; promising to hold and to hold for ever ratified, agreeable, stable and firm all that and whatsoever by his said procurator shall be done, said, made or transacted in the premises or otherwise procured in any wise, under the hypothec and obligation of all and each of his goods. Of and upon all and each which premises the aforesaid constituent asked that a public instrument or public instruments, one or more, be made and drawn up for him by me the underwritten public notary. These things were done at Paris, in the house of habitation of Master Laurent Potrel, situate in the street of the Nuts (1), under the year, indiction, month, day and pontificate aforesaid. There being present the venerable men Masters Jean Argot, priest, master of arts, Nicolas Gourdin and Pierre Ogier, clerks, public notaries of the dioceses of Séez, Paris and Nantes, witnesses specially called and required for the premises.\nAnd I, Denis Comitis, priest of the diocese of Coutances, bachelor in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial authorities and the other scribe of this cause, was present together with the forenamed witnesses at the constitution, creation, nomination and ordination of the said procurator, the giving of power and all and each the other premises, while, as is premised, they were said, done and transacted, and saw and heard them so done. Therefore upon this present public instrument, faithfully written by another, I set my wonted sign, required and requested, in faith and testimony of all and each the premises. So signed: D. Comitis.\nReading of the articles before the parties cited, according to the petition of the promoter of the cause and of the procurator of the plaintiffs # The morrow coming moreover, the seventeenth day of the month of February, as is premised, continued or awaited from yesterday; there appearing before the lords Judges, Guillaume Bishop of Paris and Brother Jean Bréhal, the Archbishop of Reims and the Bishop of Coutances themselves being in remote parts, the aforesaid Guillaume Prévosteau and Jean Rebours on the one part; Reginald Bredouille, both in the procuratorial name of the said reverend father the lord Bishop of Beauvais and in the promotorial name of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and Brother Jacques Calciator in the name of the convent of the Preaching Friars of Beauvais, the parties, on the other: the said Prévosteau and Rebours, for founding the judgement (2) and saying the summons made, exhibited before the lords Judges the letters of citation formerly decreed by them, with the report of the executor of the same, by which it was and could be established that the aforesaid reverend father, promoter and sub-inquisitor by name, and all and each others believing themselves interested, for the sixteenth day of the month of February, were and are cited, to say and oppose by word or in writing whatsoever they should be willing to say or propose against the positions and articles formerly given and produced in this cause, and to answer to the same articles or positions; asking and requiring from them and by them that the said cited and appearing be bound and compelled by them to answer, so far as it touches and can touch each of them, to the same articles or positions; and that the contestation of the suit upon them or another petition in their contumacy be given if need be; and also that the articles themselves be admitted by the Judges themselves for proving; and that the way of saying and opposing by word or in writing against these articles thenceforth be foreclosed to the same cited appearing and to the others not appearing and reputed contumacious in their contumacy, and be held foreclosed.\nThese things therefore being heard by them, they ordained first and before all that the articles of this kind ought to be read publicly and in the presence of the said cited appearing, as they also caused them to be read for the greater part by Master François Ferrebouc, the other notary of this cause.\nAnswers of Master Reginald Bredouille and of Brother Jacques Calciator # Which things being read for the greater part and their conclusion wholly, and the said Prévosteau and Rebours asking with instance that they be admitted for proving and that commissioners in remote parts, both of Tours and Orléans and at Poitiers and elsewhere, be given and granted for examining the witnesses upon the articles themselves: the said Master Reginald Bredouille, both in the name of the said reverend father in Christ and in the promotorial name, these articles and the things contained in them being heard, which he had also already seen before, as he said, answered that he did not believe the contents of the same articles to be true, nor that it was so done by the same late lord Pierre Cauchon as is narrated in them; nay, the articles themselves and the things contained in them, in so far as he was and is bound to do, with mind of litigating, he denied and denies to be and to be true; referring himself wholly, and for all defence, to the trial made by the same lord Pierre Cauchon; and declared and was declaring that thenceforth he did not intend to appear in this cause, consenting also that the witnesses to be examined by them and their commissioners to be deputed wheresoever should swear, his name being summoned, referring himself wholly to their conscience; saying, in the name aforesaid, that in the defence of this trial he pretended no interest nor willed to oppose or say aught against these articles, save as he said above.\nAnd Brother Jacques Calciator himself said and asserted that, since many citations and summonses have now been made in the said convent of the Preaching Friars of Beauvais, and by the same there was cited a certain asserted sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity, whereas in the same convent from great times past there is not, as neither is there yet, any inquisitor or sub-inquisitor; and lest henceforth by such summonses or citations any scandal should arise in the same convent, he asked and required that they be no further made, since the friars of his convent were much troubled hereby.\nAdmission of the articles in judgement, the way of speaking against them being foreclosed to the defendants # These things therefore being done, the aforesaid Judges themselves, upon the things proposed, answered and required on either side, gave their ordinance or appointment in these writings:\nYour requisitions having been heard, and the citations both general and special having been seen; the answers, declarations and other things alleged by the venerable man Master Reginald (3) Bredouille in the promotorial name of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais being also weighed; the allegations and also the excuses presented by the venerable man the Prior of Évreux in the stead and name of the convent of the Preaching Friars of the city of Beauvais being also weighed; a certain declaration made heretofore before us in the stead and name of the heirs and executors of the late reverend father the lord Pierre Cauchon being also seen: we repute and declare all the others cited and summoned both specially and generally and not appearing contumacious. We decree that the articles long since, to wit on the twentieth of December, presented before us, the admission whereof we ordained should be deferred until the present day, decreeing that the said parties should be cited both generally and specially, as they were cited, a copy of the aforesaid articles being offered to them, as was and is legitimately established to us, are admissible and to be admitted, as we also do admit them; and we foreclose thenceforth to the same cited the way of saying and opposing aught against these articles and their contents; ordaining that your inquest ought to be made upon them consisting in fact; assigning to you the first juridical day after Quasimodo (4) for referring the inquest before us in this city of Rouen. Into the beginning of which inquest we intend to proceed personally on the first juridical day after the feast of blessed Matthias (5) at Paris in our episcopal house; which day, with the days following, we assign to all and each believing themselves interested for seeing the witnesses to be produced on behalf of the plaintiffs themselves sworn before us, and for giving interrogatories if they shall will to deliver any; ordaining that proceeding ought henceforth to be had in this cause by public edicts to be affixed only and solely upon the doors of the church and of Rouen, to all acts as shall be of law and reason.\nRead by us the Bishop of Paris sitting for the tribunal. In the year and on the day aforesaid, there being present at these things the venerable and learned men Masters Hector de Coquerel, vicar-general of the lord Archbishop of Rouen; Nicolas de Bosco, dean; Guillaume Roussel, Jean de Gouys, Jean de Bec, canons of Rouen; Guillaume Fertin, Richard Viart, Guillaume Manchon, Jean Veteris, with very many other witnesses specially called and required for the premises.\nThe tenor moreover of the said letters of citation follows, and is this:\nJean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, of the order of Preaching Friars, one of the inquisitors of heretical pravity in the realm of France, judges delegated or commissioners, together with the reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Bishop of Coutances, our colleague in this behalf, with that clause: Inasmuch as ye or two, etc., specially deputed by the most holy lord our lord Calixtus, by divine providence the third Pope, of certain causes of nullity, iniquity and injustice of certain proceedings and sentences made and pronounced, nullly and in fact as is pretended, against a certain Joan vulgarly named the Maid, by the late lords of good memory Pierre Cauchon, then Bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Magistri, sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, at the instance of a certain Master Jean d’Estivet, promoter constituted by the same bishop and sub-inquisitor; and of the purgation of the things falsely imputed to the said Joan by the same asserted judges and promoter: to all and each abbots, priors, deans, etc. (6). Know ye that we have heretofore received with that reverence which was meet the letters of the aforesaid lord Calixtus our lord, by divine providence the third Pope, by the venerable, learned and excellent man Master Pierre Maugier, doctor of the Decrees, expert in canon law, Pierre d’Arc the knight and Isabelle his mother instancing and requiring, and stipulating for Jean d’Arc, brother of the same Pierre d’Arc, of the diocese of Toul, described and named in the said apostolic letters; and by the vigour of the same apostolic letters have decreed a legitimate citation for a certain and competent day against and upon the reverend father in Christ the lord Guillaume, Bishop of Beauvais, and the Sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity constituted in the diocese of Beauvais, and the Promoter of the causes and criminal causes of the said court of Beauvais. And the same citation being demanded to due execution, we sitting for the tribunal at Rouen in the great archiepiscopal hall of Rouen, the venerable men Master Simon Chapitault, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter constituted by us in these causes, and also the venerable man Master Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the said Pierre, Isabelle and Jean d’Arc, of whose mandate it is established by legitimate documents in the acts of this cause, personally appearing before us: the said Master Guillaume, in the name aforesaid, reproduced the said citation together with its execution in fact, really and in writing; and accused the contumacy of the said Bishop of Beauvais, sub-inquisitor and promoter and of the others cited contained in the same citation; and in their contumacy asked of us and humbly required that we, competent judges in this cause of nullity and of the purgation of the said Joan, should decree, or at least be willing to continue the said day to another competent day for convicting the malice of the said cited, as we also did continue it. Which day coming, the abovesaid Master Simon Chapitault the promoter and Master Guillaume Prévosteau the procurator in the name aforesaid personally appearing before us in judgement in the said hall, accused the contumacy of the said cited not appearing nor sending anyone for them; which contumacy being accused, they asked and most instantly required us that we, competent judges in this cause, should be willing to decree and declare to them and to the same parties, for delivering their petition or libel by way of articles or\n(1) Street of the Walnut-trees (Rue des Noyers).\n(2) The manuscripts add nostrum — our, as above, p. 262.\n(3) Jean in the manuscripts.\n(4) This date corresponds to Wednesday 7 April 1456.\n(5) Friday 27 February 1456.\n(6) The rest of the formula as above, p. 120.\nin the form of interrogatories or positions in writing, a certain and competent day to be assigned, as we also assigned it. Which term pending, the abovesaid parties judicially appearing in the said greater archiepiscopal hall of Rouen, and accusing the contumacy of the cited not appearing nor sending anyone for them, and they being reputed contumacious by us: we decreed ourselves to be competent judges in this cause, and so did as is more fully contained in a certain paper schedule which we the Archbishop then held in our hands and read through, and which is faithfully registered in the acts of this cause. Which being thus read through, the aforesaid Master Guillaume Prévosteau produced in fact, really and in writing certain articles, asking and requiring that a certain and competent term be prefixed by us to the said cited not appearing for saying and excepting by word or in writing whatsoever they should be willing to say or propose against the said articles (1). We therefore, attending the supplication and request to be just and reasonable, and willing to proceed in this cause of nullity and purgation according to God and justice and as shall be of law and reason: decreed the citation again repeated against the said cited and contumacious, by public edict and both generally and specially, both at the place, city and church of Beauvais and at the doors of the church of Rouen, to wit for the first juridical day after the instant first Sunday of Quadragesima on which in the holy Church of God shall be sung Invocavit, under the underwritten form. Hence it is that we straitly command and mandate you all and each, in virtue of holy obedience and under the penalties of suspension and excommunication which we shall pronounce upon you and each of you unless ye shall do what we command, that for executing this our mandate one of you shall not wait for another nor one excuse himself by another. Ye shall take care to cite peremptorily on our part, nay rather on the apostolic part, the same lord bishop and the sub-inquisitor of the said heretical pravity constituted in the said diocese of Beauvais and the promoter of the criminal causes of the said court of Beauvais, and all and each others of whatsoever dignity, state, sex, degree and condition they be, jointly or severally believing themselves interested; whom and each of whom we also cite by the tenor of the presents, that on the said first juridical day after the instant Sunday on which shall be sung in the holy Church of God Invocavit, when we shall sit for rendering right for the tribunal in the greater archiepiscopal hall of Rouen, or one of us or a subdelegate or subdelegates from us or one of us shall sit, by themselves or their fit procurators specially constituted for this cause and sufficiently instructed: they appear legitimately in judgement at Rouen in the aforesaid hall before us or one of us or our subdelegate or subdelegates, to say and oppose by word or in writing whatsoever they shall will to say or oppose against the positions and articles given and produced in this cause, in so far as they are articles, and to answer to the same in so far as they stand or are esteemed to be positions, in this cause of nullity and purgation; and also to see and hear our will or ordination, or of one of us or of the subdelegate or subdelegates, of and upon the admission or repulsion of the said positions and articles aforesaid; and to proceed in this cause according to the exigency of the case and the narration even unto the decision of the said cause inclusive, as shall be of law and reason. And if ye could not personally find the aforesaid bishop, sub-inquisitor and promoter of criminal causes, ye shall cite the same in the houses of their habitation if safe access to the same be open to you; otherwise in the cathedral church of Beauvais by the affixion of the presents or of a true copy of the same signed by the hands of the underwritten notaries; and also against all and each others believing themselves interested, at the doors of the church of Rouen, when in those churches the people of the faithful shall have come to hear the divine offices, and in other places of which ye or one of you shall have been required, and otherwise, so that this citation may and may verily be presumed to come to the notice of the bishop himself, the sub-inquisitor and the promoter of criminal causes and of all and each others believing themselves interested; certifying the same bishop, sub-inquisitor and promoter and all others believing themselves interested that, whether they shall appear before us or one of us or a subdelegate or subdelegates at the said term of citation or not: we shall proceed in this cause at the instance of the parties legitimately appearing before us, the absence or contumacy of the others notwithstanding. And what ye shall have done therein, ye shall faithfully write back to us. Given and done judicially before us sitting for the tribunal in the aforesaid archiepiscopal hall of Rouen, under the seals of us Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, and Jean Bréhal the aforesaid Inquisitor, in the absence of the seal of the aforesaid most reverend father the lord Archbishop of Reims. In the year of the Lord 1455, the fourth indiction, on the twentieth day of the month of December, in the first year of the pontificate of the aforesaid most holy father and lord in Christ our lord Calixtus the third Pope. There being present in the same place the reverend and venerable fathers and lords in Christ the Bishop of Demetriade; Jean, Abbot of Saint-Ouen, and Jean, Abbot of Sainte-Catherine-du-Mont of Rouen; Masters Hector de Coquerel, vicar-general of the lord Archbishop of Rouen; Nicolas de Bosco, dean; Jean de Gouys, Jean du Bec, canons of Rouen; with many other doctors and licentiates, witnesses specially called and required for the premises.\nAnd I, Denis Comitis, priest of the diocese of Coutances, etc., was present together with the forenamed witnesses at the production of the said articles, the assignation of the term and all and each the other premises, while, as is premised, they were said, done and transacted before the said lords Judges, and saw and heard them so done. Therefore upon these present letters, faithfully written by the hand of another, I set my wonted sign together with the subscription of Master François Ferrebouc my fellow scribe, required and requested, in faith and testimony of all and each the premises. So signed: D. Comitis.\nAnd I, François Ferrebouc, clerk of Paris, etc., who was present together with the forenamed witnesses at the said appearance, the production of the articles, the decree, the citation and all the other premises, while, as is premised, they were said, done and transacted, and saw and heard them so done. Therefore upon this present citation or edict drawn up in public form, faithfully written by the hand of another, I being legitimately hindered by other business, I set my public and wonted sign, required and requested, in faith and testimony of all and each the premises. So signed: F. Ferrebouc.\nAnd on the back: In the year of the Lord 1455, on Monday the ninth of February, the present original letters, by the mandate of the lords Judges named in white, were demanded to execution by the affixion and leaving of them upon the doors of the church of Rouen while the divine offices were being celebrated therein and the people were there present to hear them; and also, after the removal of the same lest they should be lost, by the leaving of a copy or duplicate of the same from the said Monday until the eighth day following thereupon. So signed: Socius.\nThen follows the tenor of the report:\nTo the most reverend and reverend fathers in Christ, the lord Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, and Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, etc. (2). With all reverence and honour let your most worshipful paternities know that I, Gérard Toussaint, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority, on the twelfth day of the month of February in the year of the Lord 1455, by virtue of your letters of citation presented to me on behalf of the honourable men Pierre d’Arc, knight, Jean d’Arc and Isabelle their mother named in the same; went to the city of Beauvais and to the person of the reverend father in Christ the lord Bishop of Beauvais and also of the promoter of the same of the criminal causes of the said court of Beauvais, and cited the same according to the form and tenor of your said letters of citation for the day, place and hour more widely declared in your said mandate. Which lord bishop and promoter indeed answered me that they had no interest, as they had declared elsewhere, and further referred themselves to the arbitrament and good discretion of you (3), the lords Commissioners; further saying that, at the time declared in your letters of citation, the lord Pierre Cauchon was bishop, whom you, most reverend father, lord Archbishop of Reims, succeeded; and that, at the time of the trial made against the said Joan, the same Cauchon was absent from the town of Beauvais and in the other obedience. These things notwithstanding, I presented and really offered to the same and to each of them a copy of the citation and articles of which mention is made in your letter of citation; which they were unwilling to receive. There being present at these things Masters Jean de Frocourt and Guillaume de Grosmesnil, canons of Beauvais, witnesses specially called and required for the premises. And moreover, for ampler execution to be done, I set and left a copy of your said letters of citation, signed by the hands of the venerable men Masters Denis Comitis and François Ferrebouc, public notaries by apostolic authority and scribes of this cause before you, affixed to the doors of the greater church of Beauvais; there being present the venerable men the lords Jean Quignon, canon of Beauvais, Denis Clerici, Jean Vigier and Jean le Flament, chaplains of the said church of Beauvais, witnesses specially called and required for the premises. Then I demanded the tenor of your letters to execution as far as I could, and went to the church of the Preaching Friars of Beauvais, and in the same place inquired whether there was any sub-inquisitor, speaking personally with Brother German (4) de Morlaines, prior of the same church. Who answered me that he knew no sub-inquisitor in his church or convent. Yet the sub-inquisitor himself, if there were any, and all others believing themselves interested, I cited, as was commanded me, to the person of the said Brother German, openly and publicly. Who further answered me that he did not believe there was anyone whose interest it was, and that he had never seen nor known that inquisitor named in your letters; referring himself to your reverend paternities. Then I presented and really offered a copy of the citation and articles, which they were unwilling to receive. In testimony whereof I have written and signed this my present report with my hand. In the year of the Lord 1455, on the twelfth day of the month of February. So signed: G. Toussaint.\nSubdelegation of Masters Thomas Verel and Guillaume Bourgeois in the stead of Brother Jean Bréhal # In the year and on the day aforesaid, the aforesaid Brother Jean Bréhal the inquisitor, asserting that he could not be present at the examination of the witnesses where perchance it should be expedient, hindered by other business, since it is expedient that witnesses be examined in very many parts: therefore lest, through his defect, aught the worse should befall in this trial, in his stead and for him, by the ordination and good pleasure of the aforesaid lords Judges, he committed and ordained the venerable and religious man Master Thomas Verel, professor of sacred theology, as is more widely contained by the letters drawn up upon this containing the form which follows:\nBrother Jean Bréhal, of the order of Preaching Friars, professor of sacred theology, one of the inquisitors of heretical pravity in the realm of France, to our beloved brethren the venerable men of circumspection and great religion Brothers Thomas Verel and Guillaume Bourgeois, of our order of Preaching Friars and professors of sacred theology, health in the Lord. The burdens which are incumbent upon us we willingly commit to those whom a circumspect knowledge of letters and providence in things to be done commend. For lately, when the most reverend and reverend fathers and lords in Christ the Archbishop of Reims and the Bishop of Paris, judges deputed by the most holy lord our Pope Calixtus of certain causes of nullity of the proceedings and sentences formerly pronounced and made by certain lords Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Magistri, sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, at the instance of a certain Master Guillaume d’Estivet, asserted promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, against a certain Joan d’Arc vulgarly called the Maid; following the tenor of the rescript presented to the same by our lord the Pope, assuming us to the deduction and examination of these causes with them, cited us (5) for certain terms in these judicial causes; and we have exercised certain judicial acts and there yet remain to be exercised in the city of Paris in the matter of a certain inquest to be made by the same most reverend and reverend fathers at the instance of the parties; in which, being hindered by certain other arduous businesses, we cannot personally be present; confiding in your and each of your fidelity, providence and circumspect knowledge, we subdelegate you and each of you in our stead in this cause, fully committing to you our offices until we shall have seen fit to recall them to us. Given at Rouen under our seal, in the year of the Lord 1455, on the seventeenth day of the month of February.\nContinuation of the term assigned for referring the inquests, granted at the request of the plaintiffs # Item, on the last day of March in the year of the Lord 1456, the fourth indiction, in the first year of the pontificate of the most holy father in Christ our lord Calixtus the third Pope, the aforesaid parties and promoter or their procurators instancing and requiring, the term assigned by the same Bishop of Paris and Brother Jean\n(1) The manuscripts read præfigeratur — be prefixed.\n(2) The formula of the preceding citation repeated in the dative.\n(3) The manuscripts read vestrorum — your.\n(4) Called Geremarus above, p. 177.\n(5) The manuscripts read vocaverimus — we have cited.\nBréhal the inquisitor formerly assigned to the same for referring their inquests before them and for seeing them published and to be published, the Archbishop and Bishop aforesaid and Brother Jean Bréhal the inquisitor prorogued and continued until the Wednesday after the Sunday on which in the holy Church of God shall be sung Jubilate (1); willing that this their continuation, by their letters patent to be affixed to the doors of the church of Rouen, be intimated, insinuated and notified to all whomsoever believing themselves interested. Which continuation was notified and insinuated by letters patent, the tenor whereof is described below.\nThe tenor of the said letters of continuation and of their execution follows, and is this:\nTo all who shall inspect the present letters, Jean, by divine mercy Archbishop and Duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy Bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, etc., health in the Lord. Know ye that, since the first juridical day after the instant Sunday on which shall be sung in the holy Church of God for the introit of the mass Quasimodo is assigned to the venerable and circumspect man Master Guillaume Prévosteau, licentiate in civil law, procurator and in the name of procurator of the honest woman Isabelle d’Arc, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, plaintiffs in this cause, for proving his intention for the first dilation upon the articles produced in the said cause and admitted by us for proving; and there having been deputed to the same Master Guillaume Prévosteau, in the name aforesaid, certain commissioners, and to us the Archbishop and Bishop and Inquisitor, both in the cities of Clermont, Bourges, Poitiers, Tours, Orléans, Toul and Paris; and also for referring or publishing by us the sayings and depositions of the witnesses produced and to be produced if any should be produced, on the said day in the greater hall of the Archbishop of Rouen; which dilation so pending, certain witnesses were produced, received, sworn and examined before us the Archbishop on behalf of the said Isabelle, Pierre and Jean; and the said plaintiffs have and hold certain other witnesses in divers dioceses and places whom they could in no wise produce while the said dilation was pending: wherefore we were asked by the venerable and circumspect man Master Simon Chapitault, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter deputed by us in this cause, and by the aforesaid Isabelle d’Arc, personally appearing before us Jean the Archbishop in the town of Orléans, that we should be willing and should deign to give and grant another dilation to the said plaintiffs. We therefore, the abovesaid Judges, willing to proceed maturely, holily and justly in this cause, and unwilling that the right of the parties should perish through defect of proof, have granted, prorogued and continued, and by the tenor of the presents do prorogue and continue, the said dilation or prorogation from the said first pleading day after Quasimodo until the Wednesday after the instant Sunday on which shall be sung in the holy Church of God for the introit of the mass Jubilate, unless, etc., otherwise, etc., the said promoter and Isabelle aforesaid instancing and of our office; decreeing that the deputed commissioners can proceed, the said prorogation pending, to the reception, production and examination of the witnesses meanwhile to be produced, according to the form and tenor of the commissions formerly decreed and granted by us. Which all and each premises we intimate and insinuate to all and each believing themselves interested by the affixion of the presents to the doors of the church of Rouen, after the likeness of the public edicts which of old were written in the white of the prætorium. In testimony whereof we have seen fit to set our seals upon these present letters. Given and done at Paris, in the year of the Lord 1456 after Easter, the fourth indiction, on the last day of the month of March, in the first year of the pontificate of the aforesaid most holy father and lord in Christ our lord Calixtus, by divine providence the third Pope. So signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc. And on the back: Affixed on the fourth of April, by… (2). And elsewhere: Deposited on the twentieth day of April, another affixed; there being present Masters Simon de Mora, Brother Pierre Sohier, Jean Neel and Guillaume Merpelle.\nAnother continuation of the same term # On the eighteenth day moreover of the month of April following thereupon, the aforesaid promoter and plaintiffs or their procurator instancing and requiring, the Wednesday after the Sunday of Jubilate assigned to the aforesaid parties for referring the inquest or inquests made and to be made and for seeing them published and to be published, the same Jean the Archbishop, Guillaume the Bishop and Brother Jean Bréhal aforesaid continued and prorogued until the Wednesday after the feast of the Ascension of the Lord (3), and granted to the same plaintiffs their letters of this prorogation under the underwritten tenor; which they willed to be insinuated and published by the affixion of the same to the doors of the church of Rouen.\nThe tenor of the same letters and of their publication and insinuation follows, and is this:\nTo all, etc. (4). Know ye that, since the Wednesday after Jubilate was and is assigned to the venerable and circumspect man Master Guillaume Prévosteau, licentiate in civil law, procurator and in the name of procurator of the honest woman Isabelle d’Arc, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, plaintiffs in this cause, for proving his intention for the second dilation and second production upon the articles produced in the said cause, etc.; we, etc., have granted, prorogued and continued, and by the tenor of the presents do prorogue and continue, the said dilation or prorogation from the said Wednesday after Jubilate until the Wednesday after the instant feast of the Ascension of the Lord, unless, etc., otherwise, etc., the said plaintiffs instancing and of our office; granting to the same plaintiffs a dilation for the third and last dilations and productions of witnesses; decreeing that the deputed commissioners can proceed, the said prorogation pending, to the reception, production and examination of the witnesses meanwhile to be produced, according to the form and tenor of the commissions formerly decreed and granted by us. Which all and each premises, etc. In testimony whereof we have seen fit to set our seals upon these present letters. Given and done at Paris, under the year of the Lord 1456, the fourth indiction, on the eighteenth day of the month of April, in the first year of the pontificate of the aforesaid our lord Calixtus, by divine providence the third Pope. So signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nAnd on the back of the same: This present letter was affixed by me, Socius Voles, public notary, to the doors of the church of Rouen, in the year contained in white and on the twenty-fourth day of the month of April. So signed: Socius Voles.\nContinuation of the day for the presentation of the inquests accepted by the lords Delegates # Item, the said Wednesday after the feast of the Ascension of the Lord coming, prorogued and continued as is premised from the first juridical day after the instant Sunday on which in the holy Church of God was sung Jubilate, and before that from the first juridical day after the Sunday on which in the holy Church of God was sung Quasimodo, assigned to the same parties for referring before the lords Judges, on behalf of the said plaintiffs, their inquests made by their authority and by them both at Paris, Rouen and Orléans and in the place of origin of the aforesaid Joan; and for seeing and hearing the same inquests or depositions and attestations of the witnesses contained in them published by them; and to proceed further as should be reasonable: there appeared before the same Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal the inquisitor aforesaid, the Archbishop of Reims and the Bishop of Coutances themselves being absent and in remote parts, in the greater hall of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen in which they were wont to sit for the tribunal for the conducting of this cause: the venerable men the aforesaid Masters Guillaume Prévosteau in the name of procurator of the plaintiffs themselves and for them, and Jean Veteris, master of arts and licentiate in the Decrees, in the name of procurator of the aforesaid Master Simon Chapitault, promoter constituted by them in this cause; and before them satisfying this assignation presented themselves, and accused so far as was needful the contumacy of the adverse parties and of all believing themselves interested, not appearing. And they, accepting this day for the presentation, continued it until the morrow, of their office and otherwise. There being present at these things the venerable and learned men Masters Hector de Coquerel, doctor of both laws, vicar-general of the lord Archbishop of Rouen, Robert Bonin, licentiate in canon law, and Jean Hugon, with very many others, witnesses specially called and required for the premises.\nThe tenor of the procuratorial letters of the said Master Jean Veteris follows, and is this:\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. By this present public instrument let it be evidently manifest and known to all that, in the year of the same Lord 1456, the fourth indiction, on the fifteenth day of the month of May, in the second year of the pontificate of the most holy father and lord in Christ our lord Calixtus, by divine providence the third Pope; in the presence of me the public notary, etc. (5), there was personally constituted the venerable and circumspect man Master Simon Chapitault, saying and asserting that he, etc., could not appear, etc. Therefore, etc., he made, constituted, created, named and solemnly ordained the venerable and circumspect man Master Jean Veteris, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, etc., for, etc., for making whatsoever humble supplications and requests; for asking and hearing the publication of the witnesses; for producing witnesses, letters, instruments and whatsoever kinds of proofs; for speaking against the things produced against him; for concluding in the cause, imploring and stirring up the office of the judge; and generally for doing all things necessary concerning this, etc. (6)\nThe inquests being produced and received, assignation of the defendants for answering to the depositions contained in them # On the said morrow following moreover, which was Thursday the thirteenth of May, assigned as is premised for referring the inquests before the lords Judges and for seeing them published by them; before the lords Judges Guillaume, Bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal the inquisitor aforesaid, the Archbishop of Reims and the Bishop of Coutances themselves being absent; the aforesaid Masters Guillaume Prévosteau and Jean Veteris appearing in the names aforesaid. Which appearances being made before them, the procurators themselves, asserting that they had caused very many witnesses to be examined both in the place of origin of the same Joan and at Rouen, Paris and Orléans and elsewhere, feared nevertheless lest some witnesses propitious and useful to them had remained to be examined, either by reason of their absence or the shortness of the time, albeit this present day was assigned to them for referring and publishing; wherefore this publication (7) — if any witnesses should come to them anew, or any inquests already made in remote parts and witnesses to be examined in the cases permitted by the law; that, the publication itself notwithstanding, such witnesses or inquests should be received; asking and requiring from them and by them that the adverse parties and all and each believing themselves interested, summoned before them and not appearing, be reputed contumacious, and that in their contumacy the inquests already made by them or their commissioners, to wit formerly (8) in the place of origin of the same Joan, and by them both at Rouen, Paris and Orléans and elsewhere, and legitimately exhibited before them, be received and admitted, and the same inquests or the depositions or attestations of the witnesses contained in them be published and held for published; and that, the publication itself notwithstanding, if other inquests or witnesses should come in the cases permitted by the law, they would deign and be willing to reserve the reception and publication of the same, and would decree a copy of the same inquests to the same (9); and would prefix a day to the adverse parties and others believing themselves interested, by public edicts, for speaking against such witnesses or their depositions and attestations. Whence the aforesaid Judges and Commissioners themselves, these requisitions being heard and the inquests seen by them, made both by them and each of them and by their commissioners and exhibited before them; reputed and by the tenor of the presents do repute the adverse parties or the defendants named by name and all and each others believing themselves interested, summoned before them and not appearing, contumacious; and in their contumacy published the inquests or the attestations and depositions of the witnesses contained in them, and by the tenor of the presents do publish them and held and hold them for published; and in sign of this publication named and published publicly the names and surnames of the greater part of the witnesses by one of their notaries (10); decreeing that a copy of such witnesses (11) be given and granted to the said plaintiffs, to the adverse parties and to all and each others believing themselves interested if they shall will to have it (12); reserving of special grace to the same plaintiffs that, if any inquests shall already have been made or any witnesses reserved by reason of their absence or otherwise in the cases permitted by the law, that nevertheless, if they come before the conclusion of the cause, they be received, published and communicated to the adverse parties for saying whatsoever they shall will to say against the same; ordaining also that the aforesaid defendants expressly named and others believing themselves interested be and are to be summoned for the first day of the month of June next following by public edicts to be affixed on the doors of the church of Rouen, for speaking against such witnesses or their sayings and depositions or attestations, and for further proceeding as shall be law (13).\nGiven and done in the year and on the day aforesaid; the aforesaid Masters Hector de Coquerel and Nicolas de Houppeville and Brother Raymond Conversus of the order of Preaching Friars being present, with very many other witnesses standing by (14).\n(1) This date corresponds to 21 April 1456.\n(2) The name is in blank in the manuscripts.\n(3) That is, 12 May.\n(4) See above, p. 28.\n(5) See, for the formulas, the proxy of Master Jean Le Rebours, p. 263.\n(6) The date and subscription as above, pp. 264–265.\n(7) Here is an accusative governed by nothing, and the whole phrase is faulty. Supply: Wherefore they required that, beyond this publication, etc.\n(8) The manuscripts read quamdam — a certain. The inquests of the Barrois were already old, having been made in the month of January 1456. See below, ch. V, § ii.\n(9) The manuscripts read decreverint — have decreed. Eisdem refers to the adverse parties understood or omitted by the clerks. Finally, it seems that before decernèrent an infinitive would be needed, such as tradi or communicari — to be delivered or communicated.\n(10) The mode of redaction followed until now would require: per alterum nostrum, notariorum — by one of us, the notaries.\n(11) Rather testimoniorum — of the testimonies.\n(12) These three words are wanting in manuscript 5970.\n(13) Notre-Dame manuscript: in hujusmodi causa prout fuerit rationis — in this cause as shall be reasonable.\n(14) Notre-Dame manuscript: There being present at these things the aforesaid Masters Hector de Coquerel, Brother Pierre Miget, professor of sacred theology, Nicolas de Houppeville, Brother Raymond Conversus of the order of Preaching Friars, with very many others, witnesses called and required for the premises.\nChapter V # The tenors moreover of the informations, inquests and attestations made and received, both of mere office and at the requests of the promoter and of the parties, as has been said above, follow, and are these.\nAnd of these informations, some were made in the place of origin of the oft-said Joan, upon her origin and conversation; others in the city of Orléans and the neighbouring places, upon her deeds and acts; others in the city of Rouen, upon the quality of the trial formerly conducted against the said Joan; others concerning the persons and the aforesaid trial. And some of these informations and inquests were made by the lords Delegates themselves; others by their commissioners, at divers places and times, as is written below in each inquest and information.\nI. Preliminary Information made at Rouen in the year 1452 # First, before the lord Cardinal d’Estouteville # In the first place verily, since the most reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Guillaume (1), Cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church of the title of Saint-Martin-in-Montibus, vulgarly named Cardinal d’Estouteville, by reason of the current fame and the many things which daily, during his legation, were reported upon the said trial conducted against the said Joan, having assumed with him the aforesaid venerable father Master Jean Bréhal the inquisitor, made and ordained to be made certain preliminary and preparatory informations in the city of Rouen and elsewhere; which informations indeed, since, his departure standing in the way, he could not proceed as he had hoped to the decree of citation and to the examination of the trial, he judged should be left with the Inquisitor himself and the notaries: therefore the aforesaid lords Delegates received the said informations, in the beginning of this trial, from the hands of the aforesaid Inquisitor and of the notaries who wrote them, we being present, and ordained them, as preparatory and preliminary, to be set first here among the other informations and inquests.\nThe tenor of the articles upon which the witnesses heard in the said information were interrogated.\nThere follow therefore the articles upon which the underwritten witnesses were examined by the aforesaid most reverend father in Christ the lord Cardinal d’Estouteville, Cardinal priest of the title of Saint-Martin-in-Montibus, Legate of the holy apostolic See de latere in the realm of France, and the venerable man Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, one of the inquisitors of heretical pravity in the realm of France, in the affair of Joan called the Maid.\nI. First, that the late lord Pierre Cauchon, then Bishop of Beauvais, was moved by inordinate affection (2) in conducting the trial against the late Joan, vulgarly called the Maid; and that, since the same Joan had been in the army against the English, he persecuted and hated her, thirsting for her death in every manner in which it could be thought.\nII. Item, that the said bishop also required of the lord Duke of Burgundy and the lord Count of Ligny (3), by summatory letters in which he requires that the aforesaid Joan first be delivered to the King of England, postponing the Church herein. And again he petitioned that she be given and delivered to him; and this, promising to those detaining or taking her six thousand francs to pay, then ten thousand; not caring how much he should give, provided he had her.\nIII. Item, that the said English vehemently feared her, and therefore sought by all exquisite ways to deliver her to death, that she should end her days and no more terrify them.\nIV. Item, that the aforesaid bishop cherished the party of the English; and, before he should take cognisance of the cause, permitted (4) that the said Joan should be placed, even from the beginning of his trial, in the Castle of Rouen, in profane prisons and in the hands of enemies, although there were good and decent ecclesiastical prisons in which even the most criminal culprits in faith could legitimately be guarded and shut up.\nV. Item, that the said bishop was not the competent judge, as the same Joan frequently protested, calumniating him.\nVI. Item, that the said Joan was a simple girl, good and catholic, desiring frequently to confess her sins and to hear mass; so that from the end it could be established to the bystanders that she was faithful and Christian.\nVII. Item, that the same Joan many times professed in the judgement that she submitted all her deeds and all her sayings to the judgement of the Church and of our lord the Pope; and that the things she said seemed rather to proceed from a good Spirit than from an evil.\nVIII. Item, that the same Joan in no wise understood what the Church was when she was interrogated concerning submitting herself to the Church, nor did she affirm that word for the congregation of the faithful: but she believed and understood that that Church concerning which she was interrogated was those ecclesiastics who were there, favouring the party of the English.\nIX. Item, wherefore she was condemned as relapsed, when she was willing to submit herself to the Church.\nX. Item, that, after she was condemned to revoke and to assume (5) woman’s dress, she was compelled to resume man’s dress. Wherefore the pretended judges adjudged her relapsed, not seeking her reduction but her death.\nXI. Item, that, although it was established to the judges that the same Joan had submitted herself to the judgement and determination of holy mother Church and that she was faithful and catholic; yet the judges nevertheless, too much favouring the English or unable to endure their terror and impressions, most unjustly condemned her as a heretic to the punishment of fire.\nXII. Item, that of all and each the premises, to wit of the condemnation of the same Joan, of the hatred and inordinate favour of the judges, there was and is public fame and vulgar assertion, common saying and notorious, in the city and diocese of Rouen and in the whole realm of France.\nThe citation follows, by virtue whereof the witnesses were cited.\nGuillaume, by divine mercy Cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church of the title of Saint-Martin-in-Montibus, vulgarly named d’Estouteville, Legate of the apostolic See in the realm of France, the Dauphiné, the duchy of Savoy and all the provinces of Gaul; and Brother Jean Bréhal, of the order of Preaching Friars, professor of sacred theology, inquisitor deputed of heretical pravity in the realm of France by apostolic authority, co-judges in this behalf; to all and each priests, curates and not curates, and the other ecclesiastical persons, public notaries and scribes wheresoever constituted, to whom or whom our present letters shall come to be executed, health in the Lord. We command you and each of you that ye cite peremptorily before us in the archiepiscopal manor of Rouen, for a certain and competent day, not feriate, of which ye shall be required by the bearer of the presents, the reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Bishop of Demetriade; Jean Autin; the lord Thomas Marie, prior of Saint-Michel near Rouen; the lord Pierre Miget, prior of Longueville-Giffard; Master André Marguerie, canon of Rouen; Guillaume de Bigars (6), esquire; Master Guillaume Fortin; Master Nicolas de Houppeville; the lord Jean Massieu; the lord Guillaume Manchon; Brother Bardin de la Pierre; Brother Martin Ladvenu; the lord Nicolas Taquel; Pierre Cusquel; Brother Jean Pasquerel; Richard de Grouchet and Jean Favé; to bear testimony of the truth in a certain business of inquisition touching the process of faith formerly conducted against a certain Joan vulgarly called the Maid by a certain late Bishop of Beauvais and the asserted Sub-inquisitor of the faith, and upon the articles given in this business on behalf of the promoter of the said business; with intimation that we shall suspend the Bishop himself from the entering of the church, and the others abovesaid, and shall excommunicate others, unless they appear before us. What ye shall have done therein, ye who shall have executed the presents, faithfully write back to us. Given in the year of the Lord 1452, on the Thursday after Jubilate (7). So signed: Socius.\nDepositions of the witnesses # There follows the preliminary information or preparation made by the reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Guillaume, by divine mercy Cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church of the title of Saint-Martin-in-Montibus, vulgarly named d’Estouteville, Legate of the apostolic See in the realm of France and all the provinces of Gaul, and Jean Bréhal, of the order of Preaching Friars, professor of sacred theology, inquisitor of heretical pravity in the realm of France deputed by apostolic authority, co-judges in this behalf, public fame reporting upon the things which were said to have been formerly done perversely and erroneously against a certain Joan vulgarly named the Maid in the trial conducted against her by the then Bishop of Beauvais and the Sub-inquisitor of the faith under the dominion of the King of England.\nThe lord Guillaume Manchon # First the lord Guillaume Manchon, priest, notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, of the age of fifty-eight years or thereabouts, sworn and examined in the year of the Lord 1452, on Tuesday the second of the month of May.\nUpon the first article he says, upon his oath, that the article is true, for he heard it and also understood it by letters; and this is notorious.\nUpon the second article, which begins: Item that also, etc., he says upon his oath that it is true, since he heard that, after the said Joan was captured by one of the company of the Count of Ligny, she was led to the castle of Beaurevoir and there detained for three months; and then, by letters of the King of England and of the lord of Beauvais, was brought to Rouen and placed in a certain chamber.\nUpon the third article, which begins: Item that the said English, etc., he says that he believes that if the said Joan had held the party of the English, they would not have proceeded so rigorously against the same Joan as they did. And he knows not else to depose.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that the Bishop of Beauvais held the party of the English; and he saw that, before the said bishop began to take cognisance of the cause, the said Joan was already fettered, and then, after he began to take cognisance, the said Joan thus fettered was delivered to be guarded by four Englishmen deputed and sworn by that bishop and the Inquisitor of the faith that they should faithfully guard her. And she was cruelly treated, and torments were shown to her at the end of the trial (8). And she was then clad in man’s raiment, and complained that she dared not unclothe herself, fearing lest in the night the guards themselves should work some violence upon her; and once or twice she complained to the said Bishop of Beauvais, the Sub-inquisitor and Master Nicolas Loyseleur that one of the said guards had wished to violate her; to which Englishmen therefore, by the lord of Warwick, according to the report of the bishop himself, the inquisitor and Loyseleur, great threats were wrought if they should presume further to attempt it; and anew two other guards were assigned.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that whether that bishop was the competent judge of the same Joan or not, he refers himself to the law; but it was said that she was taken within\n(1) Guillaume d’Estouteville, son of Jean d’Estouteville, Grand Butler of France. Bred among the Benedictines, he was in turn prior of Saint-Martin-des-Champs, Bishop of Maurienne and then of Digne. Eugenius IV made him cardinal in 1437; in 1451 Nicholas V sent him as legate to Charles VII to try to make cease between him and the King of England a war which favoured the invasions of the Turks in Europe. It was during this legation that the Cardinal d’Estouteville undertook of his own office (ex officio mero) the revision of the trial of Joan of Arc, with the aid of Jean Bréhal. He did not assist at the hearing of the witnesses until 6 May. Departed from Rouen to go to Paris, he reformed there at the beginning of June the statutes of the University. On the 9th of the same month he decreed at Orléans indulgences for the observance of the annual feast of 8 May. Finally he went thence to preside over the assembly of Bourges held by the Gallican clergy for the observance of the Pragmatic. The Archbishop of Rouen having died in the meanwhile and the chapter being unable to agree upon the choice of his successor, the Pope transferred to Rouen the cardinal-bishop of Digne. Guillaume d’Estouteville returned a little time after to Rome, where he passed well-nigh all the rest of his life, and died dean of the cardinals in 1483. (Gallia christ., vol. XI, col. 90. — Mémoires of Jacques Duclercq, book I, ch. 26. — Lenglet du Fresnoy, Hist. de Jeanne d’Arc, vol. I, p. 270. — Denifle, Hist. univ. Paris, vol. V, p. 562.)\n(2) The manuscripts read effectu movebatur inordinate.\n(3) Jean de Luxembourg. See vol. I, p. 3.\n(4) The manuscripts read promisit — promised.\n(5) The manuscripts read assumere — to assume.\n(6) Guillaume de Bigars, lord of La Londe, was a Norman gentleman whose name appears often in the Chronicles of Charles VII. Despite the citation of the Cardinal, he did not depose in the information, nor did Guillaume Fortin, who is named after him.\n(7) There is some error in the statement of this date, for Jubilate being the third Sunday after Easter (30 April 1452), the following Thursday would be 4 May, and consequently the citation would be two days after the appearance of the witnesses. See below.\n(8) See vol. I, p. 399.\nthe territory and jurisdiction of his own, and that she was not of his diocese. And he knows that he proceeded against her even to the definitive sentence, as is contained in the trial, to which he refers himself.\nUpon the sixth article, he says that he never saw that the said Joan did anything heretical or anything which was against the catholic faith; nay, he saw that she asked for the sacrament of confession and to hear mass; yet concerning the things propounded against her, concerning the dress, the visions of Angels and Saints, etc., and the other things which are deduced in the trial, he refers himself to the experts.\nHe says nevertheless that the fame was that she was judged out of hatred and enmity and not for truth; and the same witness saw very many weeping at her condemnation; and at the end of her days she committed herself to God, the blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, with great devotion.\nUpon the seventh article, he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the eighth article, he says that concerning her answers it is established by the trial. He knows nevertheless that Master Jean De Fonte and two friars of the order of Preachers were, for six weeks before the pronouncing of the sentence, at the said Joan admonishing her that she should submit herself to the judgement of the Church, since, in the judgement of all, she seemed not to understand the affair of the Church herself. Which De Fonte indeed, for fear of the English and the threats wrought upon him, was compelled to flee away; but the other masters pursued their peace with labours.\nHe says moreover that Master Jean Lohier, at that time being in this city of Rouen, called to say his opinion upon the trial, seeing that it could not be safely judged by others, gave his vote that they proceeded not well, and departed, unwilling further to insist.\nUpon the ninth, he says that he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the tenth article, he refers himself to the law. He says nevertheless that, after she was condemned to revoke and assumed woman’s dress, she, content with this dress as it seemed (1), asked that women be given to be with her and that she be sent to the prisons of the Church and be detained by ecclesiastical men; and afterwards she assumed man’s dress, excusing herself that, if she had been sent to the prisons of the Church, she would not have assumed that man’s dress, and that, in woman’s dress, she had not dared to keep herself among the English guards.\nUpon the eleventh he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twelfth he says that, of the capture, trial, imprisonment, condemnation and execution so done, it is public voice and fame.\nItem he says that the speaker himself, as notary, wrote the answers and excuses of the said Joan; and it happened that two other writers were secretly hidden near by, who in their writing omitted all the excuses; and the judges wished that the speaker should write in his manner, which he did not.\nBrother Pierre Miget # The venerable and religious man Brother Pierre Miget (2), professor of sacred theology, prior of Longueville-Giffard, of the age of seventy years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on the said Tuesday, the second of the month of May.\nUpon the first article, he says the article is true and notorious.\nUpon the second article, he says that the said Joan was detained within the castle of Rouen.\nInterrogated of the causes of his knowledge, he says that he saw her drawn forth.\nUpon the third article, he says that, by the deduction of the trial, it sufficiently appears that the English proceeded rather from the tinder of hatred than from zeal of justice, and that they sought to prove her heretical that they might thereby defame the lord King of France; and, as he believes, this was their chiefest intention.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that the Bishop of Beauvais cherished the party of the English. And he heard say that the said Joan was harshly treated in the prisons and that she had irons both on her feet and on her hands; this nevertheless he saw not, although he saw her in the examination.\nHe says moreover that, unless she had been harmful to the English, she would never have been so treated or condemned, since they feared her more than a great army.\nUpon the fifth, he says that, of the competence of the judge, he refers himself to the law; yet he says that she was not born of the diocese of Beauvais.\nUpon the sixth, he says that in the same Joan he saw not nor knew anything which was against the faith, and that the greater part of those who saw her execution lamented her, saying that it had been proceeded against her out of the tinder of hatred and unjustly.\nUpon the seventh article, he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the eighth, he says that in the answers of the same Joan he knew nothing which was not catholic, besides those revelations which she said she had had from the Saints and had for saying (3); but he heard from her that she had heart to God, and that she was willing to obey God himself and the Church.\nUpon the ninth, he says that the judges took the occasion of condemning her as relapsed from this, that she had resumed man’s dress taken away from her.\nUpon the tenth, he says that he does not repute it heretical for a woman to wear man’s dress; nay it seems to him that he who would judge her heretical for that occasion alone should be punished with the punishment of retaliation.\nUpon the eleventh, he believes the article to be true.\nUpon the twelfth, he says that, upon the things deposed by him, it is public voice and fame.\nBrother Bardin de la Pierre (4) # Brother Bardin de la Pierre, of the order of Preaching Friars, of the age of fifty-five years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on Wednesday the third of May.\nUpon the first article, he says the article itself is true, for he saw her captured in the hands of the English.\nUpon the second article, he says the article itself is true, for he saw her in the prisons of the castle of Rouen, in a certain chamber dark enough, fettered and shackled sometimes.\nUpon the third, he says that, the trial and the other things which were done in the trial being seen, he himself believes and judges that the English themselves proceeded against her out of hatred and rancour, and sought nothing else save her death.\nItem he says that he himself was at the first sermon made by Master Guillaume Erard, who took for his theme: The branch cannot bear fruit unless it abide in the vine, saying that in France there had never been such a monster as then the same Joan was, who was a sorceress, a heretic, a schismatic, and that the King who cherished her was such, and that he would recover the realm by such a heretic woman. And therefore he believes that they were moved, among other things, for the sake of defaming the royal majesty.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that the Bishop of Beauvais held the party of the English; and he believes that the bishop himself, when he began the trial, ordered her to be kept in fetters, and the bishop himself deputed Englishmen to guard her, and the same bishop forbade that anyone should speak with her save by licence of himself or of the promoter called Benedicite (5).\nUpon the fifth article, he says that he himself heard that the said bishop borrowed the territory here; but she was captured in the territory of the bishop himself. Of the rest he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the sixth article, he says, for the first part of the article, that he believes that the said Joan was a good and true catholic, for the speaker himself was with her at the end of her days, among the flames, and she had always Jesus in her mouth, and said that she was not a heretic nor a schismatic, as was imputed to her in the libel delivered to her; and she supplicated the speaker that, when the fire should be kindled, the speaker should come down with the cross which he should show to her; which he so did. And afterwards, the speaker exclaiming, she cried out Jesus; whence the bystanders were provoked to tears.\nUpon the seventh article, he says that in the trial she said many things; and, when she spoke of the realm and the war, she seemed moved by the Holy Spirit; but when she spoke of her own person, she feigned many things; but he does not believe that those things which she said should condemn her as a heretic. Upon the residue he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the eighth, he says that the bishop himself sometimes interrogated her whether she was willing to submit herself to the Church; who answered: What is the Church? So far as concerns you, I am not willing to submit myself to your judgement, for you are my capital enemy. And then, after it had been told her by the speaker that a general Council was being celebrated in which very many prelates were assisting, even of her own party, she answered that she submitted herself to that Council. Which heard, it was said to the speaker himself by the bishop himself that he should hold his peace in the name of the devil (6). And further she complained that the bishop himself was unwilling that the things which they said for her excuse should be written; but the things which told against her he willed to be written. And she was interrogated whether she was willing to submit herself to the judgement of the Pope; who answered that she should be led to him and that she was content.\nUpon the ninth, he says that she was adjudged relapsed because she resumed man’s dress.\nUpon the tenth, he says that he would not judge any woman heretical from this, that she should don man’s dress. And further he says that, after she revoked, she donned woman’s dress and asked to be led to the prisons of the Church: which was not permitted to her. Nay, as he heard from the same Joan, she was tempted to violence by one of great authority; wherefore, that she might be the more agile to resist, she said she had resumed the man’s dress which had been cautiously left in the prison beside her. Item that, after the resumption of the said dress, he saw and heard the said bishop, with other Englishmen, exulting and saying openly to all, to the lord of Warwick and others: She is taken!\nUpon the eleventh article, he says that he believes as is contained in the article.\nUpon the twelfth, he says that of the capture, the sermon, the condemnation, the execution and the invocation of the name of Jesus, it was and is public voice.\nPierre Cusquel # Pierre Cusquel, citizen of Rouen, of the age of fifty-five years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on the said day.\nUpon the first article, he says that he saw the same Joan being led up in irons by the English.\nUpon the second, he says that he did not see her led to the prisons; but he saw her, twice or thrice, in a certain chamber of the castle of Rouen towards the back gate.\nUpon the third article, he says that he believes that the English sought to procure the same Joan to die, out of envy and displeasure at the good which she did. And further he believes that the English themselves were moved, among other things, that they might defame the lord King of France that he had a heretic woman and a sorceress. And he adds that, unless she had been against the English and in the army, such a trial would not have been made against her.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that the speaker himself, at the time of the trial, had great familiarity of entering the castle by favour of his master Master Jean Son, master of the works of the mint (7); and that, by permission of the guards, he twice entered the prison of the same Joan and saw her in iron fetters and bound with a long chain affixed to a certain beam; and in his own house was weighed a certain iron cage (8) in which it was said she was to be shut up; yet he did not see her enclosed in the said cage.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that he heard that the same Joan was captured in the diocese of Beauvais, and that therefore the bishop took up the trial against her (9). Upon the rest he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the sixth article, he says that, in the conscience of the said speaker, the same Joan was a good catholic, of a good and honourable life; and so the fame laboured, and all had compassion upon her.\nUpon the seventh he refers himself to the trial and the law.\nUpon the eighth he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the ninth article, he says that the people said that there was no other cause of her condemnation save the resumption of man’s dress, and that she had not worn\n(1) Or rather ut videbatur — as it seemed?\n(2) See vol. I, p. 6.\n(3) Gallicism, et l’avoir pour dit — and had it for saying.\n(4) This is the same who is called elsewhere Tsambardus de Petra.\n(5) Otherwise Jean d’Estivet.\n(6) Notre-Dame manuscript: quod taceret ex parte diaboli — that he should hold his peace on the part of the devil. This last reading better renders the French locution de par le diable.\n(7) Cunagii — of the mint.\n(8) Gabia — a cage.\n(9) The manuscripts read cepit — he took up.\nthat dress, nor was wearing it, save to this end that she should not please the esquires with whom she conversed; and that, once in the prisons, he asked her why she wore the said man’s dress; who answered as above.\nItem he says that he heard, on the day of the death of the said Joan, from Master Jean Tressart, secretary of the King of England, that one faithful Christian was dead, and that he believed her soul to be in the hands of God and all those adhering to her condemnation to be damned.\nUpon the tenth he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the eleventh he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twelfth, he says that of the aforesaid capture, imprisonment, condemnation and execution, it was and is public voice.\nBrother Martin Ladvenu # Brother Martin Ladvenu, of the order of Preaching Friars, of the age of fifty-five years.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes the article to contain the truth.\nUpon the second, he says that it contains the truth, for he saw her many times in the Castle of Rouen, under the guard of the English, fettered in the prisons.\nUpon the third, he believes the article to contain the truth in that form, and he believes that the English sought by the trial to defame the lord King of France, in that he retained a sorceress with him. And this he credibly believes from the end which followed.\nUpon the fourth, he says that the Bishop of Beauvais held the party of the English and that he was of the councillors of the king himself; and that the said Joan was detained in irons; but he knows not whether by order of the bishop himself. He believes nevertheless that, the trial pending, the said bishop deputed the guards over the same Joan.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that, upon the first part of the article, he refers himself to the law whether he was the competent judge or not; but he believes that they proceeded against her out of hatred more than charity; nor does he believe she would have been so judged had she held the party of the English or not been against them.\nUpon the sixth article, he says that he heard the same Joan many times petitioning and requiring concerning confession; whom he found always and at the end of her days faithful and devout. Item, the common fame held her for good and catholic.\nUpon the seventh article, he says that he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the eighth, he says that the said Joan was many times interrogated whether she would submit herself to the judgement of the Church; and she asked of the interrogators what the Church was; and, when it was answered to her that it was the Pope and the prelates presiding (1), she answered that she submitted herself to the judgement of the Supreme Pontiff, praying that she be led to him. Adding that the witness himself, by licence of the judges, before the sentence was given, heard the same Joan in confession and ministered to her the body of Christ, which she received most devoutly and with the most abundant tears, so that he knew not how to tell it.\nUpon the ninth article, he says that the resumption of the said man’s dress was one of the causes of her condemnation. As to the residue, he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the tenth article, he believes the article itself to contain the truth.\nUpon the eleventh, he believes the article to be true.\nUpon the twelfth, he says that of the premises deposed by him, it is public voice and fame.\nSo signed: Socius.\nDelegation of Master Philippe de la Rose in the place of the lord Cardinal then departing # Guillaume, by divine mercy Cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church of the title of Saint-Martin-in-Montibus, vulgarly named d’Estouteville, Legate of the apostolic See in the realm of France and all the provinces of Gaul, to our beloved Master Philippe de la Rose, treasurer of the church of Rouen (2), health in the Lord. Since, by reason of our departure from this city of Rouen, we cannot attend in our own person to the reception and examination of the witnesses to be produced on behalf of the promoter deputed in the business of inquisition begun by us in the same city, touching the process of faith formerly conducted against a certain Joan, vulgarly called the Maid, by a certain Bishop of Beauvais and the Sub-inquisitor of the faith, perversely and erroneously, as it is said: hence it is that we, sufficiently informed of your knowledge, skill, probity and diligence, by the series of these presents commit and depute you, in our place, to receive, swear and examine all and each witnesses whom the said promoter in this business of inquisition shall will to produce before you and the Inquisitor of the faith our co-judge, with power of citing, compelling and constraining such witnesses by ecclesiastical censure if it shall seem expedient. Given under our seal, in the year of the Lord 1452, on the sixth day of the month of May. So signed: Socius.\nRepetition of the information after the departure of the lord Cardinal # There follow the names, surnames and depositions of all and each witnesses produced on behalf of the venerable and discreet man Master Guillaume Prévosteau, licentiate in the laws, promoter in the cause deputed by the underwritten judges; before us Philippe de la Rose, treasurer of the church of Rouen, for this committed and deputed by letters by the most reverend father and lord in Christ the lord Guillaume, by divine mercy Cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church of the title of Saint-Martin-in-Montibus, etc., by reason of his departure from the said city of Rouen; and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, etc.; and by us the Treasurer and the Inquisitor, in the presence of the venerable men Master Jean de Gouys, doctor of the laws, canon of Rouen, and Brother Jacobus Calciator of the said order of Preachers, and of Socius Voles and Jean Dauvergne, priests, public notaries by apostolic and imperial authority and of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, diligently and severally received, sworn and examined, upon the articles of the said promoter given in this cause of faith before the aforesaid most reverend Father and us the Inquisitor, touching the process of faith formerly conducted by the Bishop of Beauvais and the Sub-inquisitor of the same faith against a certain Joan vulgarly named the Maid in the said city.\nAnd first follows the tenor of the said articles, which is this:\nAdding to the articles formerly produced in this cause of nullity and injustice of the trial and sentence made and given against a certain Joan vulgarly named the Maid, the Promoter deputed for this gives and exhibits the underwritten articles, upon which he petitions that the witnesses to be produced by him be examined by you, most reverend father in Christ, lord Legate and Commissioner, and you, venerable father Inquisitor of heresy.\nI. In the first place, that the said Joan, since she had been in aid of the most Christian King of France and in the army against the English, the English themselves persecuted and hated her with capital hatred, and thirsted for her death in every manner. And so it was, and is true.\nII. Item, since the said Joan inflicted many slaughters in war upon the said English, they vehemently feared her, and therefore sought by all exquisite ways in which they could to deliver her to death and that she should end her days nor be able to vex them more. And so it was, and is true.\nIII. Item, that, that they might seem to do this with some colour or palliation of justice, they brought her over to this city of Rouen, then abiding under the tyrannical dominion of the English; and against her, detained in the Castle in the prisons, they procured a certain pretended trial upon the cause of faith to be instituted by fear and impression. And so it was, and is true.\nIV. Item, that both the judges, confessors and consultants, and the promoter and others intervening in the said trial, through the most grievous threats and terrors wrought upon them by the English themselves, dared not have free judgement; but if they were unwilling to do all things at the fear and impression of the English, they were compelled to avoid grave perils, even of death. And so it was, and is true.\nV. Item, that the notaries writing in the said cause, from the same fear and threats wrought upon them by the said English, could not write according to the truth of the matter and as the said Joan truly spoke in her answers, nor make the acts. And so it was, and is true.\nVI. Item, that the notaries from the said fear were not permitted — nay, were expressly forbidden — to insert in the acts the words uttered by the same Joan which told for her excuse; nay rather they were compelled to omit them and constrained to insert certain things telling against her which she had never uttered. And so it was, and is true.\nVII. Item, that by reason of the same fears and terrors none was found who dared counsel the said Joan or promote anything for her in her cause, or excuse her, or instruct or direct her, or otherwise defend her; nay rather some who at times uttered certain words for her suffered the gravest peril of their life, since the said English wished to cast them, as rebels, into the river or to deliver them to other death. And so it was, and is true.\nVIII. Item, that they kept the said Joan in private or lay prisons in iron fetters and with chains; and that none should speak to her, that she might in no wise defend herself, they forbade, English guards even being set. And so it was, and is true.\nIX. Item, that the said Joan was a girl of the age of nineteen years or thereabouts, simple, ignorant of the law and of the rite of judgements, nor of herself, without a director or instructor, was she apt or able to defend herself in so grave and difficult a cause. And so it was, and is true.\nX. Item, that the said English, thirsting for her death, went by night beside the prisons, feigning to speak revelations and exhorting her that, if she wished to escape death, she should in no wise submit herself to the judgement of the Church. And so it was, and is true.\nXI. Item, that the examiners, that they might catch her in speech, assailed her with difficult and involved interrogations and questions, and for the most part interrogated her of those things of which she was wholly ignorant what they were. And so it was, and is true.\nXII. Item, that they wearied her long with interrogations and examinations, that, at least affected by tedium, in that multitude of words they might intercept some sinister word from her. And so it was, and is true.\nXIII. Item, that oftener in the judgement or outside, in her answers the same Joan said, asserted and protested that she would hold nothing against the catholic faith; and if aught were in her sayings or deeds which deviated from the faith, she was willing to repel it from herself and to stand to the judgement of the clergy. And so it was, and is true.\nXIV. Item, that likewise the said Joan, both in the judgement and outside, many times professed that she submitted herself and all her deeds to the judgement of the Church and of our lord the Pope; and so it was, and is true; and that she would be ill content if aught were in her which impugned the Christian faith.\nXV. Item, that the said words of submission to the Church the said English and those favouring them, although uttered by her oftener both in the judgement and outside, permitted not — nay, forbade — to be inserted or written in the acts or the pretended trial; and procured them to be written otherwise therein, albeit falsely. And so it was, and is true.\nXVI. Item, that it was and is beside and without this, that never (3) did the same Joan assert that she was unwilling to be subject to the judgement of holy mother Church, even the militant. And so it was, and is true.\nXVII. Item, and in the case and event in which it could be established that the said Joan uttered words of not submitting herself to the Church, the same Promoter says that she in no wise understood what the Church was, nor did she affirm that word for the congregation of the faithful; but she believed and understood that that Church of which the interrogators spoke was those ecclesiastics who were there, favouring the party of the English.\nXVIII. Item, that the said pretended trial, originally first written in French, was the less faithfully\n(1) The manuscripts bear here an abbreviation misread by the clerks: colum. The first deposition of Guillaume Manchon, reported above, p. 13, says: The Pope and the prelates who preside in the Church militant.\n(2) Philippe de la Rose, treasurer of the cathedral of Rouen. A few months later he failed in the pursuit of the archiepiscopal see, to which a part of the chapter called him in competition with Richard de Longueil, the Pope, to make the contest cease, having transferred the Cardinal d’Estouteville to the church of Rouen. It is seen by the registers of the Exchequer that Philippe de la Rose was commissioned by the king to hold the assizes of that tribunal in 1451. (Gallia christ., vol. XI, col. 813. — Delaroque, Hist. de la maison d’Harcourt, vol. III, p. 322.)\n(3) Nunquam — never.\ntranslated into Latin, many things touching the excuse of the said Joan being cut away, and very many things added against the truth aggravating her deed; and so the said trial is found to differ from its original in many and substantial things. And so it was, and is true.\nXIX. Item, that, the premises weighed, the said pretended trial and sentence would not deserve the name of judgement and sentence, since it cannot be called a judgement where the judges, counsellors and assessors have not, for fear, free arbitrament of judging. And so it was, and is true.\nXX. Item, that, from the premises, the said pretended trial is in very many of its parts mendacious, vitiated, corrupt, not perfectly nor faithfully written; and otherwise vicious, so that no faith at all should be given to it. And so it was, and is true.\nXXI. Item, that, the premises and others weighed, the asserted trial and sentence are null and most unjust, since, no due order of law being kept, they are found to have been held and made by judges not theirs nor having jurisdiction in this cause and person. And so it was, and is true.\nXXII. Item, that from another thing also the said trial and sentence are subject to nullity and manifest injustice, since to the same Joan no faculty of defending herself was given in so grave a cause; nay, the defence itself which is of natural law was wholly denied her by many and exquisite ways. And so it was, and is true.\nXXIII. Item, that, although it was established to the said asserted judges that the aforesaid Joan had submitted herself to the judgement and determination of holy mother Church and was faithful and catholic, and that they decreed the communion of the Lord’s body should be given to her as such: nevertheless, too much favouring the English or unable to endure their terrors and impressions, they most unjustly condemned her as a heretic to the punishment of fire. And so it was, and is true.\nXXIV. Item, that, without any other sentence of a secular judge, in fact, the said English with a very great throng of armed men, raging upon her with a certain rabidness, led her to the punishment. And so it was, and is true.\nXXV. Item, that the said Joan bore herself continually, and especially at the time of her end, in catholic and holy wise, recommitting her soul to God and acclaiming Jesus in a loud voice even to the last breath of life; so that she drew all the bystanders, even the English enemies, to a pouring forth of tears. And so it was, and is true.\nXXVI. Item, that all and each the premises the said English, in fact and not juridically, through the said impressions, attempted or procured to be done against the said Joan, since they vehemently feared the said Joan sustaining the parts of the most Christian King of France and hated and persecuted her with capital hatred; and also that thereby they might defame the said most Christian king, that he used the aid of a woman so condemned. And so it was, and is true.\nXXVII. Item, that of all and each the premises it was and is public voice and fame, vulgar assertion, common saying and notorious in the city and diocese of Rouen and in the whole realm of France. And so it was, and is true.\nThe aforesaid articles the same Promoter gives, exhibits and produces to all the better ends and effects whereto he knows and ought, saving the right of adding, correcting, etc., and of giving, in their place and time, other longer articles as the merits of the cause shall require. And he protests, etc., as was and is the custom.\nThen follows the tenor of the attestations of the witnesses produced and examined upon the forewritten articles.\nThe lord Nicolas Taquel # The discreet man the lord Nicolas Taquel, priest, rector or curate of the parish church of Basqueville in the diocese of Rouen, of the age of fifty-two years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on Monday the eighth of the month of May.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes the contents of the article, not only of her but also of all holding the party of our lord the King.\nUpon the second, he says that he believes as above, and that the vulgar fame of the city was such.\nUpon the third article, he says that, about the middle of the trial, he was called by the two notaries of the trial to assist with them, and that he saw the same Joan in the prisons of the castle of Rouen in a certain tower towards the fields. And the trial was made at the expense of the King of England, as was said (1); but of the fear and impression of which mention is made in the article, he perceived nothing.\nUpon the fourth, he says that he neither saw nor perceived the impression or threats or terrors of which mention is made in the same article.\nUpon the fifth, he says that he perceived not, as above; nay, it seems to him that the notaries wrote faithfully.\nUpon the sixth article he says that he perceived no fear, nor saw the prohibitions or compulsions of which mention is made in the article.\nUpon the seventh, he says that he does not remember that he petitioned or had counsel or that it was offered to him, for he was not in the trial from the beginning (2). Nor does he know aught else of the residue of the article.\nUpon the eighth, he says that he well knows that the said Joan was in prisons as above; and he saw her sometimes in fetters, and sometimes notwithstanding her infirmity not; and that there was one Englishman who had the guard of the door of the chamber and the prison, without whose licence none could approach her, nor even the judges.\nUpon the ninth, he says that it well seems to him that the said Joan was of the age of nineteen years or thereabouts, from inspection of her; and that she was simple as a woman of such age, sometimes speaking well in the matter and sometimes varying and not answering the things asked. Nor does he know aught else.\nUpon the tenth, he says that he well heard through the town that the English by night, in the absence of the judges, troubled her, saying sometimes that she would die, sometimes that she would be dispatched; but whether it be true, he knows not.\nUpon the eleventh, he says that he was present when some of the judges made her interrogations difficult enough; to which she answered that it belonged not to her to answer and that she referred herself to them. And some of the doctors assisting sometimes said to her: Ye say well, Joan.\nUpon the twelfth, he says that the same Joan, sometimes wearied by many interrogations, asked for a delay until the morrow; and it was granted her. Upon the residue he knows nothing.\nUpon the thirteenth, he says that he heard many times from the same Joan the contents of the article, and that she would say or do nothing against the faith. And he believes this is written in the trial.\nUpon the fourteenth, he says that he believes he heard from the said Joan, in effect, the words contained in that article.\nUpon the fifteenth, he says that he does not remember having seen any Englishman in the examination of the said Joan save the said guard; nor does he remember any prohibition made upon the things which made for the trial, although some things were forbidden to be written which, in the judgement of the speaker, did not make for the cause.\nUpon the sixteenth, he says that he knows not that those words of the sixteenth article were inserted in the trial, nor does he remember the said Joan to have said in the whole trial that she was unwilling to be subject to the judgement of the Church, although he saw her sometimes perturbed; and then, as the speaker says, the doctors who were assisting there directed her; and she was dismissed sometimes until the following morrow.\nUpon the seventeenth article, he says that sometimes it was expounded by the doctors to the said Joan what the Church was; and then she said that she believed and submitted herself to the judgement of the Church. Nor does he know aught else of the contents of the article.\nUpon the eighteenth article, he says that he believes that the notaries wrote faithfully, sometimes in French, sometimes in Latin, according as the matter and the words required. And of the translation, he heard that Master Thomas de Courcelles was charged with translating the trial from French into Latin; but whether aught was changed, added or diminished, he knows not.\nUpon the nineteenth article, he says that he has deposed above whatsoever he knows; and of the residue he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twentieth, he says as above.\nUpon the twenty-first, he says that the trial holds that the said Joan was captured in the diocese and territory of Beauvais. Of the residue he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twenty-second, he answered as above in the seventh article.\nUpon the twenty-third, he says that he was not present at the reception of the body of Christ, but it was notorious that the same Joan, before her death, on the same day received the body of Christ; and the speaker came after the reception into the chamber where the interrogations were made.\nItem, he says that he never perceived in the same Joan aught save that she was a good catholic; and licence was given to the same Joan to receive the body of Christ, the speaker himself being present, although he was not present at the receiving. And after it was told her, a little before she came to the place of the said punishment, she made fair and devout prayers to God, the blessed Mary and the Saints, whence very many present were provoked to tears, and especially Master Nicolas Loyseleur, the promoter in the cause (3); who, when he departed weeping from the company of the said Joan and met a certain crowd of Englishmen being in the court of the castle, they rebuked the same Loyseleur, menacing him and calling him traitor; of which words he much feared, and, without turning to other things, went to the lord Count of Warwick that he might be preserved; and, had it not been for the count himself, the speaker believes the said Loyseleur would have been slain.\nUpon the twenty-fourth, he says that, the sentence of the Church being given, the ecclesiastical men departed from the place where such sentence was given; and the speaker also departed. And he knows nothing else.\nUpon the twenty-fifth, he says that he was not present when she suffered the punishment; but he heard that the same Joan died piously and catholically, invoking the name of Jesus and of the blessed Virgin Mary.\nUpon the twenty-sixth, he says that he well believes that, had the said Joan not waged war upon the English, they would not have proceeded so diligently and keenly against her; and withal he believes that they tended to the exaltation of their own party and the depression of the King of France.\nUpon the twenty-seventh, he says that the things he said are true, and of them it is public voice and fame in the city of Rouen.\nThe lord Pierre Bouchier # The lord Pierre Bouchier, priest, of the age of fifty-five years or thereabouts, curate of the parish church of Bourgeauville in the diocese of Lisieux, witness produced, received, sworn and examined on the aforesaid Monday.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes the first article to contain the truth, especially because she had raised the siege of Orléans.\nUpon the second, he says that the English held the same Joan, and he believes that they well wished her to die.\nUpon the third article, he says that she was led and brought over as is contained in the article. Of the impressions and other things contained in the article he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that of the whole article he knows nothing, save that a certain English clerk, bachelor in theology, keeper of the privy seal of the Cardinal of England (4) there present, being in the first sermon made in the cemetery of Saint-Ouen of Rouen, directing his words to the lord Bishop of Beauvais, the judge of the said Joan, said: Dispatch; ye are too favourable. Whereat the bishop himself, ill content, cast the trial to the earth, saying that that day he would do nothing else and that he would act according to his conscience.\nUpon the fifth he knows nothing, for he was not present at the deduction of the trial.\n(1) See, among the pieces which follow the trial, the mandates delivered to the judges and assessors upon the treasure of the King of England.\n(2) Having been instituted registrar for the account of the vice-inquisitor, he was in effect only admitted into the cause from 1 March 1431. See vol. I, p. 149.\n(3) Error of the witness; he was but the director of Joan.\n(4) Winchester.\nUpon the sixth he knows nothing, for he was not present.\nUpon the seventh he likewise knows nothing, save that she was alone, sitting upon a certain seat, and he heard that she answered without counsel; yet he knows not whether she asked or counsel was denied her. Nor does he know aught else upon that article.\nUpon the eighth article, he says that he well knows she was in the prisons in the Castle of Rouen; but knows not whether she was fettered; nor did anyone speak with her save by licence of certain Englishmen who had the guard of her. And he did not see her go out of the prison but that certain Englishmen were with her, whom he believes were shut up (1) with her in a certain chamber in which there were three keys, whereof the lord Cardinal or the aforesaid bachelor kept one, the Inquisitor another, and the lord Jean Benedicte the promoter the third; and the English themselves feared exceedingly lest she should escape.\nUpon the ninth he says that, in the judgement of the speaker, she was of the age of nineteen years or thereabouts, and that it was said she was discreet enough in her answers. Nor does he know aught else.\nUpon the tenth he knows nothing, nor heard aught upon this.\nUpon the eleventh and twelfth he knows nothing, for he was not present at the examination and answers of the same.\nUpon the thirteenth, he says that he was not present in the trial; but after the sermon made at Saint-Ouen, with joined hands she said in a loud voice that she submitted herself to the judgement of the Church, beseeching Saint Michael that he would direct and counsel her.\nUpon the fourteenth, he says he did not see this; but he heard from very many that the same Joan in her examination many times said she submitted herself to our lord the Pope and that she should be led to him.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles he knows nothing, for he was not present in the trial.\nUpon the seventeenth he says that, of the interpretation which the lord Promoter makes, he refers himself to the understanding of the said Joan.\nUpon the eighteenth, he says that he heard it said that the trial was written in Latin.\nUpon the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first articles he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twenty-second, he says that he knows nothing else save that he heard the same Joan answered alone and without counsel.\nUpon the twenty-third he says that, as much as he saw the said Joan, he knew her always a good Christian and well devout. And he knows that the body of Christ was delivered to her in the Castle, in the place of her prison, before she was led to the Old Market where she was preached to and burned. Of the residue he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the twenty-fourth he says that, the sentence being given by the ecclesiastical judge, she was led to the scaffold of the Bailiff by the royal servants; on which scaffold were the Bailiff (2) and other secular officers; where she stood a while with them; but what they said or did there he knows not, save that on their withdrawal she was delivered to the fire.\nUpon the twenty-fifth he says that, when she was being bound, the same Joan implored or invoked Saint Michael especially. And he saw her even to the end a good Christian, and very many of the bystanders, to the number of ten thousand, weeping and lamenting, saying that it was a great pity.\nUpon the twenty-sixth, he says that he believes the English feared the same Joan more than the residue of the whole army of the King of France, and that in that view they were moved, as it seems to him, to make such a trial against her.\nUpon the twenty-seventh, he says that the things he deposed are true and notorious, most of all in the city of Rouen.\nMaster Nicolas de Houppeville # The venerable and discreet man Master Nicolas de Houppeville, bachelor in theology, born at Rouen, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts (3), sworn and examined on Monday the eighth of May.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes the article to be true; nor did he ever have the opinion that the English did this for zeal of the faith or to reduce her to a good way.\nUpon the second, he says that he believes the article to be true, and the public fame of the whole city was such.\nUpon the third article, he says that he well knows that the same Joan was brought to this city of Rouen by the English and placed in the prisons in the castle of Rouen; and the trial was procured by the same English, as he believes; but of the fear and impression he does not believe as regards the judges; nay, they did this willingly, most of all the Bishop of Beauvais, whom he saw return from seeking her and reporting his legation to the king and the lord of Warwick, saying joyfully and exultingly certain words which he did not understand; and afterwards he spoke in secret with the said lord of Warwick. What he said, he knows not.\nUpon the fourth he says that, in his judgement, the judges and assessors were for the greater part willing; and of the others he believes that very many feared, most of all because he heard from Master Pierre Maugier that he had given his opinion in writing which was not pleasing to the said Bishop of Beauvais, nay was repulsed, the bishop saying to him that he should not mix the Decretals with theology in his opinion and should leave the Decretals to the jurists. Moreover he says that he heard that threats were wrought by the Count of Warwick upon Brother Isambard de la Pierre, of the order of Preaching Friars, who was present in the trial, saying that he should be drowned unless he held his peace, because he directed words to the said Joan, then repeating them to the notaries; and he believes he heard this by the mouth of Brother Jean Magistri of the said order, then Sub-inquisitor. Item, he says that the speaker himself was called on one day in the beginning of the trial and came not, being hindered elsewhere; and coming on the second day he was not received, nay was thrust away by the said lord Bishop of Beauvais; and because he had before said, conferring with the lord Michael Colles, that it was dangerous to attempt the said trial for very many causes: that word was reported to the bishop himself; for which cause the bishop himself procured the speaker to be thrust into the royal prisons at Rouen, whence he was delivered at the prayers of the lord then Abbot of Fécamp. And the speaker heard that by the counsel of certain ones whom the bishop himself had called to do this, it was deliberated that the speaker should be sent an exile into England or elsewhere out of this city of Rouen, had not the supplication of the said abbot and of certain of his friends intervened. Item, he knows for certain that the aforesaid Sub-inquisitor feared much, and saw him most perplexed during the trial.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that he was not in the trial; but he heard from the said Master Jean Magistri that the same Joan once complained of the difficult interrogatories which were put to her, and that she was too much vexed by interrogatories which pertained not to the trial.\nUpon the sixth article, he says that he heard, from a certain rumour, that the notaries were forbidden to write certain of her sayings.\nUpon the seventh, he says that he believes the article itself to be true and that such was the fame in this city of Rouen.\nUpon the eighth, he says that he knows that the said Joan was in the prisons of the castle and that she was guarded by Englishmen only. And upon the residue, there was public fame.\nUpon the ninth, he says that he believes the same Joan to have had the age of which mention is made in the article, and the other things contained in the same article to be true; and that the councillors of the same Joan accused many that she had had a spiritual succour.\nUpon the tenth article, he says that there were rumours in this city of Rouen that certain ones, feigning themselves armed men of the party of the King of France, were brought in with her secretly, persuading her that she should not submit herself to the judgement of the Church, else they would assume the judgement upon her; and there were rumours that, by reason of that persuasion, the same Joan afterwards varied in the submission to the Church.\nUpon the eleventh, as he deposed above, he says that he heard from the said Brother Jean Magistri that she complained of the too difficult and impertinent interrogatories.\nUpon the twelfth, he believes the article itself to be true, for such was the fame and it was reported that there were made to her broken, captious and semi-interrogatory questions.\nUpon the thirteenth, he says that there was rumour in this city of Rouen of the contents of the article, down to the variation of which he deposed above.\nUpon the fourteenth, he says that he believes the article to be true, and such was the rumour.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the seventeenth, he says as he deposed above in the tenth article.\nUpon the eighteenth article, he says that he knows not whether the trial was written in French or in Latin; nor does he know aught else.\nUpon the nineteenth, he says that, according to his sense as he then felt and still feels, it should rather be called a voluntary and affected persecution than a judgement.\nUpon the twentieth, he says that he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the twenty-first article, he says as he deposed above in the nineteenth article.\nUpon the twenty-second, he says that he believes the article itself to be true.\nUpon the twenty-third, he says that he believes the same Joan to have been a good catholic, and she received the body of our Lord on the morning on which she was executed. And the residue of the article he believes to be true.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that he saw the same Joan, weeping exceedingly, go out of the Castle led to the place of punishment and of the last sermon by a hundred and twenty men or thereabouts, of whom some bore clubs and others other swords; whence, moved by compassion, he was unwilling to go as far as the place of punishment.\nUpon the twenty-fifth article, he says the article itself is true, according to the rumour and public fame of this city of Rouen; but of himself he heard nothing from her, for he was not at the execution.\nUpon the twenty-sixth article, he says that he believes the article to contain the truth; and such was the fame in this city of Rouen, to wit that the English themselves proceeded out of hatred and fear, and also to defame the King of France.\nUpon the twenty-seventh article, he says that it contains the truth, even no one gainsaying it.\nThe lord Jean Massieu # The lord Jean Massieu, priest, of the age of fifty-five years, curate for one portion of the parish church of Saint-Candidus-the-Elder (4) of Rouen, sworn and examined on the aforesaid Monday.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes the article to contain the truth.\nUpon the second article, he says that he also believes the article itself to be true; and this was plain enough, since for her guard there were five Englishmen by day and by night, of whom three were shut in with her by night, and by day (5) there were two outside the prison.\nUpon the third, he says that the said Joan was captured in the diocese of Beauvais and brought to this city of Rouen and placed in the Castle of Rouen in the prison; but, as to the fear and impression, he says that Master Jean de Castillon, then archdeacon of Évreux, doctor in theology, sometimes finding that too difficult questions had been put to the same Joan, impugned the manner of proceeding, saying that it ought not so to be proceeded in the matter. On whose account it was many times said to him by others assisting in the trial that he broke them; and he answered: I must acquit my conscience; for which cause it was forbidden him, but by whom he does not recall, lest he should come there any more unless summoned (6).\n(1) The manuscripts read inclusa — shut in.\n(2) Jean le Bouteiller, then bailiff of Rouen and of Gisors. (Düsoüillet, Hist. de Rouen, vol. I, p. 421.)\n(3) Notre-Dame manuscript: of the diocese of Rouen, of the age of fifty-nine, etc.\n(4) Saint-Cande-le-Vieux, a parish which belonged to the bishopric of Lisieux although situated at Rouen.\n(5) Manuscript 5970 reads de nocte — by night.\n(6) The manuscripts read nisi, in full letters, with an abbreviation over the n.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that, at the time of the trial of the said Joan, the speaker himself was dean of Christianity of Rouen and conducted the said Joan from the prison to the examination and from the examination to the prison, and stood always in her examination; and there was none of those assisting the trial but feared, he being moved to say this because when, after the first sermon, on a certain day of Holy Trinity in the afternoon, the same Joan had resumed man’s dress, and this was told to Master André Marguerie then coming to the Castle of Rouen, and Marguerie himself answered that it was needful to know the causes of the resumption of that dress and that it did not suffice to see her in the said dress: forthwith a certain Englishman holding a spear in his hand called the same Marguerie traitor Armagnac! levelling the spear he held against him; wherefore the said Marguerie fled away, fearing lest he should be struck; on which occasion he was infirm or much troubled. And, of the fear of the speaker, he says that when, about the beginning of the trial, it had been reported on behalf of the lord Eustache Turquetil to certain ones of the Castle of Rouen that the same Turquetil had heard from the speaker, whom he said he had interrogated upon this, that he had not yet seen in the same Joan aught save good and knew nothing reprehensible in her: for this the speaker himself was summoned by the lord Bishop of Beauvais, who most harshly rebuked the speaker himself for the said words, saying to him that, were it not for his friends, he should have been cast into the Seine. And further he says that those handling the said trial were compelled rather to please the will of the English than justice; and that the doctors who heard the trial favoured the English.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that, in the said trial, the lord Guillaume Manchon wrote; and he recalls that the same Manchon wrote not at the pleasure of certain ones, nay he wrote for the truth; and sometimes it happened that the same Joan was recalled upon a difficulty and it was found that Manchon understood and wrote well.\nUpon the sixth article, he says that he believes the notary wrote faithfully.\nUpon the seventh article, he says that the speaker himself was on the scaffold in the first sermon with the said Joan; and he read to her the schedule of abjuration; and, when the speaker himself, at the petition and request of the said Joan, instructed her, showing her the peril which threatened her from the abjuration unless the articles themselves were first seen by the Church whether she ought to abjure them or not: Master Guillaume Erard the preacher, seeing this, interrogated the speaker as to what he was saying to her; and when he had answered him: I am reading this schedule to her, and I say that she should sign it, and that the same Joan said she knew not how to sign: then the same Joan said that she wished the articles to be seen and deliberated by the Church and that she ought not to abjure that schedule, requiring that it be placed in the keeping of the Church and no more be placed in the hands of the English. Forthwith the said Erard answered that the same Joan should have no ampler delay, and that, unless she then abjured the said schedule, she should presently be burned; and the same Erard forbade the said speaker lest he speak further with the said Joan or counsel her aught.\nUpon the eighth article, he deposes simply that the whole article is true. And of the guard he has already deposed above.\nUpon the ninth article, he says that, in the judgement of the speaker, she was of the age of nineteen or twenty years; and that in gesture very simple, but in answers discreet and prudent.\nUpon the tenth article, he says that he knows not of certain knowledge to depose upon this; but he heard that Master Nicolas Loyseleur, feigning himself a French prisoner of the English, at one time secretly entered the prison of the said Joan and persuaded her that she should not submit herself to the judgement of the Church, else she would find herself deceived.\nUpon the eleventh article, he says that he well recalls that broken interrogatories were frequently put to the same Joan; and difficult interrogatories ran together from very many; and, before she had answered one, another made her another interrogation, whence she was ill content, saying: Let one do it after another. And the speaker marvelled how she could answer the subtle and captious interrogations made her; and that a lettered man would scarce have answered well.\nUpon the twelfth, he says the article is true; and her examination lasted commonly from the eighth hour until the eleventh hour.\nUpon the thirteenth, he says the article is true, for he heard many times from the mouth of the same Joan that God would never permit her to say or do aught which was against the catholic faith.\nUpon the fourteenth article, he deposes the article itself to be true in form; of certain knowledge adding that he heard the same Joan saying to the judges that, if aught had been less well said or done by her, she was willing to correct and emend it at the arbitrament of the lords judges.\nUpon the fifteenth article he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the sixteenth article, he says that he never heard the contents of the article from the mouth of the said Joan, nay the contrary, as he said above.\nUpon the seventeenth, he says that he well heard the said Joan saying to the doctors interrogating her: Ye interrogate me of the Church triumphant and militant; I understand not those terms; but I will to submit myself to the Church as befits a good Christian.\nUpon the eighteenth, he says that he saw the trial written in French, and believes the whole trial was afterwards written in Latin. Of the other contents of the article he knows not.\nUpon the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first, he says that, according as he saw and knew of and in the said Joan, she was unjustly condemned; moved to say this because, as he heard from the said Joan, on the day of Holy Trinity in the morning, the same Joan lying in bed, her guards took away the woman’s dress from her bed and set upon the bed such man’s dress; and that, although she had required of the said guards that the said woman’s dress be restored to her that she might rise from the bed and relieve herself, they refused to give it to her, saying to her that she should have none other than the said man’s dress; and, when she said to them that they well knew that the judges had forbidden the same Joan to resume man’s dress, they nevertheless refused to give the same Joan that woman’s dress; and at last, compelled by necessity, she took that man’s dress; and, after she had been seen in that resumption of dress through the said whole day, on the morrow the woman’s dress was restored to her. And the resumption of the said dress was the principal cause for which she was adjudged relapsed and condemned.\nUpon the twenty-second, he says that, from the beginning of the trial, the same Joan asked to have counsel to answer, saying that she was simple to answer; to whom it was answered that she should answer by herself, as she willed, and that she should have no counsel.\nUpon the twenty-third article, he says that he well knows that the said Joan received the Lord’s body in the prison before her sermon and her abandonment, by the hands of Brother Martin Ladvenu, by licence of the Bishop of Beauvais and the Sub-inquisitor, at the instance of the said Joan asking this; and the body itself was brought by a certain lord Pierre, most irreverently, upon the paten of the chalice, wrapped in the linen cover of that chalice, without light and without company and without surplice and stole. He says further that the said Joan, after a twofold confession made to the same Brother Martin, received the Lord’s body itself, the speaker present, most devoutly and with a great pouring forth of tears.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that, the sermon of Master Nicolas Midi in the Old Market being finished, the said Joan was abandoned by the ecclesiastical men. Who having departed, she was led, without sentence of any secular judge, to the place of punishment.\nUpon the twenty-fifth, he says that the said article contains the truth wholly; nor did he ever see any person end her days so catholically.\nUpon the twenty-sixth article, he says that he believes it was so proceeded against the said Joan from the causes contained in the article, and that the preacher who made the first sermon spoke of the realm of France in this manner, in effect: O realm of France! of old thou wast reputed and called most Christian, and thy kings and princes most Christian; now verily through thee, O Joan! and thy king, who calls himself King of France, adhering to thee and believing thy sayings, is made heretic and schismatic! this repeating in a threefold voice. To whom the same Joan, rising, answered, saying: Your reverence saving, it is not true as ye say, for I will ye to know that among the living most Christians there is none a better catholic than he.\nUpon the twenty-seventh, he says that the things he deposed were and are notorious in this city of Rouen.\nMaster Nicolas Caval # The venerable and discreet man Master Nicolas Caval, priest, licentiate in the laws, canon of Rouen, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on the aforesaid Monday.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes the English had no great affection towards the same Joan.\nUpon the second, he says that he well believes the contents of the article.\nUpon the third, he says that the common fame was that the said Joan was in the prisons in the castle of Rouen and that a trial was made in the cause of faith against her; but of the residue of the article he knows not what to say.\nUpon the fourth, he knows nothing.\nUpon the fifth, he says that upon it he knows naught to depose.\nUpon the sixth, he says that he believes the notaries wrote faithfully and without fear.\nUpon the seventh, he knows nothing.\nUpon the eighth, he says that the said Joan was in the prisons in the Castle of Rouen. Of the rest he knows nothing.\nUpon the ninth, he says that it seems to him she was well young; and of her answers he says that, when he once heard her in the full hall (1), she spoke prudently enough.\nUpon the tenth article, he says that he knows nothing, nor heard aught upon this.\nUpon the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth, he knows nothing.\nUpon the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first, he refers himself to the law and the trial.\nUpon the twenty-second, he knows nothing.\nUpon the twenty-third, he says that he well knows she was burned; whether justly or unjustly, he refers himself to the law and the trial.\nUpon the twenty-fourth, he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the twenty-fifth, he says that he was not present at the condemnation nor at the execution, nor saw the crowd of the English; he heard nevertheless from certain ones that she cried and invoked the name of Jesus at the end of her days and that she moved very many to tears.\nUpon the twenty-sixth, he says that he well believes the English feared her before they should capture her; but whether for those causes contained in the article they proceeded against her, he is ignorant.\nUpon the twenty-seventh, he says that he has deposed above whatsoever he knows.\nMaster Guillaume de Deserto # The venerable and discreet man Master Guillaume de Deserto, canon of Rouen, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on the eighth day of the month of May.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes it credible that, had she held the party of the English as she made for the party of the French, she would not have been so treated as she was.\nUpon the second, he says that it seems to him the English were somewhat terrified by her deeds; but whether therefore they tended to slay her, he knows not.\nUpon the third, he says that he saw her once in the Castle of Rouen, only to see her; whom he saw while she was being brought before the judges. And it was fame that she was detained in the prisons in the said Castle. Of the fear verily and impression he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth, fifth and sixth, he says he knows nothing, for he was not present.\nUpon the seventh and eighth articles he likewise knows nothing, nor saw her in the prison; yet he heard that she was guarded by the English.\nUpon the ninth, he says that the same Joan was young, of the age of eighteen or nineteen years or thereabouts; and it was said that she answered prudently and cautiously (2).\nUpon the eleventh, he knows nothing, nor heard aught upon this.\nUpon the twelfth, he knows nothing, for he was not present.\nUpon the thirteenth and fourteenth articles, he says that he was present at the first sermon made in Saint-Ouen of Rouen; in which he saw and heard the abjuration made by the said Joan, submitting herself to the determination, judgement and mandates of the Church. He says further that a certain English doctor, present in the said sermon and ill content with the reception of the abjuration of the said Joan, because she pronounced certain words of the said abjuration laughingly, said to the Bishop of Beauvais, then judge, that he did ill in admitting the said abjuration and that it was a mockery. To whom the aforesaid bishop answered wrathfully that he lied, for, since he was judge in a cause of faith, he should rather seek her salvation than her death.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that in the said sermon he heard from the same Joan that she submitted herself to the judgement of the Church. Whether it was forbidden the notaries to put that submission into writing, the speaker knows not.\nUpon the seventeenth article, he says that he refers himself to the intention of the said Joan.\nUpon the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first, he says that he knows nothing of the trial, for he was not present.\nUpon the twenty-second, he says that he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the twenty-third, he says that, in the two sermons in which he saw her, he knew her, by her manner and gestures, a catholic, invoking God and the saints. Of the communion of the body of Christ he knows nothing.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that the place of punishment was prepared before the sermon; and, the sermon made, the same Joan was abandoned by the ecclesiastical judges and forthwith taken; but whether she was led straightway to the punishment or to the Bailiff and the other royal officers who were on a certain scaffold, the speaker knows not.\nUpon the twenty-fifth, he says the article itself is true in form.\nUpon the twenty-sixth, he says that he well believes the English hated and feared her; but whether for this they were moved to make such trial against her, he knows not; he believes nevertheless that they did this by reason of the things she did in arms.\nUpon the twenty-seventh article, he says that the things he deposed are true.\nThe lord Guillaume Manchon # The discreet man the lord Guillaume Manchon, priest, curate of the parish church of Saint-Nicolas-le-Peintre (3) of Rouen, of the age of fifty-seven years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on the said eighth day of the month of May.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes the article to be true.\nUpon the second, he believes the article itself also to be true.\nUpon the third article, he says that the same Joan was brought to this city of Rouen and placed in the Castle of Rouen in the prisons, and the trial against her was made in the cause of faith by the Bishop of Beauvais and the Sub-inquisitor. In which trial the speaker himself was notary by compulsion of the Great Council of the King of England, nor would he have dared to contradict the precept of the lords of that Council. Item, he says that the Bishop of Beauvais himself was not pressed to conduct the trial against the said Joan; nay, he did this willingly; and the Inquisitor was summoned, who would not have dared to contradict. And the English prosecuted the trial itself, which was conducted at the expense of the English themselves.\nUpon the fourth article, he says, of the promoter, that he was not compelled, nay he proceeded willingly; and of the judges he has already deposed. Of the assessors and doctors, he says that they were called and would not have dared to contradict and come. Of the residue he refers himself to their conscience.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that, through the great space of that trial, when the speaker himself was writing, there were two other writers hidden near a window; and, dinner made, when there was reading and collation in the presence of certain doctors in the house of the Bishop of Beauvais of the speaker’s writing done in the morning, it was said to the speaker himself that it had been written otherwise by others, inducing him that he should write after the manner of the others. To whom the speaker answered that he had written faithfully and that he would change nothing, as indeed he changed not, nay wrote faithfully. And he recalls that in the words concerning which there was controversy between him and the said writers, the speaker himself made a note, and, on the morrow, the said Joan, interrogated again upon the doubtful points, confirmed the writing of the speaker, as will be able to be seen by inspection of the trial.\nUpon the sixth, he deposes as immediately above.\nUpon the seventh article, he says that, the trial enduring, in the holy week or thereabouts, Master Jean de Fonte, exercising the powers of the said Bishop of Beauvais in that cause of faith, and Brothers Isambard de la Pierre and Martin Ladvenu of the order of Preaching Friars, who daily associated Brother Jean Magistri the sub-inquisitor in the trial, moved by piety, approached the same Joan at her prisons, where they persuaded the same Joan that she should submit herself to the Church, else she was in peril of death. Which being brought to the notice of the lords of Beauvais and Warwick, the same bishop and count were marvellously indignant against them; wherefore de Fonte himself departed, dismissed; else he would have been in peril of death; and the other two friars likewise were in great peril of their life had not the said Magistri, who conducted the trial, given them protection. Item, he says that Master Jean Lohier, at the time of the said trial, being once in this city of Rouen, was solicited to give his opinion upon the said trial; who, the bishop being present, said the said trial was null for very many causes: first, because it was not handled in a safe place nor in an ecclesiastical court, nor was she guarded in ecclesiastical prisons; and because also the cause of the king, absent and not summoned, was handled. And, since he saw his sayings pleased not the said Bishop of Beauvais and the other lords of the party of the English, he was unwilling to wait longer; nay, on the morrow he departed and set out for the Roman curia.\nUpon the eighth, he deposes the article to be true of certain knowledge. And there were four or five English guards, of whom one was the principal.\nUpon the ninth article, he says that he believes the age of the said Joan to have been as the article contains; and, withal, he says that the same Joan sometimes answered prudently enough and sometimes simply enough (4), as can be seen in the trial; and he believes that, in so difficult a cause, she was not of herself sufficient to defend herself against so many doctors, unless it had been inspired into her.\nUpon the tenth, he says that he heard from Master Nicolas Loyseleur, who feigned himself to be of the parts of the said Joan, that he alone had access to her and inquired of her of many things and afterwards reported to the judges and council. Upon the residue of the article he knows naught to depose.\nUpon the eleventh, of the interrogations and answers, he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the twelfth article, he says that the same Joan was interrogated for two or three hours in the morning and sometimes, the same day, after dinner; and she was much wearied in the interrogations. Of the intention verily of the judges, he refers himself to their conscience; and the examiners made her the subtilest questions they could.\nUpon the thirteenth article, he says that he often heard the same Joan asking to hear mass, to wit on Sundays, on Palm Sunday and Easter; asking, on that Easter day, to confess and to receive the Lord’s body; whom they did not permit to confess save to the said Loyseleur, who was feigned in that affair. And she complained much that it was denied her; and the speaker himself heard, from the mouth of the said Joan, oftentimes the other contents of the article, and he believes part to be contained in the trial.\nUpon the fourteenth, he refers himself to the trial; and he heard the contents of the article many times.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth, he says that he wrote the things he heard in the trial. He says further to have heard, while she was being exhorted concerning submitting herself to the Church and while Brother Isambard de la Pierre was persuading her that she should submit herself to the general Council, that the Bishop of Beauvais, hearing this, said to the same Brother Bardin: Hold your peace, in the devil’s name! And this was in the judgement while the same Joan was being examined.\nUpon the seventeenth article, he says that it appeared that she understood not the difference between the Church triumphant and militant. Upon the residue he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the eighteenth, he says that the first original trial was faithfully written by the speaker in French, the first session excepted; and he believes that it was faithfully translated into Latin.\nUpon the nineteenth, he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twentieth, he says he does not believe the contents of the article, for the things he said above.\nUpon the twenty-first, he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twenty-second, he says that, the trial enduring even unto the conclusion or thereabouts, the same Joan had no counsel. If she asked, he does not recall; but at the conclusion or thereabouts she had Master Pierre Morisse and a Carmelite to direct and instruct her.\nUpon the twenty-third article, he says that he well knows the sentence was given; of the justice verily or injustice he refers himself to the law. He knows nevertheless that the same Joan, on the day of her death, before the sermon and before she went out of the Castle, received the Lord’s body ministered to her by the ordination of the judges, at the instance and request of the same Joan.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that she was brought to the place of punishment with a great throng of armed men, to the number of eighty or thereabouts, with swords and clubs; and he heard that, after the pronouncing of the sentence of the ecclesiastical judge and the abandonment of the same Joan, she was led to the Bailiff there present, who, without other deliberation or sentence, making a sign with his hand, said: Lead, lead. And so she was led to the place of punishment where she was burned.\nUpon the twenty-fifth, he says that, straightway after the sentence of the Church and after the same Joan knew she was to die, she made most fair prayers, recommending her soul to God, the blessed Mary and all the Saints, invoking them and asking pardon of the judges and of the English, and of the King of France and all the princes of the same realm. And the residue of the article he saw not, for he departed; but he well heard from many who were present at the execution that she acclaimed the name of Jesus at the end of her days.\nUpon the twenty-sixth article, he says, of the hatred and fear, as he deposed above; adding that there was rumour that the English would never have dared to set the siege at Louviers (5) so long as she lived. And, of the end of the article, he says that he believes the English tended by this way to put a mark upon the King of France. And further he says that, in the sermon made in Saint-Ouen by Master Guillaume Erard, Erard himself exclaimed: O noble house of France! thou hast ever been without stain and reproof of error; now it were great pity that thou shouldst fall into such error as of giving faith to this woman!\nUpon the twenty-seventh article, he says that, of the premises deposed by him, it was and is public voice and fame in this city of Rouen.\nPierre Cusquel # Pierre Cusquel, layman, citizen of Rouen, of fifty years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on Tuesday the ninth of the month of May.\nUpon the first article, he says the article is true and that such was the fame.\nUpon the second, he says likewise that he believes the article itself to contain the truth.\nUpon the third, he says that the said Joan was brought by the English to this city of Rouen and placed in the Castle of Rouen in the prisons, in a certain chamber situate beneath a certain stair, towards the fields, where he saw her detained and imprisoned. And he believes that the judges and those assisting in the trial proceeded by favour of the English and that they would not have dared to contradict them; but of the impression he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that he refers himself to the trial.\n(1) Despite his testimony, the minutes of the first judgement attest that he assisted at more than one session. See vol. I, pp. 69, 81, 196, 405 and 459.\n(2) The answer on the tenth article is not registered in the manuscripts.\n(3) Saint-Nicolas-le-Peintre.\n(4) Nunquid, in the manuscripts.\n(5) Louviers. La Hire had occupied this place since the end of the year 1429.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that he refers himself to the trial, and he heard that, since Master André Marguerie, the usher, had said that the truth should be well inquired of the manner of the change of the dress of the said Joan, it was said to him by a certain one (he knows not by whom) that he should hold his peace in the devil’s name.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that he was not in the trial and therefore knows nothing, nor of the following article.\nUpon the seventh, he says that he believes none would have dared to give counsel to the same Joan, or to defend or direct her.\nUpon the eighth article, he says that the article contains the truth, as the speaker saw, who in favour of Master Jean Son, then master of the works of the said castle, twice entered the prison of the said Joan and spoke with her, and warned her that she should speak prudently and that it was a question of her death. And he adds that there was made a cage of iron to detain her erect; which he saw weighed in his own house; yet he did not see the same Joan enclosed in it.\nUpon the ninth article, he says that the same Joan was young, of the age of twenty years or thereabouts, and that she spoke well prudently; but he believes she was ignorant of law and not sufficient to answer so many doctors.\nUpon the tenth, he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the eleventh, he says that he was not present in the trial, but there was fame of the contents of the article; and that they laboured with all their might to catch her in speech, because she had followed the war against the English.\nUpon the twelfth, he says that he believes the article to be true.\nUpon the thirteenth, he says that he heard the words contained in the article from the mouth of the said Joan in the full sermon made at Saint-Ouen.\nUpon the fourteenth article, he says that he heard it said that the said Joan had so said as the article contains.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the seventeenth article, he refers himself to the law and to the intention of the said Joan.\nUpon the eighteenth, he knows nothing; nay, he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the nineteenth, he says that he believes it was proceeded rather by favour of the English than by zeal of faith and justice, and of this there was common voice in this city of Rouen.\nUpon the twentieth, he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the twenty-first and twenty-second, he refers himself to the law and the trial.\nUpon the twenty-third article, he says that he was not present at the last sermon, the condemnation and the execution of the said Joan, because his heart could not have suffered or endured it, for pity of the said Joan; but he well heard that the said Joan had received the Lord’s body before her condemnation.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that he heard that no sentence was given by a secular judge.\nUpon the twenty-fifth article, he says that he heard the article to be true in form, and that Master Jean Tressart, secretary of the King of England, returning from the place of the punishment of the same Joan, mournful and weeping, lamentably bewailed the things he had seen in the said place, saying in effect: We are all lost, for a good holy person has been burned; and that he believed her soul to be in the hand of God, and that, while she was in the midst of the flames, she ever acclaimed the name of the Lord Jesus.\nUpon the twenty-sixth article, he says that he believes the whole article to be true; and such was the public fame in the city of Rouen.\nUpon the twenty-seventh article, he says that, of the things deposed by him, it was and is public voice and fame.\nBrother Isambard de la Pierre # The religious and honest man Brother Isambard de la Pierre, priest, bachelor in theology, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, of the order of Preaching Friars, sworn and examined on the aforesaid Tuesday.\nUpon the first article, he says that the speaker himself was present in the whole examination and trial of the said Joan with Brother Jean Magistri the sub-inquisitor, and that the article itself contains the truth.\nUpon the second article, he says simply that the article itself contains the truth; and there was fame in this city of Rouen that the English had not dared to besiege the town of Louviers so long as the same Joan lived and until she was dead.\nUpon the third article, he says that certain of those assisting in the deduction of the trial proceeded — to wit the Bishop of Beauvais — out of favour; and certain, as some English doctors, out of the rancour of vengeance; and other doctors from Paris, hired for wages; and others led by fear, as the aforesaid Sub-inquisitor and certain others of whom he does not recall. And this was at the procurement of the King of England, the Cardinal of Winchester, the Count of Warwick and other Englishmen, who paid the expenses made by reason of this trial. The other contents of the article the speaker says to be true.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that the lord Jean (6) of good memory, then Bishop of Avranches, because he refused to give his opinion in this matter, was threatened by Master Jean Benedicte, then promoter of the cause; and, to that end, Master Nicolas de Houppeville, because he was unwilling to assist at the trial nor to give his opinion, was in peril of exile. He says further that, after the first sermon in which the said Joan had revoked, the speaker himself and Master Jean de Fonte, Master Guillaume Fallée of the order of Preaching Friars, and others of the order of the judges came to the castle to give counsel to the same Joan that she should ever persevere in her good purpose. Which the English seeing, they cast them out of the castle with impetuosity and fury, with swords and clubs; on which occasion the aforesaid Master Jean de Fonte fled away and departed from this city, nor returned thither again. And the speaker himself suffered many threats from the Count of Warwick, because the speaker himself had before said to the said Joan that she should submit herself to the general Council.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that the said Joan, interrogated whether she was willing to submit herself to our lord the Pope, answered that yes, provided she should be sent and led to him; but she was unwilling to submit herself to those present, at least to the said Bishop of Beauvais, since they were her capital enemies; and, when the speaker himself persuaded her that she should submit herself to the general Council then assembled, in which were present many prelates and doctors of the party of the King of France, this heard, the same Joan said that she submitted herself to the same Council. Then the Bishop of Beauvais harshly rebuked the speaker, saying: Hold your peace, in the devil’s name! Which being so heard, the lord Guillaume Manchon, notary of the said cause, asked of the bishop himself whether he should write down such submission; which bishop indeed answered no, and that it was not necessary, the said Joan saying to the said bishop: Ha! ye write well the things which tell against me, and ye will not write the things which tell for me. And he believes it was not written; whence there followed in that council a great murmur.\nUpon the sixth article, he has deposed immediately above whatsoever he knows.\nUpon the seventh, he deposes as he deposed above.\nUpon the eighth, he deposes, of certain knowledge, as is contained in the same article.\nUpon the ninth, he says that the said Joan was young, of the age of nineteen years or nearly, having nevertheless a good understanding, and answered well prudently; but she was not sufficient to answer the difficult interrogations which were put to her.\nUpon the tenth, he deposes, only from hearing of certain ones saying, that some in disguised habit went by night to the prisons of the said Joan, persuading her of the contents of the article. Whether it be true he knows not.\nUpon the eleventh, he says that the article contains the truth, although to certain interrogatories she gave sufficient answer, as can be established by the trial.\nUpon the twelfth, he says that sometimes the examination of the said Joan lasted three hours in the morning; and sometimes examination was made both in the morning and after dinner. He also heard her many times complain that too many questions were put to her.\nUpon the thirteenth and fourteenth articles, he says that the articles themselves contain the truth, for the speaker heard these things from Joan herself.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that he knows naught to depose upon these, and refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the seventeenth, he says that through the great space of the trial, when the same Joan was interrogated of submitting herself to the Church, she understood by it that congregation of judges and assessors then present and assisting, until by Master Pierre Maurice she was taught what it was; and, after she knew, she ever submitted herself to the Pope, provided she should be led to him. And he believes that the aforesaid ignorance of the Church was the cause wherefore she sometimes delayed to submit herself to the Church.\nUpon the eighteenth and twentieth, he says nothing save that, in the judgement of the speaker, the said Manchon wrote and reported faithfully, and he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the nineteenth article, he says that he believes, as he said before, that the sentence was given against her rather by rancour of vengeance than by zeal of justice.\nUpon the twenty-first, he says that the judges observed the order of law well enough, in the judgement of the speaker; but of their affection he has already deposed above, to wit that they proceeded by rancour of vengeance.\nUpon the twenty-second, he says that in certain parts of the trial counsellors were given to the same Joan. As for the nullity of the sentence moreover he has deposed above; and the speaker adds that in the first sermon the speaker himself believed, the manner of proceeding considered, that she would be burned, for she deferred to make the revocation; and she had been brought in a cart even to the cemetery of Saint-Ouen of Rouen.\nUpon the twenty-third article, he says the contents of the same article are true.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that he knows that no sentence was given by a secular judge, for he was present there; but after the sermon, a long expectation being made there, she was led to the punishment by the royal serjeants; whom the speaker and Brother Martin Ladvenu followed even to the end.\nUpon the twenty-fifth article, he says the article wholly contains the truth; adding also that the Bishop of Beauvais, the other of the judges, wept on that occasion. And he adds that a certain Englishman, a man of arms, who hated her marvellously and who had sworn that he would put a faggot with his own hand in the burning of the said Joan, when he had done this and had heard the same Joan acclaiming the name of Jesus at the end of her days, became like a man stricken senseless, and as it were in ecstasy, and was led to a certain tavern near the Old Market that by means of drink he might recover his strength. And, after dinner, with a certain friar of the order of Preaching Friars, that Englishman (7), the speaker hearing, confessed, by the mouth of that friar an Englishman, that he had gravely erred and that he repented of that which he had done against the said Joan as is aforesaid, whom he reputed a good woman; for, as it seemed to him, that Englishman had seen, at the giving up of the spirit of the said Joan, a certain white dove going forth from France (8). He says also that the executioner, after dinner the same day, came to the convent of the said Preaching Friars and said to the same speaker and to Brother Martin Ladvenu that he feared greatly lest he should be damned, because he had burned a holy woman.\nUpon the twenty-sixth article, he says the contents of the article are true. And further he says that he believes the more principal cause wherefore the trial was so made against her was that they might defame the King of France; and it was tended to that end in his judgement; and that Master Guillaume Erard declared this well enough in one passage in the aforesaid cause, where he said in effect: France alone was wont to be free of monsters; but now behold a terrible monster, that by one schismatic, heretic and sorceress woman he who calls himself King of France should will to recover his realm. To whom, to Erard, the same Joan answered: O preacher, ye speak ill: speak not of the person of the lord King Charles, for he is a good catholic and believed not in me.\nUpon the twenty-seventh, he says that the things he deposed are true.\nMaster André Marguerie # The venerable and circumspect man Master André Marguerie, archdeacon of Petit-Caux in the church of Rouen, of the age of seventy-six years or thereabouts (9), sworn and examined on the said ninth of May.\n(6) See above, p. 5.\n(7) So in the d’Urfé manuscript. The others give Anglicus — Englishman.\n(8) M. de l’Averdy, who reproduced this deposition (Notice des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Roi, vol. III, p. 491), printed exeuntem de flamma — going forth from the flame. Yet the manuscripts bear quite legibly de Francia — from France, which would strictly signify from the direction of France, towards the south. The reading de flamma shows itself for the first time in the consultation of Paul Pontanus. See above, p. 63.\n(9) Notre-Dame manuscript: sixty-six.\nUpon the first article, he says that the armed English hated the same Joan and thirsted for her death, as he believes.\nUpon the second, he says that he believes there were very many who sought to deliver her to death lest she should harm them.\nUpon the third article, he says that he heard the same Joan was captured near Compiègne in the diocese of Beauvais; and she was brought to this city of Rouen and shut up in the castle of Rouen, in which the process of faith was conducted against her by the Bishop of Beauvais and the Sub-inquisitor at the procurement of the English; but whether by impression he knows not.\nUpon the fourth article, he deposes that he heard certain ones were rebuked because they did not speak so well to the intention of the English as they wished; but he knows not that anyone was in peril by reason of this, although he heard that Master Nicolas de Houppeville did not give his opinion.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that he knows naught to depose upon that article, for he was little in the examination (10), nor upon the following article.\nUpon the seventh article, he knows nothing.\nUpon the eighth, he says that he did not see her in the prison; but he believes she was guarded by the English, for they had the guard of the castle in which the said Joan was imprisoned.\nUpon the ninth article, he says that, in the judgement of the speaker, the same Joan was cautious in certain answers.\nUpon the tenth, he knows nothing.\nUpon the eleventh, he says that he credibly believes the article to contain the truth.\nUpon the twelfth and thirteenth articles, he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourteenth, he says that he believes rather the contrary, to wit that he heard sometimes from the same Joan that of certain things she would not believe — neither her prelate nor the Pope nor anyone — because she had this from God. And he believes that was one of the causes wherefore it was proceeded against her to the revocation.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth, he refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the seventeenth article, he knows nothing, nor upon the following article.\nUpon the nineteenth, he says that the first part of the article is true; but of the residue of the article he knows nothing.\nUpon the twentieth, he says that he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twenty-first and twenty-second articles, he says that he knows nothing upon the same.\nUpon the twenty-third, he says that of the things which are of fact he knows nothing; nor whether she was unjustly condemned, nor whether any injustice was done in the deduction of the trial.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that, although he was at the last sermon, yet he was not present at the execution, for pity of the deed itself; nor of the residue of the article does he know aught, save that very many of the bystanders wept, even the lord Cardinal of Luxembourg, then Bishop of Thérouanne.\nUpon the twenty-fifth article, he says that he knows not of her devotion; but she appeared troubled enough, for she said: Rouen, Rouen, shall I die here!\nUpon the twenty-sixth, he says that he well believes that certain of the English, not all, proceeded out of hatred and fear; but of the notable ecclesiastical men he does not believe it. He says moreover that, when a certain chaplain of the Cardinal of England, present at the first sermon, had said to the Bishop of Beauvais that he favoured the same Joan too much, the bishop himself answered: Ye lie, for I would not be willing to favour anyone in such a cause. And then the chaplain himself was rebuked by the said Cardinal of England, who said he should hold his peace.\nUpon the twenty-seventh, he says that, of the things he has said, it is public voice and fame.\nMaster Richard de Grouchet # The venerable and discreet man Master Richard de Grouchet (11), priest, master of arts and formed bachelor in theology, canon of the collegiate church of La Saussaye in the diocese of Évreux, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, witness produced, received and sworn on the aforesaid Tuesday.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes the article itself to contain the truth, from the deeds and acts of the English themselves.\nUpon the second article, he says that it contains the truth, and that there was fame that the English feared the same Joan.\nUpon the third article, he says that she was brought to this city of Rouen; and he saw her in the castle of Rouen where she was imprisoned; but of the fear and terror of the judges articled he knows naught to depose; but there was public fame in this city of Rouen that the English had it done out of hatred and wrath.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that it seems to him that certain of those standing by in the trial were willing and favourable, others coerced and unwilling, and many timorous, of whom certain fled, unwilling to assist at the trial; and, among the rest, Master Nicolas de Houppeville was in great peril. And also Masters Jean Pigache and Pierre Miner, as he heard from them, and the speaker himself, who abode with them, by fear and threats and terrors delivered their opinions and assisted at the trial, and were in purpose of fleeing; and he says that he heard many times from the mouth of Master Pierre Maurice that, when after the first sermon he had admonished her to stand in her good purpose, the English were ill content and he was in great peril of a beating, as he said.\nUpon the fifth and sixth articles, he says that he believes the notaries wrote faithfully. He saw nevertheless and heard that the Bishop of Beauvais, when the notaries did not do as he wished, rebuked them harshly; and the thing itself was very violent, as he asserts, from the things he saw and heard.\nUpon the seventh article, he says that he did not perceive or see that anyone busied himself with instructing or counselling the same Joan, nor did he see that she asked or that counsel was offered her; yet he supposes that from the beginning of the trial she asked for counsel; but of certainty he knows not. He says moreover that he knows not whether anyone was in peril of death by occasion of defending her; but he well knows that, while other difficult interrogatories were being put to the same Joan and certain ones wished to direct her, they were rebuked harshly and rigidly and were marked with favour, sometimes by the said Bishop of Beauvais and sometimes by Master Jean Beaupère, who said to those directing her that they should leave her to speak, and that he was commissioned to interrogate her.\nUpon the eighth article, he says that he well knows that the said Joan was in the prisons in the said Castle of Rouen and that she was guarded, led and led back by the English; but of the fetters or chains he knows nothing, although he heard it ever held that she was kept well harshly and straitly.\nUpon the ninth, he believes her to have been of the age articled; she answered nevertheless prudently, very substantially, and he heard from the mouth of the lord then Abbot of Fécamp that a great clerk would well have failed to answer the difficult interrogatories made her; he knows nevertheless that she was ignorant of law and of the rite of judgements.\nUpon the tenth, he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the eleventh and twelfth articles, he says that he saw her interrogated by difficult, involved and captious interrogations, that she might be caught in speech, as it seems to him, and that she might be drawn away from her purpose; and, this notwithstanding, according to womanly frailty she answered well; and sometimes she took heed, designating the day on which, upon certain things asked again, she had answered otherwise.\nUpon the thirteenth, he says that he heard many times in the judgement, from the mouth of Joan herself, the contents of the article.\nUpon the fourteenth article, he says he saw and heard in the judgement that, when the same Joan was interrogated whether she was willing to submit herself to the Bishop of Beauvais and certain of those standing by then named, the same Joan answered no, and that she submitted herself to the Pope and the catholic Church, asking that she be led to the Pope. And when it was said to her that her trial should be sent to the Pope that he might judge it, she answered that she was unwilling that it be so done, for she knew not what would be put in the trial by them; but she was willing to be led thither and to be interrogated by the Pope.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that he knows not whether it was put or written in the trial that she would not submit herself to the Church, nor did he see a prohibition; but he knows that, in the presence of the speaker, the same Joan ever submitted herself to the judgement of the Pope and of the Church.\nUpon the seventeenth article, he says that he knows nothing else than he has deposed above.\nUpon the eighteenth article, he says that the notary wrote the trial in French, and, when there was doubt upon the writing, it was repeated to her. Of the translation verily he knows nothing.\nUpon the nineteenth, he says the article is true as regards the law. As for the fact, he says that he himself and the forenamed Pigache and Minier delivered their opinion in writing (12) according to their conscience; which was not pleasing to the bishop and the assessors, who said: Is this what ye have done?\nUpon the twentieth, he says that he believes the notaries wrote well and faithfully.\nUpon the twenty-first article, he says that the said sentence ever seemed to the same speaker unjust, nor did he know whence they took the titles and causes for condemning her. Of the other things contained in the article he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twenty-second, he says that she answered by herself, nor did he see that she had any defender. Of the residue he has deposed above.\nUpon the twenty-third article, he says that of the contents of the article there was public voice in this city of Rouen.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that he has no knowledge, nor ever heard it said that any sentence was given by a secular judge against the said Joan, for he was not present; but there was public voice and rumour that she was violently and unjustly delivered to punishment.\nUpon the twenty-fifth, he says that he was not present; but the public fame was so, as the article contains.\nUpon the twenty-sixth article, he says that, for the causes contained in the article, he believes the same Joan to have been delivered to death; whether nevertheless they tended to the defaming of our lord the King, he knows not; but he well believes that, in contempt of him, the manner of proceeding and the manner of the judgement considered, she was delivered to death.\nUpon the twenty-seventh, he says that the things deposed by him above are true.\nBrother Pierre Miget # The venerable and religious man Brother Pierre Miget (13), professor of sacred theology, prior of the priory of Longueville-Giffard in the diocese of Rouen, of the age of seventy years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on the said Tuesday.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes the article to contain the truth, from the effects which followed.\nUpon the second article, he says that he heard from a certain late English knight that the English feared the same Joan more than a hundred armed men.\nUpon the third article, he says that he heard that the men of the lord of Luxembourg took the said Joan near Compiègne in the diocese of Beauvais, and he heard that she was required by the English; and the Bishop of Beauvais was chosen to make the trial against her because she had been captured in his diocese. And he knows that she was brought to this city of Rouen and detained in the Castle in the prisons; and he believes the impression and fear of which mention is made in the article, although he knows not for certain.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that apparently it could be esteemed that it was by impression and fear of the English that the trial was conducted against the said Joan, for she was ever detained under the dominion and guard of the English, nor did they suffer her to be detained in ecclesiastical prisons. And he adds that, the first sermon made at Saint-Ouen being finished, when the said Joan had been admonished concerning revoking and she deferred, it was said by an English ecclesiastic to the Bishop of Beauvais that he was a favourer of the same Joan; to whom the said bishop answered: Ye lie. I ought, by my profession, to seek the salvation of the soul and body of the same Joan. And the speaker himself was denounced to the lord Cardinal of England that he was a favourer of the same Joan; of which the speaker excused himself before the said Cardinal, fearing peril of his body.\n(10) It appears on the contrary, by the minutes of the condemnation, that he assisted at very many interrogatories. See vol. I, pp. 39, 40, 59, 81, 200, etc.\n(11) One of the assessors at the first judgement. See vol. I, p. 39.\n(12) See vol. I, p. 369.\n(13) See vol. I, p. 6.\nUpon the fifth and sixth articles, he says that he believes the notaries were truthful and wrote faithfully.\nUpon the seventh, he says that he knows not whether the same Joan asked for counsel; but he believes none would have dared to give her counsel or defence unless it had been granted him.\nUpon the eighth, he believes the article to contain the truth, save that he did not see her in fetters or irons.\nUpon the ninth, he says that he believes the same Joan to have been of the age of twenty years. And he believes that she was so simple that she believed the English did not tend to her death, and that she hoped to be rescued by means of money. Yet he saw her answering catholically and prudently concerning the things pertaining to the faith, save in the visions which she said she had, in which she persisted too much, in the judgement of the speaker.\nUpon the tenth article, he says that of the article he knows nothing. Interrogated whether he knew any others to have been sent to her by night: he says that he heard that one man at times went to her by night in the habit of a prisoner, as is said, feigning that he was a prisoner of the parts of the King of France; and he persuaded the same Joan that she should persist in her assertions, and that the English would not dare to work any evil upon her.\nUpon the eleventh, he says that he did not perceive the contents of the article.\nUpon the twelfth, he likewise says that he does not believe the contents of the article, nor saw them.\nUpon the thirteenth and fourteenth articles, he says that he believes the articles to be true and to have heard the contents of the same from the mouth of the said Joan.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that he refers himself to the notaries and the trial.\nUpon the seventeenth article, he says that he well believes that the same Joan did not fully understand what the Church was, nor does he remember the same Joan to have refused to submit herself to the Church.\nUpon the eighteenth, he refers himself to the notaries.\nUpon the nineteenth article, he says that the article is of law, and he refers himself to the law; but, as to the things which are of fact, he believes that certain ones were not wholly free and certain were willing.\nUpon the twentieth, he believes the notaries were faithful and wrote faithfully. Else he knows not.\nUpon the twenty-first, he says that, the hatred of the English weighed, the trial may deservedly be called unjust and consequently the sentence unjust.\nUpon the twenty-second article, he says that he believes the article to be true, save that he knows not whether counsel was denied her.\nUpon the twenty-third article, he says that, had she been in her liberty, he believes she would have been as good a catholic as any other good catholic. And he heard that she received the body of Christ at the instance of Joan herself, as he heard. Of the residue of the article he knows naught further to depose, save that she was adjudged relapsed and abandoned to secular justice, and then burned.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that he knows not that any sentence of a secular judge was given; but she was led to the punishment with great fury by the armed English.\nUpon the twenty-fifth article, he says the article itself contains the truth, as he heard, she being abandoned by the Church. And then she began to lament and acclaim Jesus; and then the speaker departed, moved by so great compassion that he could not behold the execution of the same Joan.\nUpon the twenty-sixth article, he says that he believes the article itself to contain the truth.\nUpon the twenty-seventh article, he says that of the premises deposed by him, it was and is public voice and fame in the city of Rouen.\nBrother Martin Ladvenu # The religious and honest man Brother Martin Ladvenu, priest, of the order of Preaching Friars, who was lector of theology in very many convents, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, witness produced and examined on the said Tuesday, the ninth of the month of May.\nUpon the first article, he says that he was present in the greater part of the trial of the said Joan with Brother Jean Magistri, then sub-inquisitor, and believes the first article itself to be true.\nUpon the second article, he also believes the article itself to contain the truth.\nUpon the third article, he says that he well knows that the said Joan was brought to this city of Rouen and thrust into the prisons of the castle of Rouen; and that the trial was made and conducted in the cause of faith against the same Joan at the procurement and expense of the English; but of the fear and impression of which mention is made in the same article he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that he saw Master Nicolas de Houppeville led to the royal prisons because he was unwilling to assist at the trial. The residue of the article he knows not for certain, although he believes that part of those assisting in the trial feared and part favoured.\nUpon the fifth and sixth articles, he refers himself to the notaries; yet he believes that they wrote faithfully the things they saw and heard.\nUpon the seventh article, he says that he well knows that the said Joan had no director, counsellor or defender until about the end of the trial, and that none would have dared to thrust himself forward to counsel, direct or defend her, for fear of the English; and he heard it said that certain ones who went to the castle, by ordination of the judges, to counsel and direct the same Joan, were harshly repulsed and threatened.\nUpon the eighth, he says the article contains the truth in form.\nUpon the ninth, as to the age, he agrees with the article; of the simplicity verily he says that she was very ignorant and scarce knew the Pater noster, although he heard her sometimes answering faithfully and prudently.\nUpon the tenth article, he says that of himself he knows naught to depose. Interrogated whether he knew or heard that anyone approached her secretly by night: he deposes that, from the mouth of the same Joan, he heard that a certain great English lord entered the prison of the said Joan and attempted to oppress her by force; and this was the cause, as she asserted, wherefore she had resumed man’s dress.\nUpon the eleventh article, he says that difficult interrogations were put to the same Joan which did not befit such a simple woman; but of the intention of the interrogators he knows naught to depose.\nUpon the twelfth article, he says that he well enough knows that they much vexed her in the interrogations, and the interrogations lasted three hours or thereabouts; and they were made before dinner and after. Of the intention verily of the interrogators and to what end they so interrogated her, he is ignorant.\nUpon the thirteenth article, he says that he does not recall hearing it in the judgement, but he well heard, outside the judgement, from the same Joan, the contents of the same article or the like.\nUpon the fourteenth article, he says that he often heard from the mouth of the said Joan that she submitted herself to the Supreme Pontiff and that she should be led to him.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that he knows nothing and refers himself to the trial.\nUpon the seventeenth, he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the eighteenth, he says that he well knows that the trial was received and written in French. Of the translation of the trial verily he knows nothing.\nUpon the nineteenth article, he says that of the things which are of law he refers himself to the law; and, as to the things which are of fact, he refers himself to the things he deposed above.\nUpon the twentieth, he says that he refers himself to the notaries.\nUpon the twenty-first he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twenty-second, of the nullity of the trial and sentence he refers himself to the law. He well knows nevertheless that she had no defenders or counsellors, although she asked for them.\nUpon the twenty-third article, he says that it was established to the judges that she had submitted herself to the determination of the Church and that she was faithful, catholic and penitent, and that, by the licence and ordination of the judges, the speaker ministered the body of Christ to the same Joan. He says further that she was abandoned, as relapsed, to the secular judge; and he believes that, had she held the party of the English, it would not have been so proceeded against her.\nUpon the twenty-fourth, he says that he is certain that, after she was abandoned by the Church, she was taken by the armed English there being in great number, and without any sentence of a secular judge, although the Bailiff of Rouen and the Council of the secular Court were assisting there; and this he knows because he was ever with the same Joan from the place of the castle even to the going forth of the spirit; and the speaker had ministered to the same Joan, by ordination of the judges, the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist.\nUpon the twenty-fifth article, he says the article contains the truth, for he saw and heard the contents of the same; and that the torturer or executioner, the speaker himself being present, bore testimony that she had suffered death tyrannically.\nUpon the twenty-sixth article, he says that he believes it is as the article contains. And the speaker adds, being interrogated, that Master Guillaume Erard, in the sermon which he made in the cemetery of Saint-Ouen of Rouen, exclaiming in a certain passage, said in effect such words: O house of France! thou hast ever been without monsters until now; but now, adhering to this sorceress, heretic and superstitious woman, thou art defamed!\nUpon the twenty-seventh article, he says the things deposed by him are true and notorious in this city of Rouen and elsewhere.\nThe lord Jean Fabri # The reverend father and lord in Christ, the lord Jean (1), Bishop of Demetriade, of the order of Saint Augustine, of the convent of Rouen, professor of sacred theology, sworn and examined on Tuesday the ninth of the aforesaid month.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes and conceives that the English did not much love the same Joan, and that, had she been of the party of England, they would not have made so great diligence nor proceeded so rigidly.\nUpon the second article, he says that he conceives they proceeded against her because they feared her.\nUpon the third article, he says that of the fear and impression he knows nothing; but the other things in the article he well knows; and he believes the trial was made at the procurement and expense of the English.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that he knows nothing, save that, when the question was put to the same Joan whether she was in the grace of God, the speaker himself being present said that it was not a fitting question for such a woman. Then the Bishop of Beauvais said to the speaker: It had been better for you had ye held your peace.\nUpon the fifth and sixth articles, he says that he refers himself to the notaries.\nUpon the seventh article, he says that he was not always in the examination; but so long as he was there he did not see that she had counsel, nor that she asked for it.\nUpon the eighth, he says that the same Joan was in prison in the Castle of Rouen. Of the residue of the article he knows nothing.\nUpon the ninth article, he says that the said Joan was of the age articled and answered very prudently to the interrogatories, save concerning the revelations from God, so that for the space of three weeks he believed her inspired.\nUpon the tenth article, he knows nothing.\nUpon the eleventh, he says that in certain things they inquired very deeply, of which she rid herself competently; and sometimes they interrupted the interrogatories, passing from one to another, to try whether she would change her story.\nUpon the twelfth, he says that they made long examinations which commonly lasted two or three hours, so that the doctors assisting were much wearied thereby; but whether to the end articled, he knows not.\nUpon the thirteenth, he says that he does not recall the same Joan to have said the words contained in the article; but he well recalls her to have said that she would not say or do aught which was against God.\nUpon the fourteenth, he does not recall; nay, he heard as immediately above.\n(1) See vol. I, p. 381, etc.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth, he knows not, nor ever heard that she refused to submit herself to the Church; at least he does not recall.\nUpon the seventeenth article, he does not recall.\nUpon the eighteenth article, he knows nothing of the translation, nor does he recall whether it was received in Latin or in French.\nUpon the nineteenth, he says that he did not perceive coercion; and nothing else does he know.\nUpon the twentieth, he refers himself to the notaries.\nUpon the twenty-first, he refers himself to the judges.\nUpon the twenty-second article, he says that he has deposed above whatever he knows thereof, and of the nullity of the sentence he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twenty-third article, he says that, from the first sermon made at Saint-Ouen, he was not called to the trial.\nUpon the twenty-fourth, he says that he was at the last sermon, in which she herself asked all the priests that each one of them should give her a mass; but what was done afterwards he did not see, for he departed.\nUpon the twenty-fifth, he says that she had a very catholic end, and that she moved the judges and very many others to weep, for very great pity.\nUpon the twenty-sixth, he says as above concerning fear and hatred; but whether they tended to the defaming of the King of France he knows not; although he esteems that for the greater part they would willingly have displeased her.\nUpon the twenty-seventh article, he says that of the things he said there was common voice and fame.\nThe lord Thomas Marie # The venerable and religious man the lord Thomas Marie, priest, bachelor in theology, prior of the priory of Saint Michael near Rouen, of the order of Saint Benedict, of the age of sixty-two years or thereabouts; witness produced, received, sworn and examined on the aforesaid day.\nUpon the first article, he says that it seems to the same speaker that the article itself is true.\nUpon the second, he says that, because the same Joan had wrought marvels in war and because the English themselves are commonly superstitious, they esteemed that there was something fateful in her; wherefore, as the speaker believes, in all their counsels and else they desired her death.\nInterrogated how he knows that the English are superstitious: he says that common fame holds it, and it is a common proverb.\nUpon the third article, he says that the same Joan was brought to this city of Rouen and imprisoned in the Castle of Rouen, and that the trial was made against her in the matter of faith at the request and proper expense, as he believes, of the English. Of the fear and impression he says that certain assisted in the trial through fear and others through favour.\nLikewise required upon the fourth article, he said that he does not believe the contents of the article, most of all as regards fear and threats, but rather in favour, most of all because certain ones, as he believes and heard said, received gifts. Yet he says that Master Nicolas de Houppeville on this occasion was put in the prisons and expelled from the trial, because he had spoken harshly of the matter of the same Joan to the Bishop of Beauvais.\nUpon the fifth article, he says that he believes the notaries wrote truly and faithfully, although perchance, as he understood, they were sometimes solicited to write otherwise.\nUpon the sixth article, he says that he believes as immediately above.\nUpon the seventh article, he says that he heard it said that counsel was offered her; nor did he hear that anyone was in peril of death or otherwise for giving her counsel.\nUpon the eighth, he says that he heard from a certain smith that he had made a certain iron gibbet for keeping the same Joan standing.\nInterrogated whether she was put in it: he says he believes so. Of the guards he knows nothing.\nUpon the ninth, he says that she was of the age of eighteen years, in the judgement of the speaker. As to the simplicity and ignorance, he says that he heard from one who was in the trial and from others that she answered the questions so wisely as an excellent clerk would have done.\nUpon the tenth article, he says that he knows nothing; yet he heard that, after the first sermon, when she had been put again in the prisons of the castle, so many vexations of oppressing her were done her that she had to say that she would rather die than abide any more with the English themselves.\nUpon the eleventh article, he says that he heard those things contained in the article, although he was not present in the trial; and he well believes that the interrogators tended to that end articled.\nUpon the twelfth article, he says that he believes they did to her the worst they could.\nUpon the thirteenth article, he says that he heard the contents of the article said by many; and nothing else does he know.\nUpon the fourteenth, he says as immediately above.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the seventeenth article, he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the eighteenth and twentieth, he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the nineteenth, he says that, where there is no free will, neither the trial nor the sentence avail; but whether in a trial of this kind there was liberty for the judges and assessors, he knows naught else than he deposed above.\nUpon the twenty-first article, he says that he refers himself to the law.\nUpon the twenty-second, he says that he knows nothing, for he was not in the trial.\nUpon the twenty-third, he says that he well believes, and so it was public fame, that the said Joan was a good catholic and that she was burned. The residue of the article he did not see.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the twenty-fifth, he says that he heard the contents of the article and believes it to be so, and heard from many that the name of Jesus was seen inscribed in the flame of the fire in which she was burned.\nUpon the twenty-sixth, he says that he well believes that, had the English had such a woman, they would have much honoured her and would not have so treated her.\nUpon the twenty-seventh article, he says that the things he deposed are true and notorious in this city of Rouen.\nThe lord Jean Riquier # The lord Jean Riquier, priest, curate of the parish church of Heudicourt (2), of the age of forty years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on the said Tuesday, the ninth of May.\nUpon the first article, he believes the article to contain the truth.\nUpon the second, he says that he likewise believes the article itself to be true in form; and he adds that it was commonly said that the English dared not lay siege at Louviers until she should be dead.\nUpon the third article, he says that she was brought to this city of Rouen and put in the prisons of the castle of Rouen, and the trial was made against her; and he believes that at the procurement and expense of the English the trial of this kind was made; but of the fear and impression he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth article, he says that it was common fame that many of those who made the trial would willingly have abstained, and assisted at the trial more through fear than otherwise; and so he believes.\nUpon the fifth and sixth articles, he knows nothing, for he was not present in the trial.\nUpon the seventh article, he says that he does not recall the contents of the article to have been done.\nUpon the eighth article, he says that he did not see her in the prisons, but it was said that none dared to speak with her and that she was fettered and that the English guarded her.\nUpon the ninth article, he says that he heard that she answered so prudently that, had certain of the doctors been so interrogated, they would scarce have answered so well.\nUpon the tenth article, he says that he does not recall hearing the contents of the article, nor knows aught.\nUpon the eleventh, he says that he was not in the trial, but heard by fame that she was interrogated by many difficult questions, and that, when she knew not how to answer, she asked for delay until the morrow.\nUpon the twelfth, he says that the trial was very prolix, so that, as he heard from certain ones, those who made the trial were rebuked by the English that they did not end the business sooner.\nUpon the thirteenth and fourteenth articles, he says that common fame held the said Joan to have affirmed and protested as is contained in the article.\nUpon the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that he knows nothing of the contents of the same (3).\nUpon the seventeenth, he knows nothing.\nUpon the eighteenth and twentieth, he refers himself to the notaries and the trial.\nUpon the nineteenth, he says, in his conscience, that the greater part of those who proceeded, had they had liberty and had they not feared the fury of the English, would not have so proceeded.\nUpon the twenty-first and twenty-second, he knows nothing.\nUpon the twenty-third, he says that, in the judgement of the speaker, from the end of the said Joan the same Joan was faithful and catholic; and he heard that she asked to receive the body of Christ and believes it was delivered to her; and he knows that she was burned.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that, the last sermon having been made, she was abandoned by the ecclesiastical men, and forthwith he saw that the retainers and armed English received her and led her straight to the place of punishment; nor did he see that any sentence was given by a secular judge.\nUpon the twenty-fifth article, he says that the article contains the truth, as he saw and heard. Likewise he says that the speaker himself heard that Master Jean Ad-Ensem, then canon of Rouen, present at the execution of the said Joan, weeping wondrously, said in the presence of the speaker and of others standing near him: Would that my soul were where I believe the soul of this woman to be.\nUpon the twenty-sixth, of the impressions he has deposed above, and he believes that the English proceeded for the causes contained in the article and to those ends.\nUpon the twenty-seventh article, he says that there was and is fame in this city of Rouen of the things which he himself deposed above.\nMaster Jean Fave # The provident man Master Jean Fave (4), master of arts and licentiate in laws, dwelling at Rouen, master of requests of our lord the King, of the age of forty-five years or thereabouts, sworn and examined on the said day.\nUpon the first article, he says that he believes and esteems the article to be true.\nUpon the second article, he says that he well perceived that the English feared the same Joan and, as he heard, much feared the escape of the said Joan.\nUpon the third article, he says he knows that she was brought to this city of Rouen and thrust into prison in the Castle of Rouen; and there was fame that the trial was conducted against her in the matter of faith, and that the English, as he heard said and believes, procured the trial and the stipends of the doctors and others summoned to the trial. Of the fear and impression he says that, after the first sermon, when she was led back to the prisons in the Castle of Rouen, the handlers mocked the same Joan, and the English their masters suffered it; and that the chief men of the English, as he heard, were much indignant against the Bishop of Beauvais, the doctors and others assisting in the trial, by reason that she had not been convicted and condemned and delivered to punishment; and that he also heard it said that certain English, out of the aforesaid indignation, against the aforesaid bishop and doctors returning from the castle, lifted swords to strike them, although they struck not, saying that the King had ill spent his moneys upon them. Moreover he says that he heard from certain ones related that, when the Earl of Warwick, after the said first sermon, complained to the said bishop and doctors, saying that the King stood ill by reason that the said Joan was escaping, to this one of them answered: My lord, take ye no care; we shall well take her again.\n(2) Heudicourt, today in the department of the Eure.\n(3) The Notre-Dame manuscript adds: similarly he so says upon the seventeenth.\n(4) In the registers of the Exchequer of Rouen there is found Jehan Fave, commissioner of the King at the assizes of that tribunal, in 1453. (Desoillet, Hist. de Rouen, vol. I, p. 434.)\nUpon the fourth article, he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the fifth, he says that he heard it said that the English were ill content with the lord Guillaume Manchon, notary of the said cause, and held him suspect and favourable to the same Joan, by reason that he came not willingly nor bore himself at their nod.\nUpon the sixth and seventh articles, he knows nothing.\nUpon the eighth, he says that he believes the article to be true, and that he heard it said that the guards of the said Joan were often changed.\nUpon the ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second articles, he knows nothing.\nUpon the twenty-third, he says that he believes the same Joan was simple, good and a faithful catholic; and he saw her abandoned by the Church and at length led by the executioner and others to the place of punishment to be burned.\nUpon the twenty-fourth article, he says that he did not perceive that any sentence or condemnation was given by a secular judge; but she was led straight to the punishment.\nUpon the twenty-fifth, he says that he saw almost all of that nation weeping and lamenting; and the speaker heard, from the own mouth of the said Joan, the same Joan acclaiming the name of Jesus amid the flames.\nUpon the twenty-sixth, he believes the article in form.\nUpon the last, he believes all the things deposed by him to be true and notorious.\nCollation is made by us, the notaries named above, who faithfully put into writing the depositions and attestations of the forenamed witnesses, our manual signs being hereto appended in witness of all and each of the premises. In the year of the Lord 1452, on Wednesday the tenth day of the month of May.\nSo signed: Socius and Dauvergne.\nII. INQUEST IN THE PLACE OF JOAN’S ORIGIN # [Inquisition concerning the informations mentioned in the first trial.]\nThe aforesaid informations having been received in the beginning of this trial together with the books, registers and records of the said first trial, as is described above — made both by the aforesaid reverend lord Cardinal Legate and by his commissioners under him and his authority, and which informations the aforesaid lords the Archbishop, the Bishops and the Inquisitor delegated, as above, willed to be held in this trial as preambles and preparatories, and willed to be described and premised here at the beginning of the informations and inquests made in this trial both ex officio and at the request of the parties: the aforesaid lords the Delegates, desiring to scrutinise all things to the full and to seek out the entire truth by full discussion, both for the justification of the first trial itself conducted against the said Joan and for the contrary, the venerable and discreet man Simon Chapitault, constituted promoter for the cause, especially pressing to this end, willed that most exact diligence be made and applied, and both by themselves and by their commissioners made and commanded to be made search in the seeking out and recovering of certain informations which the judges of the first trial, in its beginning, pretend to have made by their authority in the place of origin of the aforesaid Joan and elsewhere, and which, as they say, they pretend by deliberation of the counsellors summoned to the trial to have renewed under certain articles and, after the confession and renewal of them, to have carried the same informations and to have shewn them to the notaries of the trial and the counsellors — many times reciting, affirming and asserting them in the same trial.\nAnd when interrogation was made, after the reception of the said first trial and the inspection of it in our presence and in that of those from whose hands the said lords the Delegates had received the said trial, of the venerable man Master Guillaume Manchon, principal notary of the same trial, who subscribed the trial itself on every leaf and for the great part originally wrote it; and when the other two notaries of the same trial and very many officers and counsellors who had been assisting in the said trial were also interrogated: forasmuch as the aforesaid lords the Delegates could find nothing of the said informations, the aforesaid notaries and counsellors affirming that they had never seen or heard any informations during the conduct of the aforesaid trial, although this is described and expressed in the trial by ordination and injunction of the judges of the said first trial; which description and expression the aforesaid lords the Delegates much noting (5), and trusting to be much directed by those informations in the conduct of this trial, the aforesaid promoter pressing to that end that the truth of the said first trial might appear and he might the more fittingly act for or against the trial: the aforesaid lords the Delegates gave very many opportune commissions and made very many monitions, sitting for the tribunal in the public hall of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, by word and in writing, that, if any should have the said informations or know aught of them, they should bring and notify them within a certain day, especially admonishing those who had been summoned under the name of the Bishop of Beauvais and of the conventual members of the convent of the order of Preaching Friars of Beauvais and of the inquisitor. And because nothing could be found, in the beginning of the said trial, by the interrogations or by the aforesaid monitions, the aforesaid lords the Delegates, that inquests should be made upon the forenoted articles of the parties, specially interrogated and caused to be interrogated very many witnesses, and especially the counsellors, officers and again also the aforesaid notaries, concerning the aforesaid informations.\nWho all so examined said that they had never seen and heard the aforesaid informations nor the same shewn to them or to others; and especially the said Manchon deposed again that he had never seen them and that, had he seen them or known them shewn to the counsellors, he would have put it in his register. Likewise also the venerable man Master Thomas de Courcelles, professor of sacred theology, one of the counsellors to whom the aforesaid informations are said to have been shewn, named in the beginning of the said trial, says that he in no wise recalls the said informations to have been made or shewn; superadding in his deposition, as is more largely contained below among the inquests made at Paris, that a certain venerable man, Master Jean Loyer, summoned to the said trial after its beginning, was unwilling (6) to take part and said the trial did not proceed of right, because the preamble informations had not been made or shewn as of right ought to have been done, as these things are more largely contained in the said inquests in the deposition of the said Master Thomas. In which inquests also, both by the aforesaid and by other officers and counsellors, nothing could be found of the said informations made, renewed, communicated or shewn. Only one certain honest man, Jean Moreau, merchant, dwelling at Rouen, of Ville-au-Bas (7), near the place of the parish of the said Joan, deposes affirmatively that, in the time of the trial conducted against the said Joan at Rouen, a certain notable man of the parts of Lorraine came to the city of Rouen and said to the deponent himself that he had come from Lorraine and had brought certain informations, for which he had been commissioned in the fact of the said Joan and to inquire concerning her fame in the country of Lorraine; but, because they did not please the lord Bishop of Beauvais, insults were said to him, nor could he receive aught for his labour; whereof he complained to the said deponent, saying that he had found nothing in the said Joan that he would not wish to find in his own sister; as these things and others are contained in his deposition described below among the inquests made in the city of Rouen.\nThis is the diligence applied by the Lords upon the aforesaid informations of which mention is made in the trial. Which diligence the aforesaid lords the Delegates ordained to be described here, ordaining also that new informations be made in the place of origin of the aforesaid Joan and that special inquiry be made also concerning the informations aforetime made.\nThe articles or clauses of the said first trial in which mention is made of the aforesaid preamble informations pretended to have been made in the said trial; by occasion of which articles or clauses the aforesaid lords the Delegates were moved both to seek the aforesaid informations and to make new ones in the place of origin.\nLikewise, on the Saturday following, to wit the thirteenth day of January, the aforesaid bishop himself caused to be summoned in the house of his habitation at Rouen, etc. (8).\nBut, diligent inquisition having been made upon the aforesaid informations made in the place of origin of the aforesaid Joan and elsewhere, of which, as aforesaid, mention is made in the beginning of the said first trial and which are said to have been shewn in it to the notaries and counsellors, because they could in no wise be found, the aforesaid lords the Delegates, the promoter pressing, ordained that new informations be made under the general articles and interrogatories, as they are described below under the following tenor.\n[There follows the tenor of the commission by virtue of which the inquests were made in the place of origin of the said Joan.]\nJean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume by the same mercy bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, etc. To the venerable and learned men the lords and masters Reginald de Chichery, dean of the church or chapel of Blessed Mary of Vaucouleurs in the diocese of Toul, and Watherin Thieric, canon of the church of Toul, greeting in the Lord and firm obedience to our mandates, nay rather apostolic. Forasmuch as it pertains to the office of a judge to search out all things and to discuss them by full inquiry, there has been humbly supplicated to us on the part of the venerable and discreet man Master Simon Chapitault, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter in this matter deputed by us, that, whereas for our instruction and that of our promoter himself and for the readier expedition of this business committed by us and the elucidation of the truth, we must of necessity examine certain witnesses in the place of origin of the same Joan and inquire the truth upon certain articles or interrogatories delivered to us on the part of the promoter himself, and whom or which we send to you enclosed under our seals with the present letters; and whereas it would be laborious for us and burdensome for the parties to go to those parts; that we should deign and be willing to grant them letters of commission under the underwritten form: wherefore we, the aforesaid Judges and Commissioners, inclined to the supplications of our promoter of this kind, desiring, as much as we may, to handle the business committed to us, and especially by the Holy Apostolic See, with due maturity and providence, and to scrutinise the truth of the deeds with all diligence, being hindered by certain of our arduous affairs: to you and each of you in solidum, in whose fidelity, industry and circumspect knowledge we not unworthily confide, in virtue of holy obedience we commit and command that ye cause to be cited, peremptorily and personally before you, all and each of the witnesses of whom ye shall be required on the part of the promoter himself or of the bearer of the presents, or of whom the other of you shall be required, and whom the promoter himself or the bearer of the presents shall will to proceed before you or the other of you, in our stead, to the informing of you upon the said articles or interrogatories, at all and each of the terms to be assigned him by you or the other of you; and that ye receive them and cause them to swear to the act of deposing and, by way of caution, absolve them if they need absolution; and moreover diligently examine them upon the said articles or interrogatories aforesaid and, by ecclesiastical censure if need be, constrain and compel them. And the attestations or depositions of the said witnesses faithfully put into writing, together with the aforesaid articles or interrogatories, as soon as ye may, and what ye shall have done therein, ye shall send back and resend to us enclosed under your seals or the seal of the other of you, or the other of you shall send back or resend. To which premises all and each and the things touching and depending upon the same, proceeding from our office, we commit our powers to you and each of you in solidum. Given and done at Rouen under our seals in the year of the Lord 1455, computing by the Gallican manner, in the fourth indiction, the twentieth day of the month of December, in the first year of the pontificate of the same most holy father and lord in Christ, our lord Calixtus, by divine providence pope the Third. Present the reverend and venerable fathers and lords the Bishop of Demetriade, the Abbots Jean of Saint-Ouen and Jean of Sainte-Catherine, witnesses called and bidden to the premises. Ferrebouc.\n(5) The manuscripts, adnotantes.\n(6) The manuscripts, noluit se.\n(7) Ville-au-Bois, in the department of the Haute-Marne.\n(8) There follow the minutes of the two meetings held on the 13th of January and the 19th of February 1431 at Pierre Cauchon’s house for the bringing of the Maid to judgement. See vol. I, pp. 27 and 31.\nThe articles or interrogatories for the informations to be made in the country of origin of the deceased Joan (1), commonly called the Maid.\nI. First, of the place of origin and the parish.\nII. Item, who were her parents, and of what estate. Whether they were good catholics and of good fame.\nIII. Who were her godfathers and godmothers.\nIV. Item, whether in her early age she was fittingly imbued in faith and morals, especially so far as such age and condition of person requires.\nV. Item, of her conversation in adolescence, from the age of seven until her going forth from the paternal house.\nVI. Item, whether she frequented the church and sacred places, often and willingly.\nVII. Item, with what exercise she occupied or busied herself in the aforesaid time of youth.\nVIII. Item, whether at the same time she willingly and often confessed.\nIX. Item, what the common fame holds concerning that tree which is called the Ladies’ Tree; whether dances of maidens were wont to be made there; and likewise of that fountain which is near the aforesaid tree; whether also Joan frequented there with other maidens, and for what cause or occasion she went thither.\nX. Item, let inquiry be made of the manner of her departure from her country and her progress on the way.\nXI. Item, whether in the said country of origin any Informations were made, by authority of the judges, at the time when she was captured before the town of Compiègne and detained by the English.\nXII. Item, whether, when Joan once fled from the place of her origin to Neufchâteau by reason of the armed men, she was ever in the company of her father and mother.\nGiven and done at Rouen in the year of the Lord 1455, the twentieth day of the month of December.\nSo signed: Comitis and Ferrebouc.\nThe tenor moreover of the said inquests or attestations or depositions of the witnesses follows, and is such:\nThere follow the attestations and sayings of the witnesses, in the name and on the part of the venerable and discreet man Master Simon Chapitault, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter deputed and commissioned by the most reverend fathers and lords in Christ, Jean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, of the order of Preaching Friars, one of the inquisitors of heretical pravity in the realm of France, judges or commissioners, together with the reverend father the lord Bishop of Coutances, their colleague, with that clause Whereas ye, or two, or one of you, etc. specially deputed and commissioned by the Holy Apostolic See upon the fact and cause of the deceased Joan, commonly called the Maid; before us, Reginald Chichery, dean of the church or chapel of Blessed Mary of Vaucouleurs in the diocese of Toul, and Watherin Thieric, canon of the church of Toul, commissioners subdelegated and commissioned by virtue of the letters of commission emanating from the said most reverend lords principal commissioners and directed to us in this behalf, to examine witnesses upon the articles and interrogatories annexed to the same letters, and at the request of the honourable man Jean, called Dalie (2), lay provost of Vaucouleurs in the diocese of Toul, bearer of the said letters of commission; produced, received, sworn in the presence of the discreet men the lords Pierre de Maxey-sur-Vaise (3) and Jean le Fumeux of Ugny (4), in the diocese of Toul, rectors and curates of parish churches; and by us and the discreet man Dominique Dominici, clerk of Toul, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority and sworn of the ecclesiastical courts of Toul, deputed to this by us and through us before the same lords there present, examined; in the year, on the days, in the manner and form following.\nJean Morelli # And first, Jean Morelli of Greux near the town of Domrémy, labourer, of the age of seventy years or thereabouts, first witness in this cause of inquisition upon the fact of the same Jeannette, commonly called the Maid, produced, sworn and received before us in the said town of Domrémy and in the presence of the aforesaid lords Pierre and Jean aforesaid, examined by us and the said Dominique, in the year of the Lord 1455, on Wednesday the twenty-eighth day of the month of January; required, by his oath, what he may know of the matter upon which he is produced as witness, to wit of the contents of the interrogatories or articles given for the information to be made of the fact of the same Jeannette the Maid; his oath verily, made by him upon the holy Gospels of God, being recalled to his memory; and it being expounded to him how a false-speaking witness bearing false testimony commits many evils at once and at one time: for he despises his Creator; secondly he deceives the judge; thirdly he wrongs his neighbour, and how he builds himself to Gehenna and is so rendered infamous for ever;\nUpon the first article of the same articles or interrogatories, beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles, required: he says, by his said oath, that the said Jeannette of whom question is made was born in the aforesaid Domrémy and was baptised in the parish church of Saint Rémy of the same place. And her father was called Jacques d’Arc (5) and her mother Isabellette, labourers of the said Domrémy, dwelling together whilst they lived; who, as he saw and knew, were good and faithful catholics and good labourers, of good fame and honest conversation as labourers, for he conversed with them many times. The same witness speaking said also that he himself was one of the godfathers of the said Joan; and her godmothers were the wife of Étienne Rotarius and Béatrice, widow of Tiescelin (6), dwelling in the said town of Domrémy, and Jeannette, widow of Thiescelin de Vitel, dwelling in the town of Neufchâteau.\nUpon the fourth of the same articles, beginning Item, whether in her early, etc., required: by his oath he said that the same Jeannette in her first age, as it seems to him, was and had been well and decently instructed in faith and good morals, and was such that almost all of the same town of Domrémy loved her; for the same Jeannette knew her credence, the Pater noster and the Ave Maria, as like young maidens know.\nUpon the fifth following article, beginning Item, of her conversation, etc., required: he said that the same Jeannette was honest in conversation as such and suchlike a daughter is, for her parents were not very rich; and in her youth until her departure from her father’s house she went to the plough and sometimes kept the animals in the fields; she did the work of women, spinning and doing all the rest.\nUpon the sixth following article, beginning Item, whether she frequented, etc., required: he said by his said oath that, as he saw, the same Jeannette willingly and often went to the church or hermitage of Blessed Mary of Bermont (7), hard by the said town of Domrémy, whilst her parents believed her to be in the fields, at the plough or elsewhere. He said also that, when she heard the mass rung and she was in the fields, she came to the town and the church to hear mass, as the same witness asserted he had seen.\nUpon the seventh following article, beginning Item, with what exercise, etc., required: he said that the same Jeannette span and went to the plough and kept the animals, as he has already deposed in the fifth article.\nUpon the eighth following article, beginning Item, whether at the same time, etc., required: he said that he saw the same Jeannette confess in Easter time and on the other festival solemnities; he saw her confess to the lord Guillaume Fronte, then curate of the same parish church of Blessed Rémy of Domrémy.\nUpon the ninth of the same articles or interrogatory, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said by his oath that, of the tree which is called the Ladies’ Tree (8), he heard it otherwise said that women and fateful persons who were called fées went of old to dance beneath that tree; but, as is said, since the gospel of Saint John is read and said, they go no more. He said also that, in modern times, on the Sunday on which is sung in the holy Church of God at the introit of the mass Laetare Jerusalem, in those parts commonly called (9) des Fontaines, the maidens and youths of Domrémy go beneath that tree (and sometimes in the time of spring and summer on feast days) to dance, and sometimes eat there, and in returning come upon the Fountain aux Rannos (10), disporting and singing, and drink of the water of that fountain and, playing round about, gather flowers. He said also that the same Joan the Maid with the other maidens went at the said times sometimes and did as the rest; nor did he ever hear it said that the articled Jeannette, alone or for another cause, went to the tree or to the fountain (which fountain is nearer to the town than the tree is), save to disport and play as the other young maidens also did. Nor did he depose otherwise.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that, when the said Jeannette departed from her father’s house, she went twice or thrice to Vaucouleurs to speak with the Bailiff; and he heard it said that the lord Charles, then Duke of Lorraine (11), willed to see her and gave her a horse, as was said, of black hair. Nor would he know to depose otherwise of the contents of the same article, save that, in the time of July, the witness speaking himself was at Châlons whilst it was said that the King was going to Reims to be consecrated, and found the said Joan there, who gave him a red garment which she herself had worn.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing of the contents of the same (12).\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that, when the same Joan was at Neufchâteau by reason of the armed men (13), she was ever in the company of her father and mother, who stayed in the said Neufchâteau for four days and afterwards departed to the said town of Domrémy. And this the same witness knows because he was in Neufchâteau with others of the said town and then saw the said Jeannette and her father and mother.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love nor by hatred, prayer, price, favour or fear did he depose this. And it was enjoined upon him, etc. (14).\nThe lord Dominique Jacobi # The discreet man the lord Dominique Jacobi, curate of the parish church of Montiers-sur-Saulx (15) in the diocese of Toul, priest, of the age of thirty-five years or thereabouts, produced as second witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year on Thursday the twenty-ninth of the same month of January; required by his oath, etc. (16).\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second following, required: he said by his oath that the same Jeannette was born in the said Domrémy and, as he believes, baptised in the church of Saint Rémy of the same town; and her parents were Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, who were good catholics and of good fame; and he ever heard them so reputed.\nUpon the third following article, beginning Item, who were, etc., required: he said that he would not know to depose save by hearsay, for the said Joan was older than he.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early, etc., and also upon the fifth and sixth following articles: he said that he knew and saw the same Jeannette from three or four years before her departure from the house of her father and mother; and the same Jeannette was imbued with good morals and of honest conversation, and went frequently to church and sometimes whilst the complines were rung in the church of the said town stood on bended knees; and, as it seemed to him, she devoutly said her prayers.\nUpon the seventh following article, beginning Item, with what exercise, etc., and also upon the eighth following article, required: he said by his oath that the said Jeannette sometimes span, went to the plough or kept the animals; and he believes she confessed, and, as it seems to him, she was a good and prudent daughter. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same articles.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: he said by his oath that the articled tree is commonly called the Ladies’ Tree, and the maidens and children and youths of the said town of Domrémy, every year on the Sunday Laetare Jerusalem, commonly des Fontaines, and also in spring time, go to that tree to dance, and carry bread with them, and in returning come upon the Fountain of Rannos, eat their bread and drink of that water; and this they do to disport themselves, as the same witness says. He said also that he saw the same Joan approach and go with the said maidens, and she did as the others did. He said also that that tree is of a wondrous and marvellous kind, and is the cause, as he believes, wherefore the maidens and boys willingly go to dance beneath it. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing save by hearsay.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing else save that he otherwise heard it said that certain Friars Minor were presented (17) in the country to make an information; but he knows not whether they made it.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that all the inhabitants of the said town of Domrémy fled by reason of the armed men and went to Neufchâteau, among whom the same Jeannette with her father and mother, and in their company she ever went, as it seems to him, and from the same Neufchâteau with the same her father and mother departed.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nBéatrice, widow of Estellin # Béatrice, widow of Estellin, labourer of the said town of Domrémy, of the age of eighty years or thereabouts, produced as third witness in this cause, sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday; required by her oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first article or interrogatory, beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles, required: she said by her oath that the said Jeannette was born of the said town of Domrémy, of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, labourers, true and good catholics, worthy and able according to their means, but not very rich; and the same Jeannette was baptised in the font of the church of Blessed Rémy of the same town, and her godfathers were Jean Morelli of Greux and Jean le Langart and the late Jean Rainguesson; and her godmothers Jeannette, widow of Thiescelin Clerici; Jeannette, wife of Thévenin Rotarius, of the said town; and the deponent herself.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles diligently expounded to her, required: she said by her oath that the same Jeannette was well and sufficiently instructed in the catholic faith as like daughters of her age; and from her infancy or adolescence until her departure from the paternal house, imbued with good morals, a chaste daughter of good conversation, devoutly frequenting churches and sacred places; so that, when the town of the said Domrémy was burned, the same Jeannette on feast days ever went to hear mass at the town of Greux, and willingly confessed on fitting days, and especially on the feast of the most holy Pasch or Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ; and, as it seemed to her, there was none better in the two towns. She occupied herself in divers businesses in the paternal house, for she sometimes span hemp and wool, went to the plough, to the harvests when the season occurred, and sometimes, according to her father’s turn, kept the animals and the beasts of the said town. Nor else would she know to depose.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: she said that that tree is called the Ladies’ Tree; and the witness herself was otherwise, with the ladies and temporal lords of the said town, beneath that tree to disport themselves for the beauty of the tree. She said also that that tree is hard by the great road by which one goes to Neufchâteau; and she otherwise heard say that of old the fateful Ladies, that is the fées, went beneath the same tree; but by reason of their sins, as she said, they go now no more. She said moreover that the maidens and youths of the said town of Domrémy, every year on the Sunday Laetare Jerusalem which is called des Fontaines and in spring time (among whom the said Jeannette went), go to that tree and beneath the same sing and make dances, eat there, and in returning come to the Fountain aux Rannos and drink of the water of the same fountain. And she said that, when the curate, on the vigil of the Ascension, carries the cross through the fields, he himself goes beneath that tree and there sings the gospel, and also goes to the Fountain of Rannos and the other fountains to sing the gospel, as she saw. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: she said that the same Jeannette went to Vaucouleurs when she departed from her father’s house; nor else would she know to depose.\nUpon the eleventh following, beginning Item, whether in the said, etc., required: she said that she heard it said that there were Friars Minor in the said town to make informations, as was said; nor else does she know, for nothing was asked of her.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: she said that, when the same Joan was at Neufchâteau, all the inhabitants of the said town had fled thither, and, as she saw, the same Jeannette in staying there and in departing thence was ever in the company of her father and mother, nor did she ever serve any save her father until her departure to France.\nMore she knows not. Cited, she came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon her, etc.\nJeannette, wife of Thévenin # Jeannette (18), wife of Thévenin Rotarius, of the said town of Domrémy, of the age of seventy years or thereabouts, produced as fourth witness in this cause of inquisition; sworn and examined in the said town in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday in this cause of inquisition; required by her oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories exhibited in this cause of inquisition of this kind, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third articles, required, she said by her oath that she knows what follows: to wit, that the same articled Jeannette was born of the said Domrémy, and her parents were Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, good catholics, of good fame, worthy persons and according to their means, as honest labourers; and the same Jeannette was baptised in the font of the same town, and her godfathers were Jean Barre of Neufchâteau and Jean Morelli of Greux; and her godmothers Jeannette, widow of Thiesselin, and the witness herself who speaks.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles expounded to her, required: she said that the same Jeannette, as she saw, was a good and simple daughter, fearing God; in faith sufficiently instructed as such and suchlike; of good, simple and sweet conversation; and for the love of God often gave alms; often went devoutly to church; confessed, as she believes, for she was good; in her father’s house span hemp and wool, and sometimes went with her father to the plough, and by turn kept the animals for her father.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: she said that that tree is called the Ladies’ Tree; and she heard it said that the ladies of the said town of Domrémy went of old to disport themselves beneath that tree; and, as it seems to her, the lady Catherine de la Roche, wife of Jean de Bourlémont (19), lord of the said town, went with her damsels to disport themselves beneath that tree. She said also that the maidens and young boys of the said town of Domrémy, in spring time and on the now said Sunday des Fontaines, go beneath that tree, sing there, make dances, have bread and eat, and come to the Fountain of Rannos and drink of its water. She said that the articled Jeannette then went with the same maidens to disport herself; nor did she ever see, or hear said, that the same Jeannette was otherwise beneath that tree. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made of the manner of the departure, etc., required: she said that she knows nothing, save that she heard it said that one of her uncles led the same Joan to Vaucouleurs.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said, etc., required: she said that she knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: she said that the same Jeannette was, as she saw, ever in the company of her father in Neufchâteau. Nor otherwise did she depose.\nMore she knows not. Cited, she came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon her, etc.\nJean Moen # Jean, called Moen, of Domrémy, dwelling in the town of Coussey (20) in the diocese of Toul, wheelwright, of the age of fifty-six years or thereabouts, produced as fifth witness in this cause of inquisition; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second following article, required: he said by his oath that the said Jeannette, called the Maid, was born in the said town of Domrémy of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, and was baptised in the font of the church of Blessed Rémy of the same town. He said also that her father and mother were good catholics, of good fame and honest estate as labourers; and this he knows because the witness himself who speaks was her neighbour.\nUpon the third following article, beginning Item, who were, etc., required: he said that he would not know to depose, for he does not recall.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early, etc., and upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles, required: he said that the same Jeannette, as he saw, from her youth and infancy until her departure from the paternal house, was and had been a good and chaste daughter, fearing God, and went willingly to church, willingly wrought, span, did the needful things of her father’s house, sometimes kept the animals. And he believes that, whilst she had understanding, she confessed many times in the year. Upon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that the articled tree is beneath a wood hard by the great road by which one goes to Neufchâteau; and the boys and maidens of the said town, every year, commonly on the said Sunday des Fontaines, are wont to go to disport themselves beneath that tree, and there eat in sport, and go to the springs hard by that tree to drink. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same article.\nUpon the tenth, eleventh and twelfth following articles expounded to him, required: he said that he knows nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nThe lord Étienne de Sion # The venerable man the lord Étienne de Sion (21), curate of the parish church of Roncessey before Neufchâteau and dean of christianity (22), priest of the said Neufchâteau, of the age of fifty-four years or thereabouts, produced as sixth witness in this cause of inquisition; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second following article, required: he said that the articled Jeannette was born of the said Domrémy, of Jacques d’Arc her father; the name of the mother he knows not; nevertheless her father and mother were true catholics of good fame, and he heard and saw (23) them so reputed, although they were poor. Nor else did he depose.\nUpon the third following article, beginning Item, who were, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth following articles read through to him, required: he said that he otherwise many times heard it said by the lord Guillaume Fronte, whilst he lived, curate of the same town of Domrémy, that the same Jeannette called the Maid was a good and simple daughter, devout, well-mannered, fearing God, so that there was not her like in the said town; she often confessed her sins to him; he said also that, if the said Joan had had moneys, she would have given them to him, her curate, for the celebrating of masses. He said also that the same curate said that every day, whilst he celebrated, she was at the mass. Nor else does he know of the contents of the said articles save by hearsay.\nUpon the tenth and eleventh following articles read through to the same witness, required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that he heard it said by very many that the same Jeannette was in Neufchâteau in the house of a certain honest woman called La Rousse, by reason of the armed men; and she was ever in the company of her father and of the others of the said town who had also fled thither. Nor else does he know.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nJeannette, widow of Thiesselin # Jeannette, widow of Thiesselin (24) de Vitel, a clerk dwelling, whilst he lived, in the said Domrémy, dwelling in Neufchâteau, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, produced as seventh witness in this cause of inquisition; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday; required by her oath, etc.; and coming to the matter of the articles or interrogatories given in this business of this kind,\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles expounded to her, required: she said by her oath that Jeannette, called the Maid, was born of the said Domrémy, of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, worthy spouses, catholics of good fame, who bore themselves as labourers, honestly according to their poverty, for they were not very rich. She said also that she was baptised in the font of the parish church of Blessed Rémy of the same town, and that the witness herself who speaks was godmother of the same Joan and had her name. Her godmother was also Jeanne, wife of Thévenin Rotarius, of the said town. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles required: she said by her said oath that the articled Jeannette, as she saw, in her first age and as long (25) as she was in the said Domrémy, was a good daughter, living worthily and holily as a prudent daughter; she went willingly to church, feared God. Sometimes she went to the church of Our Lady of Bermont with certain maidens to pray to Saint Mary; and the witness herself was otherwise with the same. She said also that she willingly busied herself with tasks, spinning, doing the needful things of the house; and often, when the case occurred, kept the animals by turn for her father. She said also that she often confessed, for she saw her confess many times to the lord Guillaume Fronte, then curate of her parish church. She said also that the same Joan did not swear save Without fail; nor was she a dancer; but sometimes, whilst the other maidens sang or danced, she herself went to the church.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: she said by her oath that the articled tree is called the Ladies’ Tree, for it is said that of old a certain lord named the lord Pierre Granier, knight, lord of Bourlémont, with a certain lady who was called the Fée, visited each other beneath that tree and spoke together. And she said that she heard this read in a romance. She said also that the lords and ladies of the said town of Domrémy, as for instance the lady Béatrice, wife of the lord Pierre de Bolemont, with her damsels, and the lord Pierre himself, sometimes went, as was said, to disport themselves at the said tree. She said further that the maidens and young boys of the said town every year go on the Sunday Laetare called des Fontaines to disport themselves, and there eat and dance, and go to drink at the Fountain of Rannos; but she does not recall whether the said Joan the Maid was ever beneath that tree; nor did she hear it said that the said Jeannette was ever defamed by reason of that tree. Nor otherwise did she depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., and also upon the eleventh following article, she said that she knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., she said that she knows nothing save by hearsay.\nMore she knows not; cited, she came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon her, etc.\nLouis de Martigny # The noble man Louis de Martigny (26), esquire, of the age of fifty-six years or thereabouts, produced as eighth witness in this cause of inquisition; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday; required by his oath, etc.\nAnd first, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second, required: he said by his oath that Joan the Maid was born of the said Domrémy, and her father was Jacques d’Arc. She had a mother; yet of her name he would not know to depose. He said that her father and mother were good and catholic, as he saw, nor did he ever hear the contrary said. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the third following article, beginning Item, who were, etc., he said by his oath that he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles expounded and read through to him, required: he said that he knows nothing save by hearsay; for he heard it said that she was worthy and willingly confessed (27).\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that he heard it said that, when she willed to go to France, she went to the lord Bailiff of Chaumont and afterwards to the lord Duke of Lorraine; and the lord Duke gave her a horse and moneys; and afterwards certain named Bertrand de Poulengy, Jean de Metz, Jean de Dieu-le-Ward and Colet de Vienne led her towards the King. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh and twelfth following articles diligently read through to him, he said that he knows utterly nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nThévenin Rotarius # Thévenin Rotarius of Chermisey (28), dwelling in the said Domrémy, of the age of seventy years or thereabouts, produced as ninth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday; required by his oath, etc.\nAnd first, upon the first of the articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles, required: he said that Jeannette the Maid was born of the said Domrémy and baptised in the font of the parish church of Saint Rémy of the same place, as was said; and her parents were Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, who lived worthily as labourers; and Jeanne, wife of the deposing witness, was godmother of the same Maid and had held her over the font before he wedded her. Nor else does he know of the contents of the said articles.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth, required: he said that the said Joan the Maid was a good daughter, went willingly to church, served God, willingly confessed on the paschal day, and occupied herself in spinning, doing the needful things of the house, and sometimes, according to their turn, kept the animals. And he reputed the same Jeannette good, as he saw, nor ever heard the contrary said of her.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., he said that he heard it said that of old the lords and ladies of the town of Domrémy, as for instance the lord Pierre de Bourlémont, his wife and others his servants and damsels, went to disport themselves beneath that tree; and yet in these present times the maidens and youths of the same town on the Sunday des Fontaines and in spring time go beneath that tree, carry little loaves and there disport themselves and eat, make merry and dance; and the said Joan went with the others; nor did he ever hear it said that the said Joan, alone or for another cause, went to the said tree save with the said maidens. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., and likewise upon the eleventh and twelfth following articles required: he said that he knows nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nJacquier de Saint-Amant # Jacquier de Saint-Amant (29), labourer, dwelling in the said town of Domrémy, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, produced as tenth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following, required: he said by his oath that the aforesaid Jeannette the Maid was born of the said Domrémy, of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, who were true catholics and labourers of good fame, as he saw. And he heard it said that the same Joan was baptised in the font of Blessed Rémy of the same town, and her godfather was Jean Morelli of Greux and her godmother Jeannette de Roye (30); nor else does he know.\nUpon the fourth following article, Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles, required: he said that the same Jeannette was a good daughter, fearing God, going willingly to church; she occupied herself daily in the businesses of the house, for he saw her many times at night, in the speaker’s house, spinning with a certain daughter of his, without that he ever saw evil; she kept the animals when the season occurred; she willingly confessed on the paschal day. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that the lords and temporal ladies of the said town commonly went to disport themselves there beneath that tree, and yet in modern times the maidens and youths of the said town go beneath that tree in the time of spring and summer and on the day des Fontaines, and carry loaves to eat and disport themselves there. He said also that the same Joan the Maid in her youth, with the maidens, on the aforesaid days, went to the said tree to disport herself. Nor else did he depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., and also upon the eleventh following article, required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that then, by reason of the armed men, he saw the said Jeannette in Neufchâteau, who led into the fields the animals of her father and mother then being in the said place. Nor else does he know.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nBertrand Lacloppe # Bertrand Lacloppe of the said town, receiver of the roofs, of the age of ninety years or thereabouts, produced as eleventh witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles, required: he said by his said oath that Jeannette the Maid was daughter of Jacques d’Arc, labourer, and of Isabelle, spouses of the said town of Domrémy, worthy and catholic persons; and, as he believes, she was baptised in the fonts of Blessed Rémy of the same town. He said that Béatrice, widow of Estellin, and Jeanne, wife of Thévenin Carpentarius, were godmothers of the same, as is commonly said. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles expounded to him, required: he said by his oath that the said Joan the Maid was well imbued, simple, sweet, went willingly to the churches and specially to the church of the said town, as he saw; she did the works of the house and span, as the other young maidens also do, and sometimes went with her father to the plough and sometimes, at her father’s turn, kept the animals, and, as they said, willingly confessed. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that the tree which is called the Ladies’ is a tree which is called a beech; and it is very bent, and is called the Ladies’ Tree; and of old it was said that (in French) les fées went; yet he never saw, nor in his time heard, that the said fées went beneath that tree. He said also that sometimes the maidens and youths of the said town, in spring time and on the Sunday des Fontaines — among whom, as he believes, Jeannette was one — went to the said tree and to the fountain hard by the tree to disport themselves and dance; and there they are wont to eat. He said moreover that he never heard it said that the said Joan went alone to the said tree save with the said maidens. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that a certain man of Petit-Burey (31) came to seek the said Jeannette the Maid to the said town of Domrémy and led her to Vaucouleurs to speak with the Bailiff; and he heard it said that the Bailiff himself sent her to the King. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required, by his said oath: he said that of the contents of the same he knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when Joan, etc., required: he said that, by reason of the armed men then, as was said, coming into the said town, all the inhabitants of the same town went to Neufchâteau, and the said Joan the Maid with her father and mother went in their company, and stayed there with the same for the space of four days or thereabouts. Nor else does he know.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nPerrin Drappier # Perrin Drappier of the said Domrémy, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, produced as twelfth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and upon the second and third following articles diligently expounded to him, required: he said by his oath that Joan the Maid was born of Domrémy, of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, worthy labourers and good catholics of good fame, as he saw; and the same Joan was baptised in the parish of the said town and the church of Blessed Rémy of the same, and, as is said, had godfathers and godmothers whom he knows not, save that there are still at present in the said town two women who are called godmothers of the said Maid, to wit Jeannette, wife of Thévenin Rotarius of the said town, and Jeannette Thiescelin de Vitel dwelling in Neufchâteau. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles diligently expounded to him, required: he said by his oath that the same Jeannette the Maid, in the time of her youth and understanding until her departure from her father’s house, was and had been a good, chaste, simple, modest daughter, not swearing by God nor by His Saints, fearing God; she went frequently to church, often confessed; rendering a reason for his knowledge, because the witness himself at that time was churchwarden (32) of the said church of Domrémy, and often saw the said Joan come to church at masses and complines; and, when the witness himself did not ring the complines, the same Joan blamed and reproached the same witness, saying that it was not well done; and the same Joan then promised to give the same witness wool (33), to the end that he should have diligence in ringing the complines. The same witness said also that the same Joan often went, with a certain sister of hers and other folk, to a certain church and hermitage called Bermont, founded in honour of the blessed Virgin Mary; she made many alms, willingly wrought, spinning and doing the other needful works; and sometimes went to the plough and by turn kept the animals. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that the articled tree is commonly called the Ladies’ Tree; and he saw a lady in the said town who was wife of the lord Pierre de Bolemont, and the mother of the same lord Pierre, who sometimes went to the said tree to disport themselves, and led with them their damsels and certain maidens of the said town, and carried bread and wine with eggs. He said that, in spring time and on the Sunday Laetare Jerusalem called des Fontaines, the maidens and youths of the said town were wont to go to the said tree and to the springs, and carry little loaves with them and eat beneath that tree and disport themselves dancing and singing. He said also that the same Joan, in the time of her youth, sometimes with the said maidens of the said town went to the said tree and to the Fountain of Rannos to disport herself and dance with the same maidens. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said by his oath that, when the said Joan willed to depart from her father’s house, she went with a certain Durand Laxart her uncle to Vaucouleurs to speak with Robert de Baudricourt, then captain of the said Vaucouleurs. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said that he believes informations were made; yet he is not advised whether he saw them made or not.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that, when the folk of the said town fled by reason of the armed men to the town of Neufchâteau, the said Joan the Maid with her father and mother went and led their animals; and, three or four days after, she with her father returned to the said town of Domrémy. Nor else does he know.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nGérard Guillemette # Gérard Guillemette of Greux, labourer, of the age of forty years or thereabouts, produced as thirteenth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy before us in the presence of the said witnesses, in the aforesaid year and on Friday the penultimate day of the month of January; required by his oath, etc.\nComing therefore to the articles or interrogatories exhibited in this cause of this kind, to wit upon the first of the articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles expounded to him, required: he said by his oath that the said Joan the Maid was begotten of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, labourers of the said town, true catholics of good fame and good name, without defamation, as labourers; and, as he believes, she was baptised in the parish of the said town of Domrémy in the church of Blessed Rémy; and, as is said, she had good godfathers and godmothers. He knows Jean Morelli her godfather, and Jeannette Roze (34) and Jeannette, widow of Thiescelin, her, as is asserted, godmothers. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the fourth following article or interrogatory, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles, required: he said that he saw the said Jeannette and from the time of his knowing her well knew her; who was a good, honest and simple daughter, conversing with the good maidens and women of the said town, and went willingly and often to church, willingly and devoutly confessed as he saw, and, as he believes, there was none better than she in the said town. She willingly wrought spinning, doing the needful things of the house and preparing the useful things of her father and mother; and sometimes went to the plough according to her father’s will. Nor otherwise would he know to depose.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: he said that he heard that tree ever called the Ladies’ Tree; and of old the temporal ladies of the said town of Domrémy were wont to go with their damsels and handmaids beneath that tree to disport themselves. He said that sometimes the maidens and young boys of the said town of Domrémy on the Sunday Laetare Jerusalem called des Fontaines go to make their springs and to disport themselves at the Fountain of Rannos, and drink of its water. He said also that he saw the said Jeannette once on the said Sunday with the said maidens, nor did he ever see her further. And he said that the maidens and boys of the town of Greux go to make their springs at the church of Blessed Mary of Bermont. Nor else did he depose (35).\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that, when the same Jeannette departed from her father’s house, he saw the same Joan pass before his father’s house with a certain uncle of hers named Durand Laxart, and then the same Jeannette said to her father: To God, I go to Vaucouleurs. And he heard it said afterwards that the same Jeannette was going to France. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said by his oath that the witness himself who speaks was in Neufchâteau with the said Joan, her father and mother, and saw the said Joan ever with her father and mother, save that, for three or four days, the same Jeannette, in the presence of her father and mother, helped the hostess where they were lodged, to wit la Rousse, an honest woman of the said town; but he well knows that they stayed not in the said Neufchâteau save four or five days until the armed men had passed over; and then she returned with her father and mother to the said town of Domrémy.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nHauviette, wife of Gérard # Hauviette, wife of Gérard de Sion (36), labourer dwelling in the said Domrémy, of the age of forty-five years or thereabouts, produced and sworn as fourteenth witness in this cause of inquisition in the said Domrémy, in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Thursday the twenty-ninth of the month of January, and examined in the same year on Friday the penultimate day of the same month; required by her oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles, required: she said that from her youth she knew Joan called the Maid, who was born of the said Domrémy, of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, worthy labourers and true catholics of good fame; and this she knows because she many times abode and lay lovingly with the said Joan in her father’s house. Yet she does not recall the godfathers and godmothers save by hearsay, for the same Joan was elder than the witness herself, as was said, by three or four years. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles expounded to her, required: by her said oath she said that the same Joan was a good, simple and sweet daughter and went willingly and often to church and to sacred places, and often had shamefacedness by reason that folk said to her that she went to church too devoutly; for she heard it said by the curate then being that she confessed many times. The said Joan occupied herself as the other maidens do; she did the needful things of the house and span, and sometimes kept her father’s animals, as she saw. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: she said that that tree is called the Ladies’ Tree from of old, and it was said of old that the Ladies who are called fées went to that tree; yet she never heard that anyone ever saw any. She said also that the maidens and boys of the said town were wont to go to the tree and to the Fountain of Rannos on the Sunday Laetare Jerusalem called des Fontaines, and carry bread with them; and the witness herself with Joan the Maid, who was her companion, was otherwise with the other young maidens at the said tree on the said Sunday des Fontaines; and there they ate, disported themselves and played. She said also that she saw nuts carried round that tree and to the springs. Nor otherwise would she know to depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: she said that she knew not of the departure of the said Jeannette; which witness wept much by reason thereof, because she loved her so much for her goodness and because she was her companion. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: she said that she knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when Joan, etc., required: by her said oath she said that the same Joan was ever in Neufchâteau with her father and mother, for the witness herself was in the said Neufchâteau at that time and ever saw her.\nMore she knows not. Cited, she came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon her, etc.\nJean Waterin # Jean Waterin of Domrémy, dwelling in the town of Greux hard by the said town of the said Domrémy, labourer, of the age of forty-five years or thereabouts, produced as fifteenth witness in this cause; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Friday, the penultimate day of the month of January; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles, required: he said that Joan the Maid was born of the said Domrémy and of the parish of the same place; and her parents were Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, who were good catholics and of good fame as labourers, as he saw. He knows Jean Morelli the godfather, and Jeannette Roze and Jeanne de Vitel, the, as is said, godmothers of the articled Jeannette. Nor otherwise did he depose.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles diligently expounded to him, required: he said that he saw Jeannette the Maid many times and was in his youth with her at the plough of the father of the same Joan, and with the other maidens and herself in the pastures or grass-lands; and often, whilst they played together, the same Joan drew herself apart and spoke to God, as it seemed to him; and he and the others mocked her. She was good and simple, frequented churches and sacred places, so that sometimes, when she was in the fields and heard the bell ring, she bent her knees; she willingly wrought, span, prepared the needful and useful things of the house, went to the plough with her father, and sometimes kept the animals by turn and willingly confessed, as the priest of the said town then said; she often carried candles and went to Our Lady of Bermont on pilgrimage. Nor otherwise would he know to depose.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: by his said oath he said that the articled tree is commonly called the Ladies’ Tree; and he heard it said that of old the women who were commonly called fées went beneath that tree; yet he did not hear it said that anyone ever saw them beneath that tree. Yet he said moreover that the maidens and youths of the said town of Domrémy, each year in summer time and on the Sunday called des Fontaines, are wont to go beneath that tree, carry little loaves, and there eat and make merry beneath that tree, and in returning come to the Fountain of Rannos and sometimes to the other springs and drink. He said that Joan otherwise, on the said Sunday, was, as it seemed to him, with the said maidens beneath that tree to play and disport herself as the other daughters did. Nor otherwise did he depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., he said, required, that he saw her depart from the town of Greux and she said to the folk: To God! For he heard it said to him many times that she would relieve France and the royal blood. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when Joan, etc., required: he said that the same Jeannette, whilst she was in Neufchâteau, was ever in the company of her father and mother; rendering a reason, for the witness himself was then in Neufchâteau with the others of the said town.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nGérardin d’Épinal # Gérardin d’Épinal (37), labourer, dwelling in the said Domrémy, of the age of sixty years, produced as sixteenth witness in this cause of inquisition; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the year and on the Friday immediately aforesaid; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles, required: he said by his said oath that the same Jeannette was born of the said Domrémy and baptised in the parish of Blessed Rémy of the same place, and her parents were Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses; who, as he saw, without defamation, were good catholics and good people of good name. He said also that he heard it said that Jean Morelli of Greux was her godfather and Jeannette de Roze her godmother. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles fully expounded to him, required: by his said oath the witness himself said that, from the time when he was eighteen years old, he dwelt in the said town, and saw and knew the said Joan modest, simple and devout. She went willingly to church and to sacred places, wrought, span, weeded and did the other needful things of the house as daughters do. He believes she willingly confessed, for she was very devout. Nor otherwise would he know to depose.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: he said by his said oath that that tree is called the Ladies’ Tree. He saw also that the lords and ladies temporal of Domrémy, once or twice in spring time, carried wine and bread and went to eat beneath the tree, for then it is as fair as lilies and is spreading, and its leaves and branches come even to the ground. For the daughters and youths of the said town of Domrémy were wont, on the Sunday des Fontaines, to go to that tree, and their mothers make loaves, and the said boys and maidens go to make their springs beneath that tree; they sing there and dance, and afterwards return to the Fountain of Rannos and eat bread and drink of its water, as he saw. And he said that the said Jeannette went with the other maidens and did as the other maidens did. Nor otherwise did he depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing, save that, when she willed to depart, she said to him: Gossip, were ye not a Burgundian, I would tell you certain things. For the said witness believed it had been about some husband whom she would wed. He saw her also at Châlons with four of the said town, and she said that she feared naught save treason. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh following article or interrogatory, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that the same Joan was at the articled time in Neufchâteau a little while and, as it seems to him, with her brother Jean d’Arc, now provost of Vaucouleurs; and she kept her father’s animals, and departed to her father’s house because it was irksome to her, as she said, to abide there. Nor else does he know.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nSimonin Musnier # Simonin Musnier, labourer, of the said town of Domrémy, of the age of forty-four years or thereabouts, produced as seventeenth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind, and sworn in the aforesaid year and day and examined in the said Domrémy in the same year on the aforesaid Friday, the penultimate day of the month of January; required by his oath, etc.\nAnd first, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles required: by his oath he said that Jeannette the Maid, as he believes, was born and baptised in the font of the church of Blessed Rémy of the same place. For he saw Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, her parents, whom he reputed and repute good catholics and of good fame. Nor else does he know of the contents of the said articles.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles, required: by his said oath the witness said that he was brought up with Joan called the Maid, hard by her father’s house. He knows also that she was good, simple, devout, fearing God and His Saints; she went willingly and often to church and to sacred places, comforted (38) the sick, gave alms to the poor, as he saw, for, when he was a boy, he himself fell sick and the same Joan comforted him. He said also that, when the bells were rung, she signed herself and bent her knees. She was not slack, wrought willingly, span, went to the plough with her father, threshed the earth with a threshel and did the other needful things of the house; and sometimes kept the animals; confessed willingly, as was said; willingly carried candles to the church before blessed Mary, as he saw. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: by his said oath he said that the articled tree is commonly called the Ladies’ Tree, as he ever heard said; and he said that of old the fées, so commonly called, went beneath that tree, as he heard said, although he never saw any signs of any evil spirits. He said that the maidens and young boys go, in spring time and on the Sunday called des Fontaines, beneath that tree to make their springs; they eat their bread there, dance, and in returning come to the Fountain of Rannos and drink of its water; and he himself, with Joan and others, in youthful age was at the aforesaid tree on the said Sunday des Fontaines to play and disport himself, as the other daughters and sons of the said town did. Nor otherwise did he depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing save by hearsay of another.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing of the contents thereof.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that, at the articled time, he was in Neufchâteau with the inhabitants of the said town, among whom the said Joan the Maid was with her father and mother, and stayed there a little while and, when the men-at-arms had passed over, departed from the same Neufchâteau ever in their company. Nor otherwise did he depose.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nIsabellette, wife of Gérardin # Isabellette (39), wife of Gérardin d’Épinal, labourer dwelling in the said Domrémy, of the age of fifty years or thereabouts, produced as eighteenth witness in this cause of inquisition and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Friday, the penultimate day of the month of January; required by her oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and upon the second and third following articles diligently read through to her, required: she said that, as she saw, the same Jeannette the Maid was born of the said Domrémy and of the parish of the same place, of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, good labourers, true catholics and of good fame. And she said that Jean Morelli of Greux was godfather, and Jeannette Roze and Jeannette de Vitel godmothers, as was commonly said, of the said Jeannette. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles expounded to her, required: by her said oath she said that from her youth she knew the father and mother of the said Jeannette and Jeannette herself in the time also of her youth and as long as she abode with her father and mother; and the same Jeannette was imbued in the catholic faith and good morals; she was also simple, good, modest, devout and fearing God, as it seemed to her; for she went to church willingly and often, and sometimes went to the church of Blessed Mary of Bermont; she willingly gave alms, caused the poor to be lodged, and willed to lie in the chimney-corner and that the poor should lie in her bed; for she was not seen in the street but abode in the church praying; she did not dance, so that she was often blamed by the other young maidens and others; she willingly wrought, spinning, tilling the earth with her father, doing the needful things of the house and sometimes keeping the animals; she also confessed willingly and often, as she saw, for the said Jeannette the Maid was her fellow-godmother and had held at the font a certain Nicolas her son; and she often went with her and saw her go to confession in the church to the lord Guillaume, then curate. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: she said by her oath that she ever heard that tree called the Tree of the Ladies’ Bowers (40); and she said that, when the fortress of the said town was good, the lords and ladies temporal of the same town went to solace beneath that tree on the Sunday Laetare Jerusalem called des Fontaines, and sometimes in summer time led with them the maidens and boys; and this she knows because she was otherwise with the lord Pierre de Bourlémont, lord of the said town, and his wife, who was of France, and many times with the maidens of the said town, both in spring time and on the said Sunday des Fontaines. She said further that the maidens and young boys of the said town on the said Sunday des Fontaines were wont to go to that tree to solace and disport themselves; they carry loaves to eat there, and Joan herself went with them on the said Sunday to disport herself and play, and carried her bread; and afterwards they came to drink at the Fountain of Rannos, and by reason of the manner, for the manner is yet such that they carry little loaves and disport themselves there in sport. Nor otherwise would she know to depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: she said that she heard it said by Durand Laxart, who led her to the lord Robert de Baudricourt, that she had said to him that he should say to her father that she was going to relieve (41) his wife, to the end that he should lead her to the said lord Robert. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: she said that she knows utterly nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: she said that the same Joan was in Neufchâteau with her father, mother, brothers and sisters, who, by reason of the armed men, led their animals to Neufchâteau; but she remained not much in the said Neufchâteau; she returned to the said town of Domrémy with her father, as the same witness saw, for she was unwilling to remain in the said place but said that she preferred to remain in the said Domrémy. Nor else does she know.\nMore she knows not. Cited, she came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon her, etc.\nMengette, wife of Jean Joyart # Mengette, wife of Jean Joyart, labourer of the said town of Domrémy, of the age of forty-six years or thereabouts, produced as nineteenth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforewritten year and on the aforewritten Friday; required by her oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles diligently expounded to her, required: she said that the same Joan, who was called the Maid, was born of the said Domrémy and of the parish of Blessed Rémy of the same town, and her parents were Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, who were good christians and true catholics, of good name, as she reputed such and heard them so reputed; and the said Jeannette had godfathers and godmothers and, as was said, Jean Morelli of Greux was her godfather and Jeannette, wife of Thévenin of Domrémy, and Edette, widow of Jean Barre dwelling in Frebécourt (42), were her godmothers. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles diligently and fully expounded to her, required: she said by her oath that the house of the father of the same witness was nigh contiguous to the house of the father of the same Jeannette, and she knew the said Jeannette the Maid, for she often span in her society and did other works of the house by day and by night with the same; and she was imbued in the christian faith, of good morals as it seems to her, conditioned; she went willingly and often to church; she made alms of her father’s goods, and was so good, simple and devout that the witness herself and the other maidens said to her that she was too devout; she wrought willingly and occupied herself in many businesses: to wit she span, did the needful things of the house, went to the harvests, and when the season occurred sometimes kept the animals by turn, confessed willingly; and she saw her many times on bended knees before the curate of the said town. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: she said by her oath that that tree was called the Tree of the Ladies’ Bowers, and it is an ancient tree; for she never heard it said that that tree was not there. And she said that, every year in spring time and specially on the Sunday Laetare Jerusalem called des Fontaines, all the maidens and boys with little loaves are wont to go to the tree and eat there; and the witness herself was many times with the said Joan on the said day and they ate there, and afterwards came to drink at the Fountain of Rannos, and sometimes they had a cloth beneath that tree and ate together, and afterwards played and made merry, as others still do at present. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the tenth following, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: the witness herself said that, when the said Jeannette willed to go to Vaucouleurs, she, as is said, caused Durand Laxart to come to give her father and mother to understand that she was going to the house of the same Durand Laxart, dwelling in Petit-Burey, to serve his wife; and departing she said to the same witness To God! and then departed and commended the witness to God, and went to Vaucouleurs. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: she said that she knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: she said that, at the articled time, all of the said town went and fled to Neufchâteau and led their animals to the said place; and the same Joan was there with her aforesaid father and mother and abode ever in their company and departed from the same place, as the witness herself says she saw.\nMore she knows not. Cited, she came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon her, etc.\nThe lord Jean Colin # The discreet man the lord Jean Colin, curate of the parish church of Domrémy and canon of the collegiate church of Saint Nicolas of Brixey (43), in the diocese of Toul, priest, of the age of sixty-six years or thereabouts, twentieth witness, in this cause of inquisition, in the said Domrémy, in the above-said year and on the Friday, the penultimate day of the month of January, produced; sworn and examined; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles read through to him, required: he said by his said oath that the said Joan, being in Vaucouleurs, came twice or thrice to the witness speaking to confession; which witness also two or three times heard her confession, and, as it seems to him in his conscience, she was a good daughter and had the signs of a good, catholic and perfect christian woman; and she went willingly to church. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same articles.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing save by hearsay, of which he would not properly know to depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that he saw her in Vaucouleurs when she willed to go to France, and saw her mount upon a horse when she was on the journey; and with her were Bertrand de Poulengy, Jean de Metz and Colet de Vienne, riding, servants of Robert de Baudricourt. Nor otherwise would he know to depose.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., and also upon the twelfth following article, he said that of the contents of the same he knows nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nColin, son of Jean Colin # Colin, son of Jean Colin of Greux, labourer, of the age of fifty years or thereabouts, produced as twenty-first witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Domrémy in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Friday (44), the penultimate day of the month of January; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles diligently and fully expounded to him, required: he said by his oath that Joan, named the Maid, was born of Domrémy, of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, who were good catholics and of good fame, good labourers without defamation, and as he ever heard them held for such and the same witness so repute them; for he heard it said that Jean Morelli of Greux was godfather of the said Jeannette and Jeannette Roze was her godmother. He said moreover that the same Joan, as he saw, was a good, simple, sweet daughter, of good condition, and went willingly to church, as he saw; for nigh every Saturday after midday the same Joan with a certain sister of hers and other women went to the hermitage or church of blessed Mary of Bermont and carried candles, and much served God and blessed Mary, in such wise that, by reason of her devotion the witness himself, who was then a youth, and the other youths sometimes mocked her. She willingly wrought, and saw to the nurture of the beasts; she willingly guided the animals of her father’s house; she span and did the needful things of the house; went to the plough, to the threshing, and by turn kept the animals. For he heard it said by the lord Guillaume Fronte, late curate of the said parish church, that the same Joan was a good catholic, and that he had never seen better than her nor had in his parish. Nor else does he know of the contents of the said articles.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that the articled tree is called the Tree of the Ladies’ Bowers, and that he heard it said that the lords and ladies temporal of Domrémy were wont to go to leisure and disport beneath that tree. He said also that the maidens and youths of the said town, each year, were wont to go on the Sunday Laetare called des Fontaines beneath that tree, also in the time of spring and May; and sometimes they make a man of May, and there carry little loaves, each having one little loaf, on the said day des Fontaines; they eat there, make merry, sing, and in returning sometimes come to drink upon the Fountain aux Rannos and drink, and this they do by reason of the leisure and usage of the said Sunday des Fontaines. He said that he never saw the said Joan go; for he heard it said that she was with others beneath that tree to disport herself and eat like the other maidens. Nor otherwise did he depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., he said that he heard it said by Durand Laxart that she said that it behoved him to lead her to Vaucouleurs, for she willed to go to France, and that he should say to her father that she was going to the house of the said Durand to relieve his wife great with child; which Durand said that he did so; and then, with the consent of her father, she went to Vaucouleurs to speak with Robert de Baudricourt. Nor else does he know save by hearsay.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that all the inhabitants of the said town at the articled time of that kind fled to Neufchâteau, and the same Joan was ever in Neufchâteau with her father and mother in the house of the said la Rousse. They returned together, as he saw; nor else does he know.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nThe lord Jean de Novelestomp, called de Metz # The noble man Jean de Novelestomp, called de Metz, dwelling in the town of Vaucouleurs, of the age of fifty-eight years or thereabouts, produced as twenty-second witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said town of Vaucouleurs in the aforesaid year of the Lord 1455, on Saturday the last day of the month of January; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second following, required: he said that he heard that the articled Jeannette was born of Domrémy, and, from the time of the departure of the said town, saw her father and mother, who, as it seems to him, were good catholics. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the third following article, beginning Item, who were, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth following articles diligently and severally expounded to him, required: he said by his oath that he knows what follows. To wit, when the said Joan the Maid had come to the place and town of Vaucouleurs in the diocese of Toul, the witness speaking himself saw the said Joan clad in poor red woman’s garments; and she was lodged in the house of a certain Henry le Royer of the said town of Vaucouleurs; who spoke to her, saying: My friend, what do ye here? must it be that the King be driven from the realm and that we be English? To whom the Maid then answered: I came hither to the chamber (45) of the King, to speak with Robert de Baudricourt, that he may be willing to lead me or cause me to be led to the King; who cares naught for me nor for my words; yet, before it be mid-Lent, it behoves me to be towards the King, though I should lose my feet up to the knees. For none in the world, neither kings nor dukes nor the daughter of the King of Scotland (46) nor others, can recover the realm of France, nor is there succour for him save from myself, albeit I would liefer spin beside my poor mother, for it is not my estate; but it behoves that I go and do this, for my Lord wills that I so do. And when the same witness asked of her who was her Lord, the same Maid said that it was God. And then the same Jean, the witness, promised the same Maid, by his faith touched in her hand, that, God leading, he would lead her towards the King; and then the same witness speaking asked of her when she would depart; who said: Sooner now than to-morrow, and to-morrow than after. And the same witness asked of her again whether she willed to go in her garments; who answered that she would willingly have man’s garments. And then the same witness gave her garments and footwear of his serving-men to put on; and this done, the inhabitants of the said town of Vaucouleurs caused man’s garments and footwear, greaves and the things needful to her to be made for her, and gave her a horse of the price of sixteen francs or thereabouts; and when she was clad and had a horse, by the safe-conduct of the lord Charles, Duke of Lorraine, the same Maid went to speak with the said lord Duke, and the same witness went with her even to the city of Toul; and when she returned to Vaucouleurs, about the Sunday des Bures (47) — there will be twenty-seven years on the Sunday des Bures next coming, as it seems to him — the witness himself and Bertrand de Poulengy, with two of his servants, and Colet de Vienne, the King’s messenger, and a certain Richard, an archer, led the same Maid towards the King abiding at Chinon, at the expense and charges of the witness themselves and of Bertrand; and departing from the said town of Vaucouleurs, for fear of the English and Burgundians being round about the way, in going towards the King they went sometimes by night and remained on the way for the space of eleven days, riding even to the said town of Chinon; and, journeying on the way with her, the same witness asked of the same whether she would do the things she said; and the said Maid ever said to them that they should not fear, and that she had in commandment to do this, for her brothers of paradise said to her the things which she had to do, and that it was already four or five years since her brothers of paradise and her Lord, to wit God, had said to her that it behoved her to go to the war for the recovering of the realm of France. He said also in going that the witness himself and Bertrand lay each night with her together, but the same Maid lay beside the same witness clad in her doublet and breeches laced up, and the same witness feared her in such wise that he would not have dared to require her; and by his oath he said that he never had will towards her nor carnal motion. Also in journeying she would willingly have heard masses, as she said, for she said to them: Could we hear mass, we should do well; but, by reason of her being known, they heard not masses on her journey save twice. The same witness said moreover that he much believed the words of the same Maid and was inflamed by her words and by divine love, as he believes. And he believes that she was sent from God, for she never swore, willingly heard masses and, in swearing, signed herself with the sign of the cross. And so they led her to the King even to the said place of Chinon as secretly as they could. The witness himself said moreover that the same Maid willingly heard masses, as he saw, often confessed, willingly gave alms; and the witness said that she many times granted him moneys to give for God. The same witness said again that, as long as he was in her company, he found her good, simple, devout, a good christian, well conditioned and fearing God. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same articles, save that, when they arrived at the place of Chinon, they presented her to the men and counsellors of the King; who was then much interrogated.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., and also upon the twelfth following article, required: he said that he knows nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nMichel Lebuin # Michel Lebuin (48) of Domrémy, husbandman in Burey in the diocese of Toul, labourer, of the age of forty-four years or thereabouts, produced as twenty-third witness in this cause; sworn and examined in the said Vaucouleurs in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Saturday, the last day of January; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth and eighth [sic] following articles, required: he said by his oath that he well knew the same Joan the Maid from her youth; and the same Joan was born of the said Domrémy and of the parish of the same, of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, worthy and catholic labourers of good fame, as he then saw; for the same Joan had godfathers and godmothers, as he heard said. He said also that the same Joan, in the time of her youth and until her departure from her father’s house, was a good catholic, simple, modest, went willingly to church and frequented sacred places. He knows, for the witness himself many times, whilst he was a youth, was with her on pilgrimage in the hermitage of Blessed Mary of Bermont, and she herself went there to the said hermitage nearly every Saturday with a certain sister of hers and carried candles; and the same Joan willingly gave for God the things she could have; she diligently occupied herself in the businesses of women and of the other maidens well and decently, and often confessed. He knows, for he conversed with her and saw her many times confess. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: he said by the said oath that that tree is called the Ladies’ Bowers. He said that he heard it said that the women who were commonly called fées of old were wont to go beneath that tree; yet he knows not whether they went, for now they are not wont to go. He said that the maidens and young boys of the said Domrémy are wont every year to go beneath that tree on the Sunday Laetare Jerusalem called des Fontaines, and there dance and eat, and afterwards come to the Fountain of Rannos to drink. He said also that the said Joan, when she was little, went with the said maidens and boys beneath that tree to make their springs like the other maidens; nor does he believe that the same Jeannette was otherwise or for another cause beneath that tree, for she was wholly good. Nor otherwise would he know to depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing, save that once the same Joan said to the witness himself, on the vigil of Saint John the Baptist, that there was a maiden between Coussey (49) and Vaucouleurs who, before it should be a year, would have the King of France consecrated; and he said that in the year then ensuing the King was consecrated at Reims. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said that, when the said Joan was taken, he saw a certain man named Nicolas Bailly of Andelot who with certain others came to the said town of Domrémy and, at the instance of the lord Jean de Torcenay, then Bailiff of Chaumont, in the name of the asserted King of France and of the English, made an information upon the fame and conversation, as was said, of the said Joan; and, as it seems to him, they dared not constrain any to swear by reason of those of Vaucouleurs. He said that he believes that Jean Begot of the said town was examined, for they were lodged in his house. He said also that he believes that, in the information to be made, they found no ill cause upon the fact of the said Joan. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that, at the articled time, the witness himself was in Neufchâteau with the other inhabitants of the said town of Domrémy, and saw the same Joan, who was ever in the company of her father and mother.\nMore he knows not; cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nThe lord Geoffroy du Fay # The noble man Geoffroy du Fay (50), of the age of fifty years or thereabouts, produced as twenty-fourth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Vaucouleurs in the year and on the Saturday immediately written; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and upon the second required: he said that he saw the same Joan the Maid otherwise come to Marcey-sous-Voix, and she was born of the said Domrémy, as was said, and he knew her father and mother; yet their names he knows not; he knows nevertheless that they were good christians and catholics, as labourers are; nor did he ever hear the contrary said.\nUpon the third following article, beginning Item, who were, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth articles diligently expounded to him, required: he said that, when the said Joan came to Marcey, she sometimes came to his house, and it seems to him she was a good, simple and devout daughter. Nor else does he know of the contents of the said articles.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said by his said oath that he heard the same Maid speak many times; and she said that she willed to go to France, and he saw that Jean de Metz, Bertrand de Poulengy and Julian, who were horsemen, led the same Maid to the King, although he did not then see the Maid herself; but they said that she should go with them. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., and also upon the twelfth following article, required: he said by his oath that of the contents of the same he knows utterly nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nDurand Laxart # Durand called Laxart, of Petit-Burey (51), labourer, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, produced as twenty-fifth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said Vaucouleurs in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Saturday, the last day of the month of January; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles, the article beginning Item, first of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second following, required: by his oath he said that the articled Joan was of the kindred of Jeanne his wife. He knew also Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, the parents of the same Joan the Maid, good and faithful catholics and of good fame; and he believes that the same Joan was born in the said town of Domrémy and baptised in the font of Blessed Rémy of the same.\nUpon the third following article, beginning Item, who were, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles, required: he said that the said Joan was of good condition, devout, patient, went willingly to church, willingly confessed, and gave alms to the poor when she could, as he saw, both in the town of Domrémy and in the said Burey, in the house of the witness himself, in which the same Joan abode for the space of six weeks; she willingly wrought, span, went to the plough, kept the animals, and did other honest things for the women. Nor otherwise would he know to depose.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what holds, etc., required: by his oath he said that he knows nothing, for he abode not much in the said Domrémy.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: by his oath the same witness said that he himself sought the same Joan to her father’s house and brought her to the house of his own dwelling; and she said to the same witness that she willed to go to France, towards the Dauphin, to have him crowned, saying: Was it not otherwise said that France should be desolated by a woman and afterwards should be restored by a maiden? And this she said to the same witness, that he should go to the said Robert de Baudricourt that he should have her led to the place where the lord Dauphin was. Which Robert many times said to the same witness that he should bring her back to her father’s house and give her cuffs; and when the said Maid saw that the same Robert was unwilling to have her led to the place where the Dauphin himself was, she took the garments of the witness himself and said that she willed to depart; and, as she departed, the same witness brought her to Vaucouleurs (52); and, after she was there, by safe-conduct she was led to the lord Charles, Duke of Lorraine; and when the Duke himself saw her, he spoke with her, and the same lord Charles gave her four francs, which the same Joan shewed to the witness himself; and then the same Joan, having returned to Vaucouleurs, the inhabitants of the town of Vaucouleurs bought her man’s garments, footwear, greaves and the things needful to her, and the witness himself and Jacques Alain of Vaucouleurs bought her a horse of the price of twelve francs, of which they made their own proper debt; yet afterwards the lord Robert de Baudricourt caused it to be paid them. And this done, Jean de Metz, Bertrand de Poulengy, Colet de Vienne and Richard the archer, with two servants of the same Jean de Metz and Bertrand, led the same Joan to the place where the said Dauphin was. And, as the same witness said, he otherwise told all this to the King; nor else does he know, save that he saw her at Reims at the coronation of the King.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., and also upon the twelfth following article, required: he said that of the contents of the same he knows nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nCatherine, wife of Henri le Royer # Catherine, wife of Henri le Royer, of Vaucouleurs, of the age of fifty-four years or thereabouts, produced as twenty-sixth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said place of Vaucouleurs in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Saturday, the last day of the month of January; required by her oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles diligently read through and expounded to her, required: she said by her oath that she heard it said that she was born of Domrémy, of good and worthy labourers. She said that, after her going forth from the paternal house and when the same Joan was brought to her house by Durand Laxart the preceding witness, and willed to go to the place where the Dauphin was, she saw her who, as she perceived, was a good, simple, sweet and well-governed daughter and well conditioned; she went willingly to church and willingly confessed: rendering a reason, for the witness herself led her to church and saw her confess to the lord Jean Fournier, then curate of the said town of Vaucouleurs; she span willingly and well, and because she span in her house with her. Nor otherwise would she know to depose of the contents of the same articles.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: she said she knows nothing save that it is said that youths go to disport themselves at that tree.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: she said by her oath that, when the same Joan willed to depart, she was in her house for the space of three weeks, by interval of time, and then caused speech to be made to the lord Robert de Baudricourt that he should lead her to the place where the Dauphin was; which lord Robert was unwilling. She said that then the witness herself saw Robert de Baudricourt, then captain of the said town of Vaucouleurs, and the said lord Jean Fournier enter her house, and heard it said to the same Joan that the priest himself had brought a stole and before the said captain had adjured her, saying thus, that if she were an evil thing she should depart from them and if good she should come towards them. Who said that Joan drew herself towards the priest himself and to his knees; the same Joan said also that the priest did not well, for he had heard her confession; and when the same Joan saw that the said Robert was unwilling to lead her, the witness herself said that she heard it said to the same Joan that it behoved her to go to the said place where the Dauphin was, saying: Have ye not heard that it was prophesied that France should be lost by a woman and restored by a maiden of the marches of Lorraine? And then the witness herself remembered having heard these things and was astonied. The witness herself said also that the same Jeannette much desired it, and the time was irksome to her as though she were a woman great with child, by reason that she was not led to the Dauphin; and after this, the witness herself and many others believed her words, so that a certain Jacques Alain and Durand Laxart willed to lead her, and led her even to Saint-Nicolas (53), but returned to the said Vaucouleurs, for she heard that the same Joan said that it was not honest for her so to depart; and, when they had returned, certain inhabitants of the said town caused to be made for her a tunic, breeches, greaves, spurs, a sword and the like, and the inhabitants bought her a horse, and Jean de Metz, Bertrand de Poulengy, Colet de Vienne with three others led her to the place where the Dauphin was, as she saw them mount their horses to go. Nor else does she know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., and also upon the twelfth required: she said that she knows naught.\nMore she knows not. Cited, she came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon her, etc.\nHenri le Royer # Henri le Royer, born of Vaucouleurs, of the age of sixty-four years or thereabouts, produced as twenty-seventh witness in this cause of inquisition; sworn and examined in the said Vaucouleurs in the above-said year and on the above-said Saturday; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles plainly expounded to him, required: he said that he knows nothing, save that, when the same Joan came to Vaucouleurs, she was lodged in his house; and, as it seems to him, she was a good daughter. Then she span with his wife, willingly went to church, and often went with his wife, the preceding witness.\nUpon the ninth article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that he never saw that tree, and therefore would not properly know to depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that he heard it said to the same Joan that it behoved her to go towards the noble Dauphin, for her Lord, the King of heaven, willed this, that she should go to him, and on the part of the King of heaven she was so brought in, and that if she should go upon her knees she would go. He said that, when the same Joan came to his house, she was clad in a red woman’s garment; and the same Joan was clad in man’s garment, breeches and trappings, and set upon a horse, and was conducted to the place where the Dauphin was by Jean de Metz, Bertrand de Poulengy with their servants, Colet de Vienne and Richard the Archer, as he saw them and herself depart. He said also that, when she willed to depart, it was said to her how she would depart by reason of the armed men standing round; who answered that she feared not the armed men, for she had her way made plain; for, if armed men were on the way, she had God her Lord, who would make her a way to go towards the lord Dauphin, and that she was born to do this. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., and also upon the twelfth following article, required: he said that he knows utterly nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nThe lord Aubert d’Ourches # The noble man the lord Aubert d’Ourches (54), knight, lord of the same place, of the age of sixty years, produced as twenty-eighth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the city of Toul in the aforesaid year and on the fifth day of the month of February; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the articles or interrogatories exhibited in this cause of this kind, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, and also upon the second and third following articles, required: he said that he heard it said that the articled Joan was born of Domrémy and had a good father and mother, as was said, nor did he ever hear the contrary said. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same articles.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles, required: he said that he knows what follows; to wit, that he himself saw the said Joan in Vaucouleurs when she willed to be led to the King, and heard it said to the same Maid many times that she willed to go to the King and that she well willed that certain should lead her, for the greatest profit of the Dauphin; which Maid, as it seems to him, was imbued with good morals; and he would well will to have a daughter so good. He said also that he saw her afterwards in the company of the men-at-arms, and saw the same Maid confess through Brother Richard (55), before the town of Sens, and receive the body of Christ with the Dukes of Clermont and of Alençon for two days, and he believes perfectly that she was a good christian. Nor else does he know of the contents of the said articles.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that he otherwise heard it said that beneath that tree the fées were wont to go, although he never heard that anyone saw them. He said also that he never heard it said that Joan was beneath that tree, for, before she was spoken of, twenty or thirty years before, he had heard it said that (in French) the fées were wont to go beneath that tree to disport themselves. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said as he deposed above, for she asked of many that she be led towards the King; which Maid spoke very well. Who was afterwards led by Bertrand de Poulengy, Jean de Metz and their servants to the said King. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., and also upon the twelfth following article, required: he said that of the contents of the same he knows nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nNicolas Bailly # The honourable man Nicolas Bailly, of Andelot in the diocese of Langres, royal notary and royal substitute in the provostry of the said place of Andelot, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, produced as twenty-ninth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind in the city of Toul by the said Jean Dalie (56), provost, before us, and received by us and the said notary, sworn and examined in the aforesaid year on the sixth day of the month of February; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second following article, required: he said by his oath that the articled Joan was born of Domrémy and of the parish of the same place, and her father was Jacques d’Arc, a good and worthy labourer, as he saw and knew. He knows also by hearsay and the relation of very many; for the witness speaking was otherwise notary commissioned on the part of the lord Jean de Torcenay, knight, then Bailiff of Chaumont having power from the asserted then King of France and of the English, together with a certain Gérard called Petit, late then provost of the said place of Andelot, to make an information upon the fact of the said Joan the Maid then detained, as was said, in the prisons in the city of Rouen. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the third following article, beginning Item, who were her godfathers, etc., required: he says that he knows nothing.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles diligently expounded to him, required: he said by his said oath that he saw the said Joan many times in her youthful age and until her going forth from the paternal house; who was and had been a good daughter of good conversation, a good catholic, willingly frequenting the church and sacred places, and went to the church of Bermont on pilgrimage, and confessed nigh every month, as he heard these things said by many of the inhabitants of the said place of Domrémy; and also found her for such in the inquisition made by him with the aforesaid provost of Andelot. Nor otherwise would he know to depose.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said by his oath that he heard it many times said that, in the time of spring and summer, the young maidens of the said town of Domrémy on feast days are wont to go beneath that tree; they dance there and gather flowers; and the said Jeannette went with them and did as one of the other maidens. He said also that once he saw the daughters of the said town return in sport from that tree. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same article.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made of the manner, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing save by hearsay.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said by his oath that the witness himself was notary, as he has already said, who at that time made the information as commissioned on the part of the aforesaid lord Jean de Torcenay, Bailiff of Chaumont having, as he said, letters of commission on the part of the asserted then King of France and of the English. He said also that, when he and the said Gérard, the late provost, made the said information of the said Joan, by reason of their diligence they procured to have of the examined nigh twelve or fifteen witnesses to testify the information which they made before Simon de Thermes (57), esquire, then bearing himself for the lieutenant of the captain of Montclair, of the same Joan the Maid, by reason that they themselves were suspected of not having evilly (58) made the said information; which witnesses then before the lieutenant said they testified as was testified or contained in their examination; and then the said lieutenant wrote back to the aforesaid lord Jean, Bailiff of Chaumont, that the things written in that examination made by the said notary and provost were true; and, when the said Bailiff saw the relation of the said lieutenant, he said that the said commissioners were false Armagnacs.\nInterrogated whether he had that information or a copy of it, he said not. Nor otherwise did he depose.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that, when he made the said information, he found by the witnesses of the said commission that, by reason of the armed men, the said Joan with her father and mother once fled to Neufchâteau, and she was ever in the company of her father in the house of a certain woman called la Rousse for three or four days, and afterwards returned with the same her father and mother to the said town of Domrémy. Nor else does he know.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nGuillot Jaquerii # Guillot Jaquerii of Andelot, royal serjeant, of the age of thirty-six years or thereabouts, produced as thirtieth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the city of Toul in the now said year and on the sixth day of February; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon all the other following articles even to the end of the same articles diligently expounded and read through to him, required: he said by his said oath that of the contents of the same he knows nothing save by hearsay; for he heard it said that Joan the Maid was born of the said Domrémy and of the parish of the same place; and she was a good daughter of good fame and honest conversation. Nor else does he know.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nThe lord Bertrand de Poulengy # The noble man the lord Bertrand de Poulengy, esquire of the esquirey of the King of France, of the age of sixty-three years or thereabouts, produced as thirty-first witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the said city of Toul in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid Saturday, the sixth of February; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles required: he said by his said oath that the articled Joan was born of Domrémy, as was said, and her father was Jacques d’Arc of the same town. Her mother’s name he knows not; but he was many times in their house and knows that they were good labourers, as he saw; nor else does he know of the contents of the said articles.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles required: he said that he knows nothing save by hearsay. For he heard it said that the same Joan in her youthful age was a good daughter of good conversation, and went willingly to church, and nigh every Saturday went to the hermitage of Blessed Mary of Bermont and carried candles. He said also that she span and sometimes kept the animals and her father’s horses. He said moreover that, after the said Joan departed from her father’s house, the witness himself saw her both in Vaucouleurs and elsewhere in the war; and he saw her many times, sometimes twice in the week, confess; and she took the Eucharist and was very devout. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same articles.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: the same witness said that he saw that articled tree many times and was beneath the same for twelve years before he had seen the said Joan. He said also, as he heard said, that the maidens and young boys of the said town of Domrémy and of the other neighbouring towns in summer time go to disport themselves and dance beneath that tree. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: by his oath he said that the same Joan the Maid came to Vaucouleurs about the Ascension of the Lord (59), as it seems to him, and then he saw her speak with Robert de Baudricourt, then captain of the said town; who said that she had come towards the same Robert on the part of her Lord, that he should send to the Dauphin that he should bear himself well and not assign battle to his enemies, for her Lord would give him succour within mid-Lent; and the same Joan said indeed that the realm pertained not to the Dauphin but to her Lord; yet her Lord willed that the Dauphin himself should be made King and should have that realm in charge, saying that, his enemies unwilling, he should be made King and she herself should lead him to be consecrated. Which Robert asked of her who was her Lord; who answered: The King of heaven. And this done, she departed to her father’s house with a certain uncle of hers named Durand Laxart of Petit-Burey; and afterwards, towards the beginning of Lent, the same Joan returned to the said place of Vaucouleurs, seeking company to go towards the lord Dauphin; and the same witness seeing this, he and Jean de Metz proposed together that they should lead her to the King then Dauphin; and after the same Joan had been on pilgrimage at Saint-Nicolas and had been towards the lord Duke of Lorraine, who had willed to see her under safe-conduct; and after the same Joan had returned to the said Vaucouleurs and to the house of habitation of Henri le Royer of the said town: the same Bertrand, the witness speaking, and Jean de Metz did so much, with the help of other folk of Vaucouleurs, that she put off her woman’s garments of red colour and they caused to be made for her a tunic and man’s garments, spurs, greaves, a sword and the like, and a horse; and then they, with the said Joan and with Julian, servant of the witness himself, Jean de Honecourt, servant of Jean de Metz, Colet de Vienne and Richard the archer, took their way to go towards the Dauphin. And in the going forth from the country on the first day they feared, by reason of the armed men of the Burgundians and English then reigning, and went through one night. The same witness said also that the same Joan the Maid said to the same witness, to Jean de Metz and to the others journeying with them that it were good that they should hear mass; but, whilst they were in the country of war, they could not, by reason that she should not be known. Each night she lay with the same Jean de Metz and the witness speaking, yet herself clad in her jerkin and her breeches, laced and fastened. The witness himself said also that at that time he was young; yet he had not the will or any carnal motion of knowing a woman; nor would he have dared to require the said Joan by reason of the goodness which he saw in her. The witness himself said also that they remained eleven days on the way, going even to the King then Dauphin, and in going they had many doubts; but the said Joan ever said to them that they should not fear, for, once they were come to the town of Chinon, the noble Dauphin would make them good cheer. She never swore, and the witness himself was, as he said, much inflamed by her words, for it seems to him that she was sent from God, nor did he ever see in her any evil, but she was ever as good a daughter as though she had been a saint; and so together, without any great hindrance, they journeyed to the place of Chinon where the said King, then Dauphin, was and approached; and, when they were in the said place of Chinon, they presented the said Maid to the nobles and men of the King, to whom the same witness refers himself concerning the deeds of the same Joan. Nor otherwise would he properly know to depose.\nUpon the eleventh following article, beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing save by hearsay from certain ones to whom he heard it said that they had caused an information to be corrected; but he knows not who they were.\nUpon the twelfth following article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nThe lord Henri Arnolin # The discreet man the lord Henri Arnolin of Gondrecourt-le-Château (60), priest, of the age of sixty-four years or thereabouts, produced as thirty-second witness in this cause of inquisition; sworn and examined in the said city of Toul in the aforesaid year and on the aforesaid sixth day of the month of February; required by his oath, etc.\nAnd upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories exhibited in this cause of this kind, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles required: he said that the same Joan was born of Domrémy, in which he many times saw her, Jacques d’Arc her father and her mother, who were good catholics and of good fame, as he saw. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same articles.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, etc., and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles read through to him, required: he said that the same Joan, from the time when she was ten years old until her departure from the paternal house, was imbued with good morals and a good daughter, as he saw; she willingly frequented churches and sacred places; she willingly wrought, span and sometimes went to the plough with her father and brothers; and kept the animals when it was the season. He said that she willingly and often confessed, for the witness himself confessed her four times: to wit, three times in one Lent and another time on one solemnity; and, as he said, she was a good daughter fearing God, for when she was in church she sometimes lay prone before the crucifix, and sometimes held her hands joined and fastened together, lifting her countenance and eyes to the crucifix or to blessed Mary. Nor otherwise did he depose.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that otherwise, before the said Joan was born, he heard that that tree is called the Ladies’ Bowers; and he was often in Domrémy, nor did he ever hear it said that the same Joan went to the tree. Nor otherwise of the contents of the said article would he properly know to depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., and also upon the eleventh and twelfth following articles required: he said by his said oath that of the contents of the same he knows nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nThe lord Jean le Fumeux # The discreet man the lord Jean le Fumeux of Vaucouleurs, priest, canon of the church or chapel of Blessed Mary of the same place and curate of the parish church of Ugny in the diocese of Toul, of the age of thirty-eight years or thereabouts, produced as thirty-third witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind; sworn and examined in the city of Toul in the aforesaid year on Saturday the seventh day of the month of February; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second and third following articles read through to him, required: he said that he heard it commonly said that the articled Joan was born of Domrémy and of the parish of Blessed Rémy of the same place, and otherwise saw the father and mother of the said Joan come to Vaucouleurs. Nor else does he know of the contents of the said articles.\nUpon the fourth following article, beginning Item, whether in her early age, and also upon the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles diligently expounded and read through to him, required: he said that he knows nothing else save that the same Joan came to Vaucouleurs and said that she willed to go to the Dauphin. The witness himself, who at that time was a youth and churchwarden of the said chapel of Blessed Mary of Vaucouleurs, often saw the same Joan called the Maid come to the said church very devoutly; who in the same church heard matins and masses and much stood praying therein. He said also that he saw her in the crypts or vaults (61) beneath the said church, standing on bended knees before blessed Mary, sometimes with countenance cast down (62) and sometimes with countenance lifted up. He said by his said oath that he believes she was a good and holy daughter. Nor otherwise would he know to depose.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., and also upon the tenth, eleventh and twelfth following articles diligently read through to him, required: he said by his said oath that of the contents of the same articles he knows nothing.\nMore he knows not. Cited, he came; nor by love, etc. And it was enjoined upon him, etc.\nJean Jaquard # Jean Jaquard, son of Jean called Guillemete, of Greux hard by and near the said Domrémy, labourer, of the age of forty-seven years or thereabouts, produced as thirty-fourth witness in this cause of inquisition of this kind in the city of Toul; sworn and examined in the aforesaid year of the Lord 1455 and on Wednesday the eleventh day of the month of February; required by his oath, etc.\nTo wit, upon the first of the same articles or interrogatories, the article beginning First, of the place of origin, etc., and also upon the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth following articles diligently and successively expounded to him, required: he said by his said oath that the same Joan was born of Domrémy, of Jacques d’Arc and Isabellette, spouses, worthy labourers, and saw the said Joan the Maid many times in the said Domrémy and in the fields; who was a very sweet, good, chaste and prudent daughter, as it seems to him, for she went willingly to church, and specially he saw her go willingly to the church of Blessed Mary of Bermont; she willingly wrought, span, went to the plough and to the threshing of the earth, and sometimes kept the animals, and, as they said, willingly and often confessed, nor did he ever hear any evil said of her; but she was reputed a good and devout daughter. Nor else does he know.\nUpon the ninth following article, beginning Item, what the fame holds, etc., required: he said that the maidens and young boys, in summer time on feast days and on the Sunday des Fontaines, are wont to go beneath that tree, sing, eat, dance, and in playing and disporting return to the Fountain of Rannos and drink of the water; and he believes the said Joan went with the other maidens. Nor otherwise would he properly know to depose.\nUpon the tenth following article, beginning Item, let inquiry be made, etc., required: he said that he knows nothing save by hearsay.\nUpon the eleventh of the now said articles or interrogatories, the article beginning Item, whether in the said country, etc., required: he said that he saw Nicolas called Bailly of Andelot and Guiot, the serjeant, with certain others in the said town of Domrémy, who made an information upon the fact of the Maid, as was said; yet, as it seems to him, they constrained none. He said that, as he believes, in the said information were examined Jean Morelli, Jean Guillemete his father, Jean Colin, living (63), and the late Jean Munnequin of Greux, and more. And this done, the said commissioners warily departed for fear of those of Vaucouleurs. The same witness said that he believes the said information or inquisition was made at the request of the Bailiff of Chaumont, holding the party of the English and Burgundians. Nor otherwise did he depose.\nUpon the twelfth article, beginning Item, whether when, etc., required: by his oath he said that, at the articled time, all the inhabitants of both towns (64) were in Neufchâteau, and the said Joan, as he saw, led the animals of her father and mother, and afterwards they returned, and the same Joan returned with her father and mother and the others. Nor else does he know.\nMore he knows not; cited, he came; nor by love nor by hatred, prayer, price, favour or fear did he depose this. And it was enjoined upon him in form, as the custom is, etc.\nSo signed: So it is found. D. Dominici.\nThere follows the tenor of the relation of the venerable and circumspect men Masters Reginald de Chichery, dean of the church or chapel of Saint Mary of Vaucouleurs in the diocese of Toul, and Walterin Thieric, canon of the church of Toul, Commissioners for the making of the above-written inquest, sealed with their seals in green wax.\nTo the most reverend fathers and lords in Christ, the lords Jean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, of the order of Preaching Friars, one of the inquisitors of heretical pravity in the realm of France, etc. Reginald de Chichery, dean of the church or chapel of Blessed Mary of Vaucouleurs in the diocese of Toul, and Walterin Thieric, canon of the church of Toul, priests, subdelegated Commissioners by you and through you to examine witnesses in the place and country of origin of the deceased Joan, commonly called the Maid, by virtue of your letters of commission, and upon the articles or interrogatories annexed to the same letters, deputed and commissioned, due reverence with honour and obedience to your mandates. Let your most reverend circumspection know, and let all and each know whom it concerns or may or shall be able to concern howsoever in the future, that we received with such reverence as was meet your letters of commission, sealed and signed with your three seals, two round and one long, to wit of red wax with pendent parchment tails, and with the two manual signets of the certain Comitis and Ferrebouc, notaries, together with the articles or interrogatories for the informations to be made in the country of origin of the same deceased Joan called the Maid, annexed to the same your letters of commission in the midst of the tail of the seal, utterly lacking and void, as appeared at first sight, of all vice and suspicion — presented to us by the venerable man Jean Dalye, secular provost of Vaucouleurs of the same diocese of Toul, before a notary and witnesses, in the year from the nativity of the Lord 1455 and on the twenty-sixth day of the month of January, as lawfully appears in a certain public instrument placed in the roll designated below, signed and subscribed with the public sign and subscription of the discreet man Master Jean André, public notary. Which your letters of commission, as is premised, being presented to us and by us, as was meet, received, we deputed and commissioned our faithful man, the discreet man Dominique Dominici, clerk of Toul, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority and sworn of the ecclesiastical courts of Toul, to cite before us all the witnesses whom the same Jean Dalie the provost should will to produce, and to be examined together with us, and faithfully to put in writing, together with your said letters of commission and the aforesaid articles or interrogatories, and to put into public form or cause to be put and put into writing; in the presence of the discreet men the lords Jean le Fumeux of Vaucouleurs, of Ugny, and Pierre de Fisciolis, of Marcey-sur-Voix, rectors of parish churches and priest canons of the church of Blessed Mary of Vaucouleurs aforesaid, witnesses chosen by us to this end. And then to the town of Domrémy in the diocese of Toul, afterwards to the town of Vaucouleurs of the same diocese, together with the said Dominique, notary, and the forenamed witnesses, we went, and lastly in the city of Toul, by virtue of your letters of commission, we admitted all and each of the witnesses cited before us and whom the same noble man Jean Dalye, provost of Vaucouleurs, willed to produce; them, as regards the act of swearing and deposing, if and so far as they needed, we absolved; and moreover we received the oaths from them and each of them, made at and upon the holy Gospels of God by them and each of them in our hands bodily, of speaking and deposing the truth, in the presence of the same witnesses and notary; and the same Dominique, notary, examined them and each of the witnesses severally, according to and following the articles or interrogatories directed, annexed and annexing to the same your letters of commission, as is premised, and faithfully put in writing; and, the sayings and depositions of the same witnesses all and each being written in the form of fifty-eight single leaves and a half of parchment, signed with the manual sign of the same notary at the end of the deposition of each witness and of each margin of the leaf, put into writing and collated, we commanded and mandated that the same, in the year and day of the date of the presents, be made and closed in a roll by the same Dominique, notary, to be sent back to you in the accustomed form. Which roll indeed, containing in itself your letters of commission and the aforesaid articles or interrogatories and the things aforesaid, together with the depositions and sayings of the said witnesses produced, sworn and examined before us, as is premised, put into writing as aforesaid, and the present our letters sealed with our seal of Reginald de Chichery the aforesaid dean and of the venerable men the lords Dean and Chapter of the aforesaid church of Toul in our stead, of Walterin Thieric aforesaid canon of the said church of Toul; sealed and signed with the public sign and subscription of the said Dominique, notary of this inquisition, and your letters of commission annexed and enclosed, closed and bound and sealed with the same seals, we send back to you. And these things by the present our letters of remission annexed to the same your letters of commission, sealed with the seal of our Dean and of the venerable men the lords Dean and Chapter of the church of Toul aforesaid, to your most reverend circumspections and to all and each of the others whom it concerns or shall be able to concern howsoever in the future, to all force, ends and juridical effects, we intimate and notify. Given and done at Toul in the house of habitation of us, Walterin Thieric, the aforesaid canon and subdelegated commissioner; in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1455, the fourth indiction, on Friday the thirteenth day of the month of February, at the fourth hour after midday of the same day; in the first year of the pontificate of the most holy father and lord in Christ, our lord Calixtus, by divine providence pope the Third. Present in the said remission the aforesaid Jean le Fumeux and Pierre de Fisciolis, the aforesaid canons and curates, and also the lord Jean Le Grain of Neufchâteau in the diocese of Toul and Master Philippe Gépille, rector of the schools of the church of Toul, master of arts, witnesses specially called and bidden to the premises.\nAnd I Dominique Dominici, clerk of Toul, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority and sworn of the ecclesiastical courts of Toul, forasmuch as I was present at the production, swearing, reception and examination of the witnesses of this inquisition and at all and each of the other premises whilst, as is premised, they were done, said and made by the said lords Reginald de Chichery, dean, and Walterin, canon of Toul, the aforesaid subdelegated commissioners, and before the same, together with the forenamed witnesses, and saw and heard them so done; and the sayings and depositions of the witnesses produced, sworn and examined before the same lords subdelegated I put into writing; and the present letters, annexed to your letters of commission, lords principal Commissioners, and the gross of the sayings and depositions of the same witnesses faithfully written by the hand of another, I being hindered by other arduous affairs, yet the same sayings and depositions duly collated with the same lords and witnesses and, by me, as is premised, by mandate of the said lords subdelegated Commissioners, signed with my manual sign, the same present letters of remission I made, by mandate of the same lords subdelegated Commissioners, and signed with my public sign and subscription which I use in such matters, here subscribing myself with my own hand, together with the appension of the seals of the same lords the Dean and of the venerable men the lords Dean and Chapter of the church of Toul aforesaid, in witness, strength and testimony of all and each of the premises, required and bidden. So signed: D. Dominici.\n(21) Sionne, near Neufchâteau.\n(22) Dean of the christianity.\n(23) Ut, in manuscript 5970.\n(24) This name of Thiesselin is still read on a tomb in the church of Domrémy: Here lieth Jacob Thiesselin who passed away in the year one thousand four hundred four score and three, the fifteenth day of November, and Didier Thiesselin his brother who passed away in the year one thousand four hundred… Jollois, Hist. abrégée de Jeanne d’Arc, p. 131.\n(25) Tandem, in the manuscripts.\n(26) Martigny-les-Gerbonveaux, near Neufchâteau.\n(27) The answer upon the ninth article is omitted in the manuscripts.\n(28) Thévenin called le Royer, that is the Cartwright, by reason of his craft, a native of Chermisey, which is a village neighbouring on Neufchâteau. Other witnesses call him Stephanus Rotarius (p. 388), Theveninus Carpentarius (p. 410).\n(29) Amance, near Nancy.\n(30) So. Read rather de Roze. See pp. 397, 410 and 422.\n(31) See below, p. 413.\n(32) Marguillier.\n(33) Manuscripts 5970 and d’Urfé, lanas.\n(34) See above, p. 397.\n(35) The answer to the ninth article is wanting in the manuscripts.\n(36) So; doubtless de Syonna. See p. 401.\n(37) Gérardin d’Épinal. Gérardin is the name of the proprietor who, in 1818, ceded to the department of the Vosges the house in which Joan of Arc was born.\n(38) So: read solatabar, in French soulaciait, comforted.\n(39) Zabillet, in the speech of the country.\n(40) Translate: Aux-Loges-les-Dames. The examples of lobia or laubia alleged by Du Cange all come back to the sense of portico or covered place, and it is the meaning that Wachter attributes to the Germanic root laub, whence laube, a covert in a forest. Our word loge comes from it and had originally the same signification.\n(41) Manuscript 5970, revelatum. Relever signified to assist a woman in childbed.\n(42) Frebécourt, a hamlet neighbouring on Domrémy.\n(43) Brixey-aux-Chanoines, near Vaucouleurs.\n(44) The manuscripts, jovis.\n(45) In French: Je suis venue cy à chambre de roy; that is, into a royal town depending on the King without means.\n(46) In this time there was already question of wedding the son of Charles VII to Margaret of Scotland.\n(47) The Sunday des Bures, the first Sunday of Lent, 13 February 1429.\n(48) In the d’Urfé manuscript, Lebuin or Levain.\n(49) In the Notre-Dame manuscript, Compeynm, an ill reading. Coussey is to the south and Vaucouleurs to the north of Domrémy.\n(50) Geoffroy du Fay.\n(51) The two Bureys are today called Burey-en-Vaux and Burey-la-Côte; it is probably Burey-en-Vaux, nearer to Vaucouleurs, which was formerly called Burey le Petit.\n(52) A copyist’s error. Durand Laxart had not to conduct his niece to Vaucouleurs, since she was there. Read eam adduxit ad Sanctum-Nicolaum. The interview with the Duke of Lorraine, which took place at Nancy, according to the Chronicle of Lorraine, and the deposition of the wife of Henri le Royer, establish this correction peremptorily. (See the Histoire de Lorraine of D. Calmet, Preuves, vol. III, col. 6; and below, p. 447.)\n(53) Two leagues from Nancy. This place was famous for its pilgrimages, but situated precisely opposite to the road to France. One cannot conceive that Durand Laxart took this way to lead the Maid to Charles VII. He himself nevertheless says it so (p. 444), and there is only Bertrand de Poulengy who deposes (below, p. 467) that this detour had devotion for its object.\n(54) Aubert d’Ourches. Ourches is a village neighbouring on Commercy; today in the canton of Void, department of the Meuse.\n(55) See, on this Brother Richard, the note in vol. I, p. 95.\n(56) So for Du Lys. See p. 387.\n(57) Charmis, in the Notre-Dame manuscript.\n(58) Or simply male? Nevertheless non male is understood, because, speaking from the French point of view, the witness could say that his fault, in the mind of the enemies, was to have not ill made the information.\n(59) This date carries us back to the year 1428.\n(60) Gondrecourt-le-Château, near Commercy (Meuse).\n(61) In the manuscripts, in captis sive votis, a vicious spelling. The French equivalent of capsa is châsse, and it is very likely by this name that the cradle-vaults of the subterranean chapels were called in the country.\n(62) The manuscripts, praecipue.\n(63) Jean Moreau and Jean Colin say, in their deposition, that they know nothing of this inquest. See pp. 392 and 434. Jean Guillemete was not interrogated.\n(64) Domrémy and Greux.\n(1) In her own parts she was called Johanneta, it is said in the first interrogatory of the Maid. See vol. I, p. 2.\n(2) The Lorrains thus pronounced the name of du Lys, which had been granted by ennoblement to the members of the family of Arc.\n(3) Maxey-sur-Vaise, near Vaucouleurs, department of the Meuse.\n(4) Ugny, near Vaucouleurs.\n(5) Jacques, or, according to the usage of the country, Jacob d’Arc, was a native of Séfond near Montierender, according to Edmond Richer. (Manuscript Hist. of the Maid of Orléans, book I, fol. 8, Bibliothèque du Roi, Fontanieu, P. 286.) A Memoir, printed in 1610 by the family of du Lys, makes him a native of Sarmaize near Vitry-le-Français. These two works agree in saying that he died of grief at the unhappy end of his daughter, as did her elder son Jacquemin d’Arc.\n(6) Alias Estellini. See p. 305.\n(7) Situated halfway down the slope between the plateau of Beaumont or Belmont and the Meuse, above the old road from Domrémy to Neufchâteau. There was still to be seen there, not more than thirty years ago, a very ancient chapel which has since fallen in. In 1835 a proprietor of the country undertook to repair it. In the rubbish there was found the epitaph of a hermit who died in 1583, wooden statuettes and a bell. See, on the subject of these excavations, an article by M. Vallet de Viriville in the Echo du Monde savant, 11 December 1859.\n(8) See what has been said of this tree in the Trial of Condemnation, vol. I, p. 67. In 1625 Edmond Richer, an eyewitness, wrote: The branches of this beech are all round and give a fine great shade to shelter beneath, almost as one would under the cover of a room. And this tree must be at least three hundred years old, which is a marvel of nature. This tree exists no more, but the memory of it has been preserved in the country. The oldest folk of Domrémy still recall having heard it said that it was torn up by an inhabitant named Soudart. (Edmond Richer, Hist. de la Pucelle d’Orléans, Fontanieu manuscript no. P. 286, at the Bibliothèque du Roi. — Jollois, Hist. abrégée de Jeanne d’Arc, p. 164.)\n(9) The Sunday of Laetare, called in the country Dimanche des Fontaines.\n(10) Today the Fontaine des Groseillers, beside Domrémy, upstream on the left bank of the Meuse. Nothing has been preserved in the tradition of the country which could give any light upon the ancient denomination of this fountain. Ad Rannos is perhaps the equivalent of Aux-Rains, which would give ground for supposing that the spring was surrounded by a grove.\n(11) See vol. I, p. 51.\n(12) The last witness heard in the present inquest nevertheless names Jean Moreau as one of those who were interrogated by the delegated commissioners in 1430. See below the deposition of Jean Jaquard.\n(13) Military movements took place in 1428 in the Barrois. The chroniclers say nothing of them, but it is seen by a piece of the Trésor des Chartes, in the Archives of the Kingdom (K. cart. C9, no. 43), that Henry VI then committed to messire Antoine de Vergy, lord of Champlitte and governor of the countries and county of Champagne and Brie, the bringing of the town and castle of Vaucouleurs into his obedience (22 June 1428). It is doubtless to this circumstance that the emigration of the inhabitants of Domrémy relates.\n(14) The formula is thus abridged in the manuscripts.\n(15) Montiers-sur-Saulx, Meuse, arrondissement of Bar-le-Duc.\n(16) The formula as above, pp. 387–388.\n(17) The manuscripts, præsentes.\n(18) Surnamed further on Rose, de Roze, de Raye. Pp. 408, 419, 422.\n(19) Doubtless the father of Pierre de Bourlémont, named several times in the two trials. See vol. I, p. 67, and below, p. 407.\n(20) Coussey, near Neufchâteau.\nIII. Inquest Made at Orléans # Likewise there follows the inquest made at Orléans by the lord archbishop of Reims, of and upon the contents of the first, second, third, fourth and fifth articles of the articles produced in this cause, the others being omitted for the sake of brevity, since the witnesses knew to depose nothing of and upon the others.\nJean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, one of the judges commissioned by our most holy lord the pope Calixtus, together with our colleagues in this part, with that clause: So far as you or two or one of you, etc., of certain causes of nullity of the proceedings and sentences formerly made and rendered by the late lords Pierre Cauchon, bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Lemaître, inquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, at the instance of a certain Master Guillaume d’Estivet, promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, against the late Joan d’Arc, commonly called the Maid, and of the purgation of the same: we certify and in truth attest that, as well by vigour of the articles admitted for proof on the part of Isabelle the mother, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, brothers of the said Joan, plaintiffs in this cause, as of our office and to examine all manner of truth of and upon the contents of the articles produced and admitted for proof in this cause, we proceeded to the examination of certain witnesses personally cited by our mandate and produced on the part of the said Isabelle, Pierre and Jean, sworn and examined by us and through us, and by way of precaution absolved as regards the act of deposing, with the express consent of the promoter of the court of Beauvais, and caused their sayings and depositions to be put into writing by our beloved Master Guillaume Delasalle, public notary, in the manner and form declared below.\nThe lord Count of Dunois # And first, in the year of the Lord 1455, on the twenty-second day of February, on the part of the aforesaid Isabelle, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, there was produced, received, sworn and examined before us, and absolved as regards the act of deposing, the lord Jean, Count of Dunois (1), who deposed upon the articles as upon the interrogatories in the manner which follows, in the presence of Masters Guillaume Bouillé, dean of Noyon, and Jean Patin, sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity, of the order of Preaching Friars, professor of sacred theology.\nUpon the fourth and eighth articles, and upon the seventh interrogatory of the promoter, of the coming to the king, of the manner of life of the said Joan with the men-at-arms and in the deeds of war, likewise of the devotion, piety and other virtues of the same, the other things being omitted of the will of the producer, the most illustrious prince the lord Jean, count of Dunois and of Longueville, general lieutenant of our lord the king in the fact of war, of the age of fifty-one years or thereabouts:\nInterrogated whether he in likelihood believes the same Joan was sent by God to exercise warlike deeds rather than by human industry: he answers that he believes the same Joan was sent by God and that her deeds in war were rather by divine inspiration than by human spirit.\nInterrogated what moves him: he says that on account of many conjectures which follow. And first, he asserts that, he being in the city of Orléans then besieged by the English, there came news or rumours that through the town of Gien there had passed a certain young girl, commonly called the Maid, asserting that she was going to the noble Dauphin to raise the siege of Orléans and to conduct the same Dauphin to Reims to be consecrated; and because the said deposing lord had the keeping of the said city and was general lieutenant in the fact of war, that he might be more fully informed of the fact of that Maid, he sent to the king the lord de Villars, seneschal of Beaucaire, and Jamet de Tillay (2), who was afterwards bailiff of Vermandois; who returning from the king reported to the deposing lord and said publicly, in the presence of all the people of Orléans much desiring to know the truth of the coming of the same Maid, that they had seen the same Maid arrive at the king’s, in the town of Chinon. They said also that the king at first would not receive her, nay the said Maid waited for the space of two days before she was permitted to come to the presence of the same king, although the Maid perseveringly said that she came to raise the siege of Orléans and to conduct the said noble Dauphin to Reims to be consecrated; instantly requiring a company of men, horses and arms. And after the space of three weeks or a month had passed, during which time the king had commanded the said Maid to be examined by clerks, prelates and doctors of theology upon her sayings and deeds, to know whether he could safely receive her, the king caused a multitude of men-at-arms to be gathered to conduct victuals to the said city of Orléans; but having heard the opinion of the said prelates and doctors, to wit that there was no evil in the said Maid, he sent her in the company of the lord archbishop of Reims, then chancellor of France (3), and of the lord de Gaucourt, now grand master of the king’s household (4), to the town of Blois, whither came the lords who were conducting the victuals, to wit the lords de Rais (5) and de Boussac, marshals of France, with whom were the lord de Culant (6), admiral of France, La Hire, and the lord Ambroise de Loré, afterwards made provost of Paris (7); who all together, with the men-at-arms conducting the victuals, and Joan the Maid, came on the side of the Sologne, in ordered array, as far as the bank of the Loire opposite, and as far as beside the church called Saint-Loup (8), in which were many English and strong; and because the king’s army, or the men-at-arms conducting these victuals, seemed to the said deposing lord and the other lords captains not sufficient to resist and conduct the same victuals into the city, nay especially because it was needful to have ships or boats, which they could have with difficulty, to go and seek the said victuals, for it was necessary to go up against the current of the water, and the wind was altogether contrary, then the same Joan spoke the words which follow: Are you the Bastard of Orléans? Who answered: So I am, and I rejoice at your coming. Then she said to the same deposing lord: Is it you who gave the counsel that I should come hither, on this side of the bank, and that I did not go straight across where Talbot (9) and the English were? Who deposing answered that he and others wiser had given that counsel, believing to do better and more surely. Then the same Joan said in this wise: En nom Dieu, the counsel of God our Lord is surer and wiser than yours. You believed to deceive me, and you deceive yourselves the more, for I bring you a better succour than ever came to any man-at-arms or city, for it is succour from the King of heaven. Yet it proceeds not for love of me, but from God himself, who, at the request of Saint Louis and Saint Charlemagne, had pity on the town of Orléans, and would not suffer that the enemies should have the body of the lord of Orléans and his town. And moreover the said deposing lord says that immediately, and as it were in a moment, the wind, which was contrary and greatly hindered the ships in which were the victuals for the city of Orléans from going up, was changed and made favourable to them; wherefore the sails were straightway stretched, and the said deposing lord entered the boats or ships, and with him Brother Nicolas de Geresme, now grand prior of France (10); and they passed beyond the church of Saint-Loup, in despite of the English. From that time the said deposing lord had good hope in her, and more than before, and then besought her that she would will to cross the river Loire and enter the town of Orléans, where she was most greatly desired. At which thing she made difficulty, saying that she would not leave her people or men-at-arms, who were well confessed, penitent and of good will, and therefore refused to come. The said deposing lord went to the captains of the war who had the charge of conducting the said men-at-arms, whom he besought and required that, for the king’s behoof, they would will to be content that the said Joan should enter the city of Orléans, and that the captains themselves with their company should go to Blois, where they would cross the Loire to come to Orléans, for elsewhere no nearer passage was found; which request the said captains received, and consented to cross at Blois; and then the same Joan came with the said deposing lord, bearing in her hand her banner, which was white, and on which was the figure of Our Lord holding a fleur-de-lis in his hand; and La Hire crossed the river Loire with her, and they entered together into the town of Orléans. From which things now recited it seems to the said deposing lord that the said Joan and her deeds in the warlike host were rather of God than of man, having regard to the sudden change of the wind after she spoke giving hope of succour, and to the bringing in of the victuals in despite of the English, who were far stronger than the king’s army; considering moreover that that young girl asserted that she had had in vision that Saint Louis and Charlemagne prayed God for the salvation of the king and of that city.\nItem, by another conjecture he believes her deeds to be of God: for the said deposing lord, when he willed to go and seek the men-at-arms who were crossing at Blois to give aid to those of the aforesaid city, the same Joan would scarce wait and give consent to the same deposing lord to go to them; nay she willed to summon the English besieging that city before they should intend to raise the siege, or to give them assault; which also she did, for she summoned the said English by a letter made in her mother tongue, in words right simple, containing in substance that the English should will to depart from the siege and go to the realm of England; else she would give them so great an assault that they would be constrained to depart. And the said letters were sent to the lord Talbot; and from that hour the lord who deposes asserts that the English, who before in the number of two hundred routed eight hundred or a thousand of the king’s army, thereafter four hundred or five hundred men-at-arms or fighters fought in conflict as it were against the whole power of the English, and so constrained the English being in the siege sometimes that they durst not come out of their refuges and bastilles.\nItem, by another conjecture he believes her deeds to be of God, because on the twenty-seventh day of May, right early, while the assault was begun against the adversaries being within the boulevard of the Bridge, the said Joan was wounded by an arrow which penetrated her flesh between the neck and the shoulders by half a foot. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this, she ceased not from the conflict, nor took medicine against the wound; and the assault lasted from the morning hour until the eighth hour of evening, so that there was as it were no hope of victory that day: wherefore the said deposing lord busied himself and willed that the army should be withdrawn to the city. And then the said Maid came to him and required that he should yet wait a little, and she from that hour mounted her horse and retired alone into a vineyard, somewhat far from the throng of men; in which vineyard she was in prayer for the space of as it were half a quarter of an hour; and she, returning from that place, straightway took her banner in her hands and set herself upon the edge of the ditch, and instantly, she being there, the English trembled and were made afraid; but the king’s men-at-arms took heart again and began to mount, giving assault against the boulevard, finding no resistance whatsoever; and then the said boulevard was taken, and the English being in it were turned to flight; and all died. And among other things the said deposing lord says that Glasdale (11) and the other principal captains of the English of the said bastille, believing to withdraw into the tower of the Bridge of Orléans, fell into the river and were drowned. And this Glasdale had been he who most injuriously and with the greatest ignominy or contumely spoke of the said Maid. And the bastille being taken, the said deposing lord and the Maid returned with the other French into the city of Orléans, in which they were received with immense joy and pity; and the same Joan was led to her lodging that her wound might be dressed. Which dressing being made by the surgeon, she took her refreshment, taking four or five sops (12) in wine mixed with much water, nor took she other food or drink the whole day. And on the morrow, at earliest morn, the English came out of their tents and ordered themselves in array to fight. Which being seen, the said Maid arose from her bed and armed herself only with a coat, in French jasseran (13); yet she willed not then that any should attack the said English, nor that anything should be sought from them; but that they should be suffered to depart; as also in fact they departed, none then pursuing them. From which hour the said town was delivered from the enemy.\nItem, the deposing lord says that, after the siege of the town of Orléans, the said Maid, with the said deposing lord and the other captains of the war, went to the king being in the Castle of Loches, to require him that he should send men-at-arms to recover the castles and towns situated upon the river Loire, to wit Mehun, Beaugency and Jargeau, to the end that he might the more freely and surely proceed further to his consecration at Reims; of which thing she most instantly and frequently urged the king that he should make haste and delay no more. Then the king used all possible diligence and sent the duke of Alençon, the said deposing lord and the other captains with the said Joan for the recovery of the said towns and castles; which towns and castles were in fact reduced to the king’s obedience within a few days, by means of the same Maid, as the said deposing lord believes, interrogated and examined upon this.\nItem, the said lord deposes, interrogated upon this, that, after the deliverance of the town of Orléans from the siege of the English, the English gathered a great army of men-at-arms to defend the aforesaid towns and castles which they held. The siege being before the castle and bridge of Beaugency, the army of the English arrived at the castle of Mehun-sur-Loire, which was still in the obedience of the English; but because the English could not then succour those English who were besieged in the Castle of Beaugency, after it came to their knowledge that the said castle was taken and reduced to the king’s obedience, the said English set themselves and united in one army, suchwise that the French believed those English willed to offer the day for battle; wherefore also the French ordered their army and disposed themselves in battle to await the said English. Then the lord duke of Alençon, in the presence of the lord constable (14), of the said deposing lord and of many others, asked of the said Joan what he ought to do. But she answered the aforesaid lord aloud thus: Have all of you good spurs. Which heard, the assistants asked the same Joan: What say you? Shall we then turn our backs? Then the same Joan answered: No; but it shall be the English who shall not defend themselves but be vanquished, and you shall have need of spurs to run after them. As also it was, for they fled, and there were, both dead and captive, more than four thousand.\nItem, the said lord deposes that he well remembers, and it is true, that, the king being in the castle of Loches, the said deposing lord and the Maid went to him after the raising of the siege of Orléans, and while the king was in his privy chamber, in French de retraict, in which were with him the lord Christophe de Harcourt (15), the bishop of Castres, the same king’s confessor (16), and the lord de Trêves (17), who had formerly been chancellor of France, the said Maid, before she entered the chamber, knocked at the door, and as soon as she entered she set herself on her knees and embraced the king’s legs, saying such or like words: Noble Dauphin, hold no more so many and so prolix councils; but come as soon as may be to Reims, to take the crown you deserve. And then the aforesaid lord Christophe de Harcourt, speaking with her, asked whether her counsel told her these things; but the same Joan answered: yes, that she was greatly urged in this matter. And then the aforesaid Christophe said to the same Joan: Would you not will to tell here, in the presence of the king, the manner of your counsel, when it speaks to you? To whom she answered, blushing: I conceive, she said, well enough that which you will to know, and I shall willingly tell you. To which Joan the king said: Joan, may it well please you to declare that which he asks, in the presence of those assisting here. And she answered the king that yes; and said such or like words: that, when she was displeased in any wise, because she was not readily believed in those things which she said on God’s part, she withdrew aside and prayed God, complaining to him because they to whom she spoke did not readily believe her; and her prayer made to God, then she heard a voice saying to her: Fille Dé, va, va, va, je serai à ton aide, va — Daughter of God, go, go, go, I shall be at thy aid, go; and when she heard the said voice she greatly rejoiced, nay she desired to be ever in that state; and, which is stronger, in reciting such words of her voices she exulted in a marvellous wise, lifting her eyes to heaven.\nItem, the said deposing lord said and remembers, interrogated, that, after the aforesaid victories, the lords of the king’s blood and the captains willed that the king should go to Normandy and not to Reims; but the said Maid was ever of the opinion that they must go to Reims to consecrate the king, and added the reason of her opinion, saying that, when the king should be crowned and consecrated, the power of the adversaries would ever diminish, nor could they finally hurt him or the realm. To which opinion all consented. And the first place where the king stayed and fixed his stage with his army was before the city of Troyes; being where, and holding council with the lords of his blood and the other captains of war, to advise whether he should stay before the said city and lay siege to take it, or whether it were expedient to pass beyond, going straight to Reims and leaving the city of Troyes; and the said council of the king being divided into divers opinions, and they doubting which were more useful, the said Maid came and entered the council, saying such or like words: Noble Dauphin, command your people to come straightway and besiege the town of Troyes, and draw out no more longer councils, for, in God’s name, within three days I shall bring you into the city of Troyes, by love or by power or by force, and false Burgundy shall be much astonished. And then the said Maid straightway passed over with the king’s army and fixed her tents beside the ditches, and made marvellous diligences such as even two or three of the most used and most famous men of arms would not have made; and so she laboured in that night that, on the morrow, the bishop (18) and the citizens of that city gave obedience to the king, trembling and quaking, so that afterwards it was found that, from the time when she gave counsel to the king not to depart from the city, the citizens themselves lost heart nor sought aught save refuge and to flee to the churches. And that city being reduced to the king’s obedience, the king went to Reims, where he found all obedience, and was there consecrated and crowned.\nItem, interrogated, the same deposing lord, of the life and manner of life of the same Maid: he deposes that she had this custom, at the hour of vespers or twilight every day, that she withdrew to church and caused the bells to be rung for as it were half an hour, and gathered the Mendicant Religious who followed the king’s army, and at that hour set herself in prayer, and caused to be chanted by those Mendicant Friars an antiphon of the blessed Virgin Mother of God.\nThe said deposing lord says further upon this, interrogated, that, the king coming to La Ferté and to Crépy-en-Valois (19), the people came to meet the king, exulting and crying Noël! Then the same Maid, riding between the archbishop of Reims and the said deposing lord, said the words which follow: Behold a good people; never saw I any other people who rejoiced so much at the coming of so noble a king. And would that I were so happy, when I shall end my days, that I might be buried in this land! Which heard, the aforesaid lord archbishop said: O Joan, in what place have you hope of dying? To which she answered: Where it shall please God, for I am not certain, neither of the time nor of the place, more than you know; and would that it pleased God, my creator, that I now departed, laying down arms, and went to serve my father and mother in keeping their sheep, with my sister and brothers, who would much rejoice to see me.\nItem, interrogated, the said lord, of the life, virtues and manner of life of the same Joan among the men-at-arms: he says and deposes that, for sobriety, she was surpassed by no living person; and the said deposing lord many times heard from the lord Jean d’Olon, knight, now seneschal of Beaucaire, whom the king had set and appointed as it were for her keeping, as a knight wiser and commended for probity, in the company of the said Maid, that he believes not that any woman was more chaste than the same Maid was. Moreover the said deposing lord affirms that likewise he and the others, when they were in the company of the same Maid, had no will or desire of communicating or having company of woman; and it seems to the deposing lord that it was a thing as it were divine.\nHe says lastly that, fifteen days after the time when the lord count of Suffolk (20) was made his prisoner in the taking of Jargeau, there was sent to the said count of Suffolk a paper schedule in which were contained four verses making mention that a Maid is to come from the Bois-Chanu and would ride upon the backs of the archers (21), and against them.\nLastly among other things the said deposing lord says, interrogated upon this, that, albeit the said Joan sometimes spoke jestingly of the fact of arms to animate the men-at-arms, of many things pertaining to the war which perchance were not brought to effect; yet when she spoke earnestly of the war, of her fact and her vocation, she never affirmed aught save that she was sent to raise the siege of Orléans and succour the people oppressed in the same city and the surrounding places, and to conduct the king to Reims to consecrate the same king.\nThe lord Raoul de Gaucourt # In the year as above, on the twenty-fifth day of the month of February, the noble and powerful man the lord Jean de Gaucourt (22), knight, grand master of the king’s household, of the age of eighty-five years or thereabouts, a witness produced, interrogated and examined upon the same articles.\nHe says and affirms that he was present in the Castle or town of Chinon when the same Maid came, and saw her when she presented herself in the sight of the royal majesty with great humility and simplicity, a poor little shepherdess, and heard the following words, which she said to the same king in this wise: Most illustrious lord Dauphin, I come and am sent on God’s part, to give aid to you and to the realm. And then the king, having seen and heard her, that he might be more fully informed of her state, commanded her to be given into the keeping of Guillaume Bellier, master of his house, bailiff of Troyes (23) and lieutenant of the said deposing lord at Chinon, whose Bellier’s wife was a woman of great devotion and most commended fame; and the king moreover commanded that the said Joan should be visited by clerks, prelates and doctors, to know whether he ought or could lawfully give faith to the sayings of the aforesaid Joan: as also was done, for her sayings and deeds were examined by the same clerks for the space and time of three weeks and more, both at Poitiers and at Chinon. Which clerks at length, due examination made, said that there was no evil in her nor in her sayings; and lastly, after many interrogatories made to the same Joan the Maid, it was sought from her what sign she would show for the believing of her sayings. Then she answered that the sign which she would show them was the raising of the siege and the succour of the town of Orléans. And then she departed from the king and went to Blois, where she first armed herself, to conduct victuals to Orléans and succour the inhabitants in it.\nThe said deposing lord says further upon this, interrogated, conformably to the lord de Dunois, of the change of the contrary wind and of the manner of putting the victuals into the city. He adds further that she moreover expressly foretold that in a brief space the weather and the wind would change; as also was done straightway after her saying. Likewise she foretold that the victuals would be freely brought into the city.\nAnd the said deposing lord concords with the aforesaid lord de Dunois in the taking of the bastille and in the raising of the siege and the driving out of the adversaries.\nAll the rest he deposes in the manner and form as the said lord de Dunois, concerning the deliverance of that town and city of Orléans and the taking of the castles and towns, of which mention has been made, being upon the river Loire.\nLikewise in all things he concords in those which concern the king’s passage to his consecration to be made at Reims.\nItem, interrogated of the life and morals of the same Joan: he says and answers that the aforesaid Joan was sober in drink and food, nor issued from her mouth aught save good words serving to edification and good example; and she was most chaste, nor did he ever know that a man conversed with her by night; nay she ever had by night a woman with her lying in her chamber. She confessed often; she gave herself to prayer assiduously; she heard mass daily and frequently received the sacrament of the Eucharist, nor suffered in her company ugly words to be uttered, nor blasphemies; nay such things she detested in deeds and in sayings. Nor else does he know.\nMaster François Garivel # In the year above described, on the seventh day of the month of March, the noble man Master François Garivel, general councillor of our lord the king upon the fact of the justice of the subsidies, of the age of forty years or thereabouts.\nAnd first, upon the said articles, he says that he remembers that, at the time of the coming of the said Joan the Maid, the king sent her to Poitiers, and she was lodged in the house of the late Master Jean Rabatiau (24), then the king’s advocate in Parliament; and in that city of Poitiers, by the king’s ordinance, there were deputed solemn doctors and masters, to wit the lord Pierre de Versailles (25), then abbot of Tallemont, afterwards bishop of Meaux; Jean Lambert; Guillaume Aimeri, of the order of Preaching Friars; Pierre Seguin, of the order of Carmelite Friars, doctors in the sacred page; Mathieu Mesnaige, Guillaume Le Marié, bachelors in theology, together with many other councillors of the king, licentiates in both laws, who many and repeated times, and as it were for the space of three weeks, examined the said Joan, visiting and considering her sayings and deeds; but finally, her state and her answers being considered, they said that the same Maid was a simple girl who, interrogated by them, persevered in this answer, to wit that she was sent on the part of the God of heaven in favour of the noble Dauphin, to restore him into his realm, to raise the siege of Orléans and to conduct him to Reims to be consecrated; but it was first needful that she should summon and write to the English that they should depart, and that it was the will of God.\nThe same deposing lord says moreover, interrogated upon this, that, when it was asked of the same Joan why she called the king Dauphin and not by the name of king: she answered that she would not call him king until he should be crowned and consecrated at Reims, to which city she intended to lead him. Further, it was said by the said clerks to the same Joan that she ought to show a sign whereby it might be believed of her that she was sent on God’s part; but she answered them that the sign given her by God was to raise the siege of Orléans, and that she doubted not but that it would so come to pass, if the king would give her ever so small a company of men-at-arms.\nThe said deposing lord says further that she was a simple shepherdess, supremely loving God, for she confessed often and frequently received the sacrament of the Eucharist. At length, after a long examination made by clerks of divers faculties for a long time, the said deposing lord says that all deliberated and concluded that the king could lawfully receive her, and that he should lead a company of men-at-arms before the siege of Orléans, for they found nothing in her save the catholic and consonant with all reason. Nor else does he know.\nThe lord Guillaume de Ricarville # In the aforesaid year, on the eighth day of the month of March, the noble man Guillaume de Ricarville, temporal lord of Ricarville (26) and master of the king’s household, of the age of sixty years or thereabouts, a witness produced, sworn and examined and interrogated upon the same articles, in the presence of the venerable and discreet men Guillaume Bouillé, professor of sacred theology, and Jean du Mesnil, doctor of laws and official of Beauvais:\nHe says that, he being within the town of Orléans besieged by the English, with the lord de Dunois and many other captains, there came news that through the town of Gien there had passed a shepherdess called the Maid, whom two or three noble men of the country of Lorraine, from which she drew her origin, were conducting; which Maid said that she was going to raise the siege of Orléans, and that afterwards she would lead the king to Reims to be consecrated, as had been commanded her on God’s part. These things notwithstanding, she was not lightly received at the king’s; nay rather the king himself willed that she should first be examined, and that it be known of her life and state, and whether she ought lawfully to be received. Which Maid, by the king’s command, was examined by many prelates, doctors and clerks, who found her of good life, commended state and laudable fame; nor was there found in her anything for which she ought to be repelled.\nInterrogated moreover of the life of the same Maid among the men-at-arms: he says and deposes that she was of most fair life, very sober in drink and food, chaste also, devout, hearing mass daily, and most often confessing her sins, and receiving the holy Eucharist every week with fervent devotion. She rebuked the men-at-arms when they blasphemed the name of God or swore in vain; and when they perpetrated any evils or did violences, she reprehended them. Nor did he who speaks ever perceive that she did anything worthy of reprehension; nay he believes that, having regard to her manner of living and her deeds, she was inspired by God. Nor else does he know.\nMaster Reginald Thierry # In the year as above and on the same day, Master Reginald Thierry, dean of the collegiate church of Mehun-sur-Yèvre, the king’s surgeon, of the age of sixty-four years or thereabouts, a witness produced, sworn, examined and interrogated upon the same articles:\nHe says and deposes that he saw the same Joan at the king’s, in the town of Chinon, and heard from her that which she said, to wit that she was sent by God to the noble Dauphin to raise the siege of Orléans and to lead the king to Reims to be consecrated and crowned.\nAnd of the manner which the king had in receiving her, he deposes as the preceding; likewise of her life, manner of life, devotion and piety. And with this he adds that he saw that, when the town of Saint-Pierre-le-Moustier (27) was taken by assault, where she was, the men-at-arms willed to do violence in the church and to seize the sacred things and other goods deposited there; but the same Joan manfully prohibited and defended, nor ever suffered that anything be seized there. And the deposing lord believes that, having regard to the good life of the same Maid and her laudable manner of life, likewise her deeds and sayings and the fulfilment of the same, of which she truly spoke before they came and which came to pass as she had foretold, she was sent by God. Nor else does he know.\nJean Luillier # In the aforesaid year, on the sixteenth day of the month of March, in the presence of the venerable men Masters Guillaume Bouillé, dean of Noyon, and Jean Martin, vicar of the inquisitor, of the order of Preaching Friars, professors of sacred theology, and also of Jean Cartier, bachelor in laws: Jean Luillier, the elder (28), burgess of Orléans, of the age of fifty-six years or thereabout.\nInterrogated of the coming of the same Maid to the town of Orléans: he says that she was much desired by all the inhabitants of the same city on account of the fame or rumour current, for it was said that she had said to the king that she was sent on God’s part to raise the siege laid before the said town; and the citizens themselves and all the inhabitants were set in such necessity by the adversaries holding the said siege that they knew not to whom to have recourse for remedy, save only to God.\nItem, interrogated whether he was in the city when she arrived there: he says that yes; and that she was received with such joy and applause by all of both sexes, little and great, as if she had been an Angel of God, because they hoped by means of her to be delivered from such enemies, as also afterwards came to pass.\nItem, interrogated what she did in that city after her entry: he says that she exhorted all to hope in the Lord; and, if they had good hope and confidence in God, that they would be delivered from the adversaries. He says moreover that she willed to summon the English besieging the city before she would permit assault to be given to the same adversaries to repel them; and so it was done, for she summoned the same English by a letter containing in substance that the English should will to depart from the siege and go to the realm of England; else they would be constrained to depart by force or violences. He says further that from that hour the English were terrified, nor had so great power of resisting as before; nay few of the said town often fought against a great multitude of the English, and suchwise sometimes constrained the same English being in the siege that they durst not come out of their bastilles.\nItem, interrogated of the raising of the siege: he says that in the month of May, on the twenty-seventh day, of the year of the Lord 1429, he well remembers that assault was given against the adversaries being within the boulevard of the Bridge; in which assault it was said that she had been wounded by an arrow; and the same assault lasted from the morning hour until evening, and to such a degree that those of the city willed to withdraw to the city; and then the same Maid came, commanding that they should not depart nor withdraw yet to the city. Which said, she took her banner in her hands and set it upon the edge of the ditch, and instantly, she being there, the English trembled and were made afraid; but the king’s men-at-arms took heart again and began to mount, giving assault against the boulevard, nor found any resistance whatsoever; and then the said boulevard was taken, and the English being in it were turned to flight, and all died. He says moreover that Glasdale and the other principal captains of the English of the said bastille, believing to withdraw into the tower of the bridge of Orléans, fell into the river and were drowned, and, the bastille then taken, all of the king’s party returned into the city of Orléans.\nInterrogated further what was done afterwards: he says that on the other day, to wit on the morrow at earliest morn, they came out of their tents and ordered themselves in array to fight, as appeared. Which known and heard, the said Maid arose from her bed and armed herself; but she willed not that any should then attack the said English, nor that aught be sought from them; nay she commanded that they should be suffered to depart; as also in fact they departed, none then pursuing them; and from that hour the said town was delivered from the enemy.\nItem, interrogated whether that siege was raised and the city delivered from the enemies by the ministry or means of the same Maid rather than by the power of the men-at-arms: he answers that he, and likewise all of the city, believe that, if the said Maid had not come on God’s part to their aid, they would in short order have been all inhabitants and the city reduced under the dominion and power of the besieging adversaries; nor does he believe the same inhabitants, nor the men-at-arms being in it, could have long resisted against that power of the adversaries who then so prevailed against them.\nJean Hilaire # On the same day, Jean Hilaire, burgess of Orléans, of the age of sixty-six years or thereabout, sworn, examined and interrogated of the life, morals, virtues and manner of life of the said Joan, deposes as the preceding.\nGilles de Saint-Mesmin # Gilles de Saint-Mesmin, of the age of seventy-four years or thereabout, burgess of the oft-said town of Orléans, interrogated, etc., deposes as the preceding.\nJacques L’Esbahy # Jacques L’Esbahy (29), burgess of Orléans, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, deposes as the two immediately preceding, and adds that he remembers that two heralds were sent to Saint-Laurent, of whom one was called Ambleville and the other Guienne, to say to the lords de Talbot, the count of Suffolk and the lord de Scales, at the instance of the said Maid, that those English lords should depart on God’s part and go to England; else it would go ill with them. Then the same English detained one of the heralds, Guienne by name, and sent back the other, to wit Ambleville, to say certain things to the same Joan the Maid; and the same Ambleville reported that the English had detained his fellow Guienne, to wit to burn him. And then the same Joan answered Ambleville, asserting in the name of the Lord that they would do him no evil, and said to the said Ambleville that he should return to the same English boldly, and that they would do him no evil, nay he would bring back his fellow safe and sound: as also he did.\nHe adds moreover that he saw the same Joan, when she first entered the town of Orléans, that before all things she willed to go to the greater church to exhibit reverence to God her creator. Nor else does he know.\nGuillaume Le Charron # Guillaume Le Charron, burgess of Orléans, of the age of fifty-nine years or thereabout, sworn, etc., deposes as the preceding.\nCosma de Gommy # Cosma de Gommy, burgess of Orléans, of the age of sixty-four years or thereabout, sworn and examined, to the same. He adds nevertheless that he heard Master Jean Maçon, doctor in both laws most famous, say that the same doctor had many times examined the same Joan of her sayings and deeds, and that he made no doubt that she was sent by God, and that it was a marvellous thing to hear her speak and answer; and that in her life he had never perceived aught save the holy and the good. Nor else does he know.\nAnd the same the aforesaid Gilles de Saint-Mesmin affirms to have heard from the aforesaid Maçon.\nMartin de Mauboudet # Martin de Mauboudet, burgess of Orléans, of the age of sixty-seven years or thereabout, to the same in all things as the preceding.\nJean Violant # Jean Violant (30) the elder, burgess of Orléans, of the age of seventy years or thereabout, the same as the preceding.\nGuillaume Postiau # Guillaume Postiau, burgess of Orléans, of the age of forty-four years or thereabout, the same as the preceding.\nDenis Roger # Denis Roger, burgess of Orléans, of the age of seventy years, deposes the same as the preceding.\nJacques de Thou # Jacques Thou (31), burgess of the aforesaid town, of the age of fifty years, deposes the same as the preceding.\nJean Carrelier # Jean Carrelier, burgess of Orléans, of the age of forty-four years, the same.\nAnian de Saint-Mesmin # Anian de Saint-Mesmin (32), of the age of eighty-seven years or thereabout, the same.\n(1) This illustrious man is sufficiently known. It suffices to recall here that he was created Count of Dunois only on 29 July 1439, and that until then he had no other name than that of Bastard of Orléans.\n(2) And better Jamet du Thillay. He was then captain of Blois. (Catalogue of the Joursanvault Archives, t. II, nos. 3170 and following.)\n(3) Regnault de Chartres, died a cardinal in 1443.\n(4) See below, p. 16.\n(5) Gilles de Laval, lord of Rais, Ingrande and Chantocé, famous for the horrible excesses which led him to the stake in 1440.\n(6) Louis de Culant.\n(7) Died in the exercise of this dignity in 1440. See the singular picture which the Bourgeois de Paris makes of his morals in the year 1440.\n(8) Saint-Loup is situated on the right bank of the Loire, above Orléans. For the understanding of what follows, it must be understood that the convoy having halted on the left bank, facing Saint-Loup, boats were fetched from Orléans to cross the river, doubling a great island which divides it at that place, so that to enter the town one turned back by the way of land as far as the gate of Burgundy. See on this subject the excellent dissertation of M. Jollois, Histoire du siège d’Orléans, pp. 13 and 74 (in-fol., Paris, 1833).\n(9) Jean, seigneur de Talbot and of Fournival, count of Shrewsbury and of Waterford. It is he who was killed at the day of Castillon, 17 July 1453. He had directed the works of the siege of Orléans since the death of the count of Salisbury, and commanded the fort of Saint-Laurent, below the town, on the right bank of the Loire.\n(10) Of the order of Rhodes.\n(11) William Glansdale, bailiff of Alençon for the king of England. He commanded in chief the fortress of the Tourelles, that which is here called the tower of the bridge of Orléans.\n(12) Vipa, rôtie, a sop of bread.\n(13) Or jazeran, a coat of mail.\n(14) Arthur of Brittany, count of Richemont, then in disgrace, who had come to join the army in spite of the king’s orders. All this part of the deposition applies to the battle of Patay.\n(15) The same who was afterwards grand master of waters and forests.\n(16) Called Gérard Machet in the Chronicle of the Maid. He became bishop of Castres only after the death of Joan of Arc and died invested with that dignity in 1448. (Gallia christiana, I, col. 73.)\n(17) Robert le Maçon, master of requests of Charles VI, ennobled in 1400 and lord of Trêves in Anjou. Created chancellor in 1418, he occupied that office only three years, tormented without ceasing by the enmity of the duke of Burgundy, then by the intrigues of the favourites of Charles VII, then Dauphin. Having yielded the place to Martin Gouge, he remained near the king as a simple councillor. Died in 1442. (Hist. généal. de la maison de France, t. VI, p. 300.)\n(18) The bishop of Troyes was then Jean Leguisé, whom Charles VII ennobled, himself, his family and the posterity of his own, in recognition of the service which he had rendered him by the capitulation of his metropolis. (Gallia christ., t. XII.)\n(19) On the return from Reims, in August 1429.\n(20) William Pôle, count of Suffolk, grand master of the house of the king of England, raised to the general command of the army of the Loire after the death of Salisbury.\n(21) And would ride upon the backs of the archers. This expression of archers applied marvellously to the English, who owed their superiority to their men of the bow. But it must also be said that the author of the four verses alleged by the witness had considerably paraphrased the primitive text of the prophecy of Merlin, if indeed that prophecy is the one found reported in these terms in the manuscript of the Bibliothèque royale, no. 7301: Descendet virgo dorsum sagittarii et flores virgineos obseulabit.\n(22) M. de Gaucourt was called Raoul and not Jean. He had been made knight at the battle of Nicopolis, in 1396. At the time of the siege of Orléans he was councillor, first chamberlain of Charles VII and bailiff of Orléans by provision of the duke of Orléans, then prisoner in England. He had distinguished himself in 1415 by the defence of Harfleur, following which he remained thirteen years in the hands of the English. In 1429 the king made him captain of Chinon, and the following year governor of Dauphiné. He died at the beginning of the reign of Louis XI, deprived at ninety years of the office of grand master of the household which had been given him in 1453, and little rich, to the saying of an advocate who pleaded for his heirs in 1477, for he paid for his ransoms well a hundred and fourteen thousand livres, of which he was not recompensed; and he was moreover pierced through the body by a lance. (Thaumas de la Thaumassière, Histoire du Berry, p. 589; Hist. généal. de la maison de France, t. VIII, p. 366. See the Chronicles of Froissart, Monstrelet, Jean Chartier, Berry, etc.)\n(23) I suspect a copyist’s error here, for Guillaume Bellier could not have been bailiff of Troyes at a time when that town was still subject to the English. Besides, he would not have cumulated so high an office as the bailiwick of Troyes with the lieutenancy of Chinon. Guillaume Bellier figures in several titles, and always as an inferior officer of the two houses of France and of Orléans. In 1424 he is styled, in an exemption from octroi which Charles VII grants him, esquire and first veneur of the king. In 1428 he made, as esquire and serjeant (serviens) of the duke of Orléans, a journey to his master in England. He ended by being councillor of the same prince; he is found with that quality in 1440. (Rymer, t. X, p. 396. — Cabinet of titles of the Bibliothèque royale.)\n(24) Or Rabateau, councillor of the king, created advocate-general at the Parliament transferred to Poitiers in 1418; afterwards established at Bourges, and président à mortier at the Parliament of Paris. Died about 1444. (Blanchard, Hist. des Présidents à mortier, p. 83.)\n(25) First a monk of Saint-Denis and professor of theology. In 1441 Charles VII sent him in embassy to Eugène IV, and that pontiff granted him the mission of Poitiers (1440). Died in 1446. (Gallia christ., VI.)\n(26) This gentleman was a pantler at the court in the time of Joan of Arc; he was afterwards squire of the stable and lastly councillor master of the household. A prisoner of the English in 1427, he ransomed himself with a sum of five hundred écus wherewith the Dauphin gratified him. Charles VII sent him to Bordeaux on 1 July 1459 to settle a dispute which had arisen between the municipality of that city and several English ships anchored in the Gironde. He was living in 1472 and received a pension from Louis XI.\n(27) Saint-Pierre-le-Moustier, taken in December 1429.\n(28) That is to say, the elder. A Jean Luillier was a mercer at Orléans in 1425. (Catalogue of the Joursanvault Archives, no. 650.)\n(29) On the registers of the accounts of the town of Orléans, Jacquet L’Esbahy was procureur of the town in 1436.\n(30) The same name is written Ylient on the schedules of the expenses of the town of Orléans in 1429, at the Bibliothèque d’Orléans. (Comptes de forteresse, bundle no. 1, piece 4.)\n(31) Doubtless Jacques de Thou, seigneur du Bignon, whose father had distinguished himself during the siege of Orléans, and who was the great-grandfather of Christophe de Thou, first president at the Parliament of Paris.\n(32) Aignan de Saint-Mesmin, head of one of the most considerable families of the bourgeoisie of Orléans. Charles VII ennobled him in 1450 because of the great services which he had rendered him during his long career. He died at the age of one hundred and eighteen years. (Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de la famille de Saint-Mesmin, manuscript 151 of the Orléans library.)\nJean de Champeaux # Jean de Champeaux, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, the same. And with this, he heard from Master Jean Maçon that which the said Cosma heard. He adds further that one Sunday he saw a great conflict which the men-at-arms being in the town of Orléans willed to make against the English, who set themselves in order to fight. Which seen, the same Joan went out to the men-at-arms, and then it was asked of the said Joan whether it were good to fight against the said English on that day, which was a Sunday; who answered that they must hear mass. And then she sent to seek an altar and caused the ecclesiastical ornaments to be brought, and there caused two masses to be celebrated, which she and all the army of men-at-arms heard with great devotion. Which masses being celebrated, the same Joan said that they should look whether the English had their faces turned towards them, and then answer was made her that no; nay they had their faces towards the castle of Mehun. Which heard, she said: In the name of God, they are going; suffer them to depart, and let us go and give thanks to God, nor let us pursue them further, for it is Sunday.\nAnd this same saw Denis Rogier, above named, and the four immediately below subjected, to wit Jongault, Hue, Aubert and Roulliart, with many others.\nPierre Jongault # Pierre Jongault (33), burgess of Orléans, of the age of fifty years, the same as the preceding.\nPierre Hue # Pierre Hue, burgess of the aforesaid town, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, the same as the preceding.\nJean Aubert # Jean Aubert, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, the same.\nGuillaume Roulliart # Guillaume Roulliart, of the age of forty-six years, the same as the preceding.\nGentien Cabu # Gentien Cabu, burgess, of the age of fifty-nine years or thereabout, the same as the preceding.\nPierre Vaillant # Pierre Vaillant, burgess, of the age of sixty years or thereabout, the same as the preceding.\nAnd in this all agree that they never perceived, by whatsoever conjectures, that the same Joan attributed to herself for glory whatsoever deeds of her probity; nay she ascribed all to God, and resisted as much as she could that the people should honour her or give her glory, for she loved more to be alone and solitary than in the company of men, save when there was need in the fact of war.\nJean Coulon # Jean Coulon, of the age of fifty-six years or thereabout, the same.\nJean Beauharnais # Jean Beauharnais (34), of the age of fifty years or thereabout, the same.\nAnd both likewise affirm, as also the other predecessors who often frequented the same Joan whilst she was at Orléans, that they never saw in her aught worthy of reprehension, but in her perceived only humility, simplicity, chastity and devotion to God and the church. They say lastly that it was a great consolation to converse with her.\nMaster Robert de Farciaulx # Master Robert de Farciaulx, priest, licentiate in laws, canon and subdean of the church of Saint-Aignan of Orléans, of the age of seventy-eight years, a witness produced, sworn and interrogated, etc., deposed upon her life and morals as the preceding. He adds moreover that in the fact of war she was very learned, albeit she was a simple and young girl; and he asserts that, albeit the captains many times had divers opinions on account of the great resistance of the adversaries, nevertheless she constantly spoke to them and gave them wholesome counsels, giving them heart and saying that they should hope in God and doubt nothing, for all things would come to a good end. Nor else does he know.\nMaster Pierre Compaing # Master Pierre Compaing, priest, licentiate in laws, capicerius and canon of the said church of Saint-Aignan, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, of her morals, virtues and manner of life, deposes as the preceding. And he adds moreover that he saw the said Joan, whilst mass was being celebrated, at the elevation of the body of Christ, shed tears in abundance. And he well remembers that she induced the men-at-arms to confess their sins; and in fact he who speaks saw that, at her instigation and admonition, La Hire confessed his sins, and many others of her company. Nor else does he know.\nThe lords Pierre de la Censure, Raoul Godart, Hervé Bonart # The lord Pierre de la Censure, priest, canon and provost of the said church of Saint-Aignan, of the age of sixty years; the lord Raoul Godart, priest, licentiate in decrees, prior of Saint-Samson of Orléans, of the age of fifty-five years, and canon of Saint-Aignan; Hervé Bonart, prior of Saint-Magloire, of the order of Saint Augustine, of the age of sixty years: all as the preceding, of her morals, life and manner of life.\nThe lord André Bordes # The lord André Bordez, canon of Saint-Aignan of Orléans, of the age of sixty years or thereabout, the same as the preceding. And he adds that he saw that the said Joan chid the men-at-arms when they denied or blasphemed the name of God; and in special, he saw certain men of arms most dissolute in life, who by the exhortation of the same Joan were converted and ceased from evils.\nJoan, wife of Gilles de Saint-Mesmin # In the same year and day, Joan, wife of Gilles de Saint-Mesmin, of the age of seventy years, says that the common fame was and then was that the same Joan the Maid was a good catholic, simple, humble, of holy conversation, modest and chaste, detesting vices and rebuking the vicious in the company of the men-at-arms.\nJoan, wife of G. Boyleaue # Joan, wife of Guy Boyleau, of the age of sixty years, the same as the preceding.\nGuillemette, wife of J. de Coulons # Guillemette, wife of Jean de Coulons, of the age of fifty-one years, the same as the preceding.\nJoan, widow of J. de Mouchy # Joan, widow of the late Jean de Mouchy, of the age of fifty years, the same as the preceding.\nCharlotte, wife of G. Havet # Charlotte, wife of Guillaume Havet, of the age of thirty-six years or thereabout, the same as the preceding.\nShe adds moreover that by night she slept with the said Joan alone. She says moreover that she never perceived in the same, neither in word nor in deed, whatsoever sign of dissoluteness or lewdness; but only simplicity, humility and chastity. She says further that she had the custom of frequently confessing her sins, and daily heard mass.\nShe affirms lastly that the said Joan often said to the mother of her who deposes, in whose house she was lodged, that she should hope in God, and that God would help the town of Orléans and drive out the adversaries.\nShe says further that of custom she had that, before she went to any assault, she ever disposed her conscience and received the holy Eucharist after the hearing of mass.\nReginalde, widow of J. Huré # Reginalde, widow of the late Jean Huré, of the age of fifty years, says as the preceding, and adds further that she well remembers to have seen and heard, one day, a great lord, then walking in the full street, swear foully and deny God; which also the same Joan saw and heard, who was much troubled, and straightway went to that lord who swore, and took him by the neck, saying: Ah, maistre! do you dare thus to renounce our sire and our master? In God’s name, you shall unsay it before I part hence. And then, as she who speaks saw, that lord repented and amended himself, at the exhortation of the aforesaid Maid. Nor else does she know.\nPetronille, wife of J. Beauharnais, and Massée H. Fagoue # Petronille, wife of Jean Beauharnais, of the age of fifty years; Massée, wife of Henri Fagoue, also of fifty years. Both say as the preceding.\nSo signed: g. de la sale.\n(33) Manuscript 5970; Notre-Dame, Jongault.\n(34) He is the second of the name reported in the genealogy of the Beauharnais, drawn up in 1642 and since printed by d’Hozier. In that work he is said to be the brother-in-law of Louis de Contes, squire of the Maid, and possessor of the seigneuries of la Chaussée and of Miramion. It is from his younger brother Guillaume Beauharnais that the prince Eugène is descended in direct line.\nIV. Informations Made at Paris and at Rouen # There follow the depositions of the witnesses examined both at Paris and in the town of Rouen. And first, the citations by virtue whereof the adverse parties and the others believing that it concerns them were cited, to see the witnesses sworn.\nGuillaume, by divine mercy bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, of the order of Preaching Friars, one of the inquisitors of heretical pravity in the realm of France, judges delegated or commissioned, together with the most reverend and reverend fathers in Christ, etc., etc. To all and each of the abbots, priors, deans, provosts, archdeacons, treasurers, precentors, cantors, archpriests, canons, rectors and perpetual vicars and chaplains, curates and other ecclesiastical persons, beneficed and not beneficed, exempt and not exempt, and also to public notaries and other notaries wheresoever established, and to each of them in solidum, to whom our present letters shall come, health in the Lord and firm obedience to our mandates, nay more truly apostolic. Know ye that we formerly received with such reverence as was meet the letters of our aforesaid lord, the lord Calixtus, by divine providence pope the Third, presented to us by the venerable and learned man Master Pierre Maugier, doctor of decrees, skilled in canon law, at the instance of Pierre d’Arc, knight, and Isabelle his mother, stipulating for Jean d’Arc, brother of the same Pierre d’Arc, of the diocese of Toul, described and named in the said apostolic letters, and moreover proceeded by vigour of the same apostolic letters to certain juridical acts; and there being produced and exhibited before us, in fact, really and in writing, on the part of the said Pierre and Isabelle his mother and of Jean d’Arc, brother of the same Pierre, certain positions and articles against and adverse to the reverend father in Christ the lord bishop of Beauvais, the sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity established in the diocese of Beauvais, and also the promoter of the criminal causes of the court of the aforesaid lord bishop of Beauvais; and a certain day being assigned by us to the said bishop, sub-inquisitor and promoter, and also to all and each of the others believing that it concerns them in common or severally, to say and except, by word or in writing, whatsoever they should will to say and allege against the said articles, and also to hear from us and by us our will of and upon the admission or repulse of the said articles produced in this cause; at length, on the day of the date of the presents, there appearing before us judicially the venerable men Masters Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the said Pierre, Isabelle and Jean d’Arc lawfully founded; Jean Le Rebours, procurator also of the venerable and circumspect man Master Simon Chapitault, licentiate in canon law, promoter given and deputed in this cause; reproducing and exhibiting our citation formerly decreed, together with the executions made upon citation of this kind, and accusing the contumacy of the cited not appearing in the same; and also the venerable and circumspect man Master Reginald Bredouille, procurator and in the name of procurator, as he said, of the aforesaid lord bishop of Beauvais, and in his name, as promoter of the criminal causes of the said court of Beauvais, cited to this day, and Brother Jean Calciatoris, of the order of Preaching Friars, prior of the convent of Évreux, for and in the name of the convent of the Preaching Friars of Beauvais, making certain declarations: we were required with due instance by the aforesaid Masters Guillaume Prévosteau and Jean Le Rebours, procurators, in the names as above, that, the aforesaid declarations being heard, we should will and deign to admit to proof the articles produced in this cause, as we admitted them, and moreover to grant a certain citation in the form underwritten against all and each believing that it concerns them, and likewise deign to decree it. Hence it is that to you all and each, in virtue of holy obedience and under the pains of suspension and excommunication which we shall pronounce against you and each of you should you not do what we command, we command by straitly charging, that for the executing of this our mandate the one of you shall not await the other, nor one excuse himself by another. All and each, of whatsoever state, degree, sex or condition they be, believing that it concerns them in common or severally, on our part, nay more truly apostolic, ye shall peremptorily cite by the affixing of copies of the presents at the doors of the church of Rouen, which place we have deputed for every place; and whom and each of whom we also cite by tenor of the presents, that, on the first juridical day after the coming feast of the blessed apostle Matthias, unless, etc., otherwise, etc.; or on another following day on which we shall sit in tribunal, in the episcopal hall of Paris, they shall appear before us; to see all and each of the witnesses, whom the abovesaid procurator and promoter given in this cause shall will to produce to prove their intent, produced by the same parties and sworn by us, and by the said cited on the said day and the days immediately following, to give and exhibit interrogatories if they will to give any; and with the intimation accustomed to be made in such matters. And what ye shall do therein write faithfully back to us. In witness whereof we have caused these our present letters to be subscribed and signed by the notaries and scribes deputed in this cause, and to be munished with the seal of the court of Rouen. Given and done in the greater archiepiscopal hall of Rouen, in the year of the Lord 1455, the fourth indiction, on the seventeenth day of the month of February, in the first year of the pontificate of the most holy father in Christ and our aforesaid lord, the lord Calixtus, by divine providence pope the Third. Present there the venerable and circumspect men lords and masters Hector de Coquerel, doctor of decrees, vicar-general of the lord archbishop of Rouen; V. olonde Bosco; Guillaume Roussel; Jean Grouchet and Jean …, canons of Rouen, with many other witnesses specially called and bidden to the premises.\nAnd I Denis Comitis, priest of the diocese of Coutances, bachelor in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority, was present at the admission of the said articles and at all and each of the other premises whilst, as is premised, they were said, done and made, together with the forenamed witnesses, and saw and heard them so done. Wherefore to these present letters faithfully written by the hand of another I have set my accustomed sign, together with the subscription of Master François Ferrebouc, public notary, and the seal of the aforesaid court appended, required and bidden, in witness and testimony of all and each. So signed: d. comitis.\nAnd me, François Ferrebouc, clerk of Paris, licentiate in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority and sworn of the courts of the Conservation of the privileges of the alma mater University of Paris indulted by the holy apostolic see, and of the episcopal court of Paris, who was present at the admission of the said articles, the citation, the decree and all and each of the other premises whilst, as is premised, they were said, done and made, together with the forenamed witnesses, and saw and heard them so done on that day. Wherefore to this present public instrument faithfully written by the hand of another, I being hindered by other lawful affairs, and put into the form of public letters of citation, I have set my public and accustomed sign, required and bidden, in witness and testimony of all and each of the premises. F. Ferrebouc.\nTenor of the citation by virtue whereof the witnesses were cited in the diocese of Rouen # Jean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, etc. To all priests, vicars, curates and not curates, the other rectors of churches, and public notaries, and other notaries throughout the city and diocese of Rouen, and others wheresoever established, and to each of them in solidum to whom our present letters shall come, health in the Lord and firm obedience to our mandates, nay more truly apostolic. To us, on the part of the venerable and discreet man Master Simon Chapitault, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter deputed by us in this part, of Isabelle d’Arc the mother, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, brothers of the late deceased Joan the Maid, asserting that, whereas for our instruction in the matter deputed to us and for the conservation of their right, so far as it touches each of them, they have need of the deposition and testimony of certain witnesses, aged and infirm, for the future, and of others, they fear lest by penury of witnesses their right should chance to perish and the truth of the matter be hidden: it has been humbly supplicated that we should will and deign to decree letters of citation in the underwritten form. Willing therefore, as far as we may, that the truth of the matter committed to us in this part come forth into the light, and to administer justice to each as it lies upon us, by the apostolic authority which we wield in this part, to you all and each above named and to each of you in solidum, in virtue of holy obedience and under the pains of suspension and excommunication which we shall pronounce against you and each of you should you not do what we command, we command by straitly charging that for the executing of this our mandate the one of you shall not await the other, nor one excuse himself by another. Ye shall peremptorily and personally cite before us, or one of us, at the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, for the day and hours whereof ye shall be required on the part of the same promoter, Isabelle, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, the lord Nicolas Taquel, the lord Pierre Bouchier, Master Nicolas de Houppeville, the lord Jean Massieu, Master Nicolas Caval, the lord Guillaume Manchon, Pierre Cusquel, Brother Isambert de la Pierre, Master André Marguerie, Master Richard de Grouchet, Brother Pierre Miget, Brother Martin Ladvenu, the lord Jean Fabri, bishop of Dimetria, the lord Thomas Marie, the lord Jean Riquier, Brother Bardin de la Pierre (1), the lord Raoul Veret, priest, and all others whomsoever, of whatsoever degree, sex and condition they be, of whom ye shall be required by them, to give testimony of the truth in a certain matter of a process formerly conducted in a matter of faith against the deceased Joan, commonly called the Maid, by the late bishop of Beauvais and the sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity, at the instance of Master Guillaume d’Estivet, promoter of the same, and touching the nullity of the process and sentences of the same and the purgation of the same late deceased, moved and hoped to be moved before us. And what ye shall do therein, and of the names and surnames of those cited and of the assignations of days and hours, write faithfully back to us, with the intimations accustomed in such matters. Given at Rouen under the seal of us the archbishop, in the year of the Lord 1455, on the eleventh day of the month of December. So signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nThen follows the relation of the execution.\nTo the most reverend father and lord in Christ, the lord Jean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, etc., etc. Your humble subject Richard de Saincte-Mareglise, priest exercising the offices of dean of the Christianity of Rouen, and notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, due reverence with all honour. Let your most reverend and reverend paternities know that I, by virtue of your mandate, to which my present rescription is annexed, have cited peremptorily and personally before you or one of you, at the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, to wit Masters Nicolas Caval, Nicolas de Houppeville, and the lords Jean Fabri, bishop of Dimetria, Guillaume Manchon, Brother Pierre Miget, Jean Riquier, priests, for Friday the nineteenth day of the month of December; and also Master Jean Marguerie, Jean Massieu and Brother Pierre Ladvenu, priests, for the Saturday next following, to give testimony of the truth in a certain matter of a process in a matter of faith, etc., touching, etc. (2); and have done and fulfilled all and each according to the tenor of your mandate. Which I certify to your said most reverend paternities under my manual sign and the seal of the said dean. Given in the year of the Lord 1455, on Thursday the eighteenth day of the month of December. So signed: R. de Saincte-Mareglise.\nTenor of the citation by virtue whereof the witnesses were cited in the diocese of Paris # Jean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, of the order of Preaching Friars, etc. To all priests, vicars, curates, etc., at the instance and request of the venerable and circumspect man Master Simon Chapitault, etc., to you all and each above named and to each of you in solidum, in virtue of holy obedience and under the pains of suspension and excommunication which we shall pronounce against you and each of you should you not do what we command, we command by straitly charging that for the executing of this our mandate the one of you shall not await the other, etc. Ye shall peremptorily and personally cite before us, in the episcopal hall of Paris, the reverend father in Christ the lord Jean, bishop of Noyon; Masters Thomas de Courcelles and Jean Monet, professors of sacred theology; Jean Tiphaine and Guillaume de la Chambre, masters in medicine, and Gérard de Chiche; and all others and each of whom ye shall be required by the bearer of the presents; to appear before us or one of us, and to give testimony of the truth of those things which they shall know touching this cause, upon which we shall deem them interrogable of our office and otherwise, for a competent day and hour, not feriated, saving nevertheless their salaries, with the intimations accustomed in such matters. And what ye shall do therein write faithfully back to us. Given at Paris under our seals, in the year of the Lord 1455, on the tenth day of the month of January. So signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nAnd on the back: Executed by me, Girard Toussaint, public notary, in the year and day contained in the white.\nMandate of both notaries for the recollection of the Rouen witnesses (3) # By demand of the reverend father and lord in Christ, the lord Guillaume, by divine mercy bishop of Paris, and of the venerable and religious man Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, one of the inquisitors of heretical pravity established in the realm of France, judges deputed by apostolic authority, together with the most reverend and reverend fathers in Christ the archbishop of Reims and the bishop of Coutances, of a certain cause of nullity of the proceedings and sentences formerly made by the deceased lord Pierre Cauchon, then bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Lemaître, sub-inquisitor in the diocese of Beauvais, against the late Joan d’Arc called the Maid, and of the purgation of the same: let there be cited the venerable men Father Pierre Miget, professor of sacred theology; Guillaume Manchon, priest, public notary; the lord Jean Massieu; the lord Guillaume Colles, alias Bois-Guillaume; Brother Martin Ladvenu, of the order of Preaching Friars; Master Nicolas de Houppeville; the reverend father in Christ the lord Jean Fabri, professor of sacred theology, bishop of Dimetria; the lord Jean Le Maire (4); Master Nicolas Caval; Pierre Cusquel; Master André Marguerie; Maugier Le Parmentier; Laurent Guedon; the lord Jean Riquier, and all the others (5) examined by the above-said judges, to appear personally on the morrow at the seventh hour of the morning before the aforesaid lord bishop and Master Jean Bréhal, competent judges in this part; to see or hear (6) their depositions formerly made by the same and each of them read through, and, if need be, better declared and reformed. And moreover ye shall cite the lord bishop of Beauvais, Guillaume Bredouille, promoter of the criminal causes of Beauvais, and all and each believing that it concerns them in common or severally, to see and hear the said witnesses produced and sworn, and to give interrogatories if they will to give any, with the intimation accustomed to be made in such matters and under pain of excommunication, at the instance of Master Guillaume Prévosteau, party and promoter, or his procurator. Given at Rouen, in the year of the Lord 1456, on the eleventh day of the month of May. So signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nThen follows the relation, on the back.\nI, Richard de Saincte-Mareglise, priest, notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, gave this mandate to execution to the persons of those named in the white; to wit, to the person of the reverend father in Christ Jean Fabri, bishop of Dimetria; of Masters Nicolas Caval, André Marguerie and Nicolas de Houppeville, and of the lords Guillaume Manchon, Jean Massieu, Guillaume Colles, Jean Le Maire, priests, and Maugier Parmentier, Pierre Cusquel, in the manner and form contained in the white. In witness my manual sign here set, in the year as above, on Wednesday the twelfth of May. So signed: R. de Saincte-Mareglise.\nLikewise, there follow the names, surnames and attestations or depositions of the witnesses produced, received, sworn and examined in the cause of nullity of the process and sentences formerly rendered against Joan, commonly called the Maid, by the deceased lord Pierre Cauchon, formerly bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Lemaître, sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity, in the town of Paris, on the days underwritten, before the lords the archbishop of Reims, the bishop of Paris and Brother Jean Bréhal.\nMaster Jean Tiphaine # And first the venerable and discreet man Master Jean Tiphaine, priest, master in arts and in medicine, canon of the royal Holy Chapel of Paris, of the age of sixty years or thereabout, otherwise produced and received by the most reverend and reverend fathers and lords in Christ, the lords the archbishop of Reims and the bishop of Paris, judges in this part, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, one of the inquisitors of heretical pravity in the realm of France, on the tenth day of the month of January, for the information of the same judges, and afterwards sworn upon the articles delivered in the process of this kind, and examined on the second day of the month of April.\nAnd first, interrogated, by means of his oath, what he knows to attest or depose of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he says and deposes that he knew the same Joan only from the time when she was brought to the town of Rouen to conduct the process against her. And he who speaks was summoned to be present, and for the first time willed not to go, but being summoned a second time he was present, and saw her and heard her interrogated and answering; and she made many fair answers. And at that time when he was in the process of this kind, the judges themselves and the assistants were in a certain little hall behind the greater hall of the castle; and she answered very providently and wisely, with great boldness.\nIn the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth he deposes that, as he has already said, the first time that he was called in the process of this kind he willed not to go; but the second time he went, because he feared the English, and lest it should have seemed to them that he had willed not to go and on that account he should have incurred their indignation. But with what zeal they proceeded against her he knows not.\nOf the contents of the ninth he deposes that the same Joan was in the prisons, in a certain tower of the castle, and he saw her there shackled by the legs, and there was a bed there.\nOf the contents of the tenth he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth articles, he says and deposes, so far as touches the interrogations, that on the day on which he who speaks was present, Master Beaupère was the principal interrogator and made the interrogations, and yet Jacques de Turonie, of the order of Friars Minor, sometimes interrogated her. And he well remembers that the same Master Jacques once asked of the same whether she had ever been in a place in which English had been slain; which Joan answered: En nom Dieu, yes I have. How sweetly you speak! Why did they not depart from France and go to their own country? And there was there a great lord of England, of whose name he does not recall, who said, these things heard: Truly she is a good woman. If she were English! And this he said to the speaking witness and to Master Guillaume Desjardins. The same speaker said further that there is none so great a doctor and subtle who, if he were interrogated by so many lords and in so great a company as the same Joan was, would not have been well perplexed and abashed.\nMoreover, interrogated of the infirmity of the same Joan which she had at the time of the process of this kind: he deposes that, she being infirm, he was sent on the part of the lords judges to visit her, and to the same was conducted by a certain one surnamed d’Estivet; and he who speaks, in the presence of the said d’Estivet, of Master Guillaume de la Chambre, master in medicine, and of many others, to know the cause of her sickness, felt her pulse and asked what ailed her and whence she suffered. Who answered that a certain carp had been sent her by the bishop of Beauvais, of which she had eaten, and she feared that it was the cause of her infirmity; and then the same d’Estivet there present rebuked her, saying that she spoke ill; and called her a wanton, saying: Thou, wanton, didst eat herring and other things contrary to thee. To whom she answered that she had not done so; and the same Joan and d’Estivet had many injurious words one with the other. Yet afterwards he who speaks, willing to know more amply of the infirmity of the same Joan, heard from certain of those there present that she had suffered much vomiting.\nNor does he who speaks know aught else, nor remembers, interrogated upon this, that he ever gave any opinion in the process save upon her infirmity (7).\nMaster Guillaume de la Chambre # The venerable man Master Guillaume de la Chambre, master in arts and in medicine, of the age of forty-eight years or thereabout, as he says, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined on the days, in the manner and form as the preceding witness.\nAnd first, interrogated of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause of nullity: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he had knowledge of the same Joan only during the process conducted against her, in which he was many times present with other doctors and practicians. And, in his sight, she was a good young woman, for, as he says, he afterwards heard Master Pierre Maurice say that he had heard the same Joan in confession, and that he had never heard such a confession, neither from a doctor nor from whomsoever, and that he believed that she walked justly and holily with God, having regard to her confession.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles, he says and deposes that, as he has already said, he was in the process for many days. And of the zeal which the judges had, he refers himself to their consciences; yet he knows that before (8) he gave his opinion in the process, albeit he subscribed himself, for he did this constrained by the lord bishop of Beauvais; and of this he many times excused himself towards the same bishop, saying that it was not his profession to give opinion in such a matter; finally it was said to him that, unless he subscribed himself as the others had done, he had come ill to the town of Rouen; and for this cause he subscribed himself. He says also that threats were uttered against Master Jean Lohier and Master Nicolas de Houppeville under pain of drowning, because they willed not to be present at the process.\nInterrogated of the contents of the ninth article, he says that the same Joan was in prison in the Castle of Rouen, in which he saw her.\nUpon the contents of the tenth he deposes that he then heard it said that the same Joan had been visited whether she were a virgin or not, and such she was found; and he who speaks knows, as he could perceive according to the art of medicine, that she was incorrupt and a virgin, for he saw her as it were naked when he visited her for a certain infirmity; and he felt her in the reins, and she was very strait, as much as he could perceive from the look of her.\nUpon the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth, he says and deposes, so far as touches the interrogatories, that he once saw the lord abbot of Fécamp, who interrogated the same Joan; and Master Jean Beaupère with him interposed many and divers interrogatories, to which together the same Joan would not have willed to answer, suchwise that she said to the same that they did her a great injury thus to vex her, and that she had already answered upon those interrogatories.\nAnd as regards the infirmity whereof the said articles make mention, he who speaks deposes that the Cardinal of England and the earl of Warwick sent to seek the same speaker; before whom he who speaks appeared with Master Guillaume Desjardins, master in medicine, and other physicians. And then the same earl of Warwick said to them that the same Joan had been infirm, as had been reported to him, and that he had sent for them that they should think of her, for the king willed by no means that she should die by her natural death; for the king held her dear and had bought her dearly, nor willed that she should die save with justice, and that she should be burned; and that they should so do and with solicitude visit her that she might be healed. And to her came he who speaks and Master Guillaume Desjardins with the others. Which Joan he who speaks and Desjardins felt in the right side and found her fevering; wherefore they concluded for bleeding (9); and this they reported to the earl of Warwick, who said to them: Beware of the bleeding, for she is cunning and might kill herself. And nevertheless she had the bleeding, after which she was immediately healed. She being thus healed, there came a certain Master Jean d’Estivet, who had certain injurious words with the said Joan and called her a harlot, a wanton; whereat the same Joan was much angered, insomuch that she was again fevering and in her former infirmity. And this being brought to the knowledge of the said earl, he inhibited the same d’Estivet from henceforth having the same Joan injured.\nOf the contents of the fifteenth he who speaks deposes that he well remembers that, on a certain occasion while she was being interrogated by the bishop and certain of the bystanders, she said that the bishop himself and the others were not her judges.\nOf the contents of the sixteenth he likewise says that he heard the same Joan saying that she submitted herself to our lord the Pope.\nOf the contents of the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second, so far as regards the articles whereof the twentieth and twenty-first treat, he says that he knows not who made them, nor does he believe he gave his opinion upon the same. Of the others he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth he says that he was present at the sermon made by Master Guillaume Évrard; yet he remembers not the things uttered in the sermon; but he well remembers the abjuration which the same Joan made, albeit she much deferred to make it; to the making whereof nevertheless the same Master Guillaume Évrard induced her, saying to her that she should do that which was counselled her, and that she should be delivered from the prisons. And under this condition and not otherwise she did it, reading after a certain little schedule containing six or seven lines, in the volume of a doubled paper leaf; and he who speaks was so nigh that he could in likelihood see the lines and the manner of them.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the twenty-sixth article, he deposes that he heard it said that the English induced the same to resume her habit, and that her woman’s clothes had been taken from her and man’s dress given her; and on this account it was said that the same Joan had been unjustly condemned.\nItem, interrogated of and upon the contents of the other articles, he deposes only of the contents of the same that he was present at the last preaching made in the Old Market of Rouen by Master Nicolas Midi; after the end of whose sermon the same Joan was burned; and the wood was already made ready to burn her, and she made such pious lamentations and exclamations that many wept; but certain English laughed. He heard her also saying these words or in effect like: Ah! Rouen! I have great fear lest thou have to suffer for my death! And afterwards she began to cry: Jesus! and to invoke Saint Michael, and at length by the fire she was extinguished. Nor else does he know.\n(1) Error of drafting, since the same personage is already cited above under the name of Ysambertus de Petra.\n(2) The formula is the same as that of the citation.\n(3) The rubric given by the manuscripts consists only of these three words: Per quemcumque notarium.\n(4) Notre-Dame manuscript, Lemarié.\n(5) Alias in the manuscripts.\n(6) The manuscripts, visuros auditum.\n(7) He is nevertheless indicated in the procès-verbal of the condemnation as having opined in the sense of the abbot of Fécamp. See t. I, p. 353.\n(8) It would need neutiquam for the general sense of the phrase, which has none with antequam.\n(9) Notre-Dame manuscript, fleubotomiam; 5970, fleutobomiam.\nThe lord Bishop of Noyon # The reverend father in Christ, the lord Jean de Mailly, bishop of Noyon (10), of the age of sixty years or thereabout, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined by the same lords judges, in the presence of the notaries, on the fourteenth day of the month of January, and afterwards recollected upon the articles exhibited in the process on the second day of the month of April, said and deposed as follows below.\nAnd first, interrogated of and upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles, he says and deposes, by means of his oath sworn in the word of a prelate, that he had no knowledge of Joan before she was brought into the town of Rouen, where he saw her two or three times; nor does he remember to have been in the process or to have given an opinion.\nInterrogated of the contents of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles, he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the ninth and tenth he remembers not to have heard that she was visited; yet he knows that if she had been visited and found a virgin, this would not have been a position in the process.\nUpon the eleventh up to the twenty-third he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth he says and deposes that he remembers well enough that, the day before the preaching made at Saint-Ouen, he was present at a certain exhortation made to the same Joan; but what was done or enacted he remembers not. He was also present on the morrow, when the preaching was made at Saint-Ouen by Master Guillaume Évrard; and there were two ambons or two scaffolds, in French eschafaulx; and in one of them were the bishop of Beauvais and he who speaks and many others; and in the other were Master Guillaume Évrard, the preacher, and the same Joan.\nOf the words said by the preacher he remembers not; yet he well remembers that the same Joan said on that day or the preceding that if in her sayings or deeds there was any evil, whether well or ill said or done, this proceeded from her, nor had her king made her do anything. He said also that after the preaching of this kind he saw that the same Joan was bidden to do or say something, and he believes it was the abjuration; and to the same Joan it was said: Joan, do that which is counselled you. Will you make yourself die? And by these words, as is likely, moved, she made the abjuration. And after the abjuration of this kind many said that it was but a mockery, and that she did naught save deride. And among certain ones an Englishman, a doctor and an ecclesiastical man who was of the people of the lord Cardinal of England, said to the bishop of Beauvais that he proceeded in this matter with too much favour, and that he showed himself favourable to the same Joan; to whom the same bishop of Beauvais answered that he lied; and then the Cardinal of England said to the same doctor that he should hold his peace. He says also that afterwards many of the assistants said that they cared not much for that abjuration, and that it was but a mockery; and as it seems to him who speaks, the same Joan cared not much for that abjuration, nor made account of it, and that which she did in the abjuration of this kind she did vanquished by the prayers of the bystanders.\nInterrogated of the contents of the twenty-sixth, he deposes that he heard it said by certain ones whom he remembers not that men’s clothes had been handed to her through the window or grating. Nor else does he know.\nOf the contents of the other articles he only says that he was present at the last sermon, on the day on which she was burned; and there were there three ambons or eschafaulx in French, to wit one where the judges were, and another where were many prelates, among whom was he who speaks, and one where the wood was made ready to burn the same Joan; and, the preaching ended, the sentence was rendered whereby the same Joan was abandoned to the secular justice. After the rendering of which sentence the same Joan began to make many pious exclamations and lamentations; and among other things she said that she had never been induced by the king to do the things which she did, whether well or ill; and then he who speaks departed, nor would see the same Joan burned. He says also that he saw many of the bystanders weep.\nInterrogated upon certain asserted letters of guarantee (11) which the king of England gave to the bishop of Beauvais and the others who interposed themselves in the process of this kind, and in which letters it is stated that the bishop of Noyon was present: he deposes that he well believes he was present; but remembers not much. Yet he knows that the bishop of Beauvais did not conduct the process of this kind at his own expense, as he believes, but at the expense of the king of England, and that the outlays (12) which were made were made by the English.\nNor else does he know upon the same articles, being duly interrogated.\nMaster Thomas de Courcelles # Editorial note — Courcelles is independently attested in Paris between the two trials: Jean Maupoint’s journal records that on the Sunday of Brandons (18 February 1441/2) “maistre Thomas de Courcelles, excellent docteur en théologie” preached the solemn sermon at Saint-Magloire, Paris. The modern editor notes of this personage that he “played a great part in the trial of the condemnation of Joan of Arc and deposed in the trial of the rehabilitation” (Journal parisien de Jean Maupoint, ed. G. Fagniez, Paris 1878, p. 28 and note; see documents/writings/originals/).\nThe venerable and learned man Master Thomas de Courcelles (13), professor of sacred theology, penitentiary and canon of Paris, of the age of fifty-six years or thereabout, as he says; a witness produced, received, sworn and examined for the information of the lords judges on the fifteenth day of the month of January, and afterwards examined again upon the articles, deposed in the manner and form following:\nAnd first, upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles, he deposes that he had no knowledge of Joan until he saw her in the town of Rouen, nor of her father, mother or kinsfolk. Of her fame it was said that she asserted she had voices from God.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the fifth and sixth articles, he deposes, by means of his oath, that he believes the same bishop took upon him the burden of the process conducted against the same Joan in a matter of faith, because he was a councillor of the king of England, and because he was bishop of Beauvais, in whose territory the same Joan had been taken and apprehended; and he heard it said that some gift had been given to the inquisitor by a certain one called Surreau, a receiver (14), to be interested in the process of this kind; but of the bishop, he knows not whether he received anything. He who speaks knows also that, at the time when the same Joan was brought to Rouen, he who speaks was summoned (and was at Paris) by the aforesaid bishop of Beauvais to go to Rouen for the said process; and he went in the company of Masters Nicolas Midi, Jacques de Turonie, Jean de Rouel (15) and others whom he remembers not, to the town of Rouen, at the expense of those who conducted them, of whom one was Master Jean de Rénel (16). Nor does he know whether any preparatory informations were made at Rouen or in the place of origin of the same Joan, nor did he see them, for in the beginning of the process, and first when he who speaks was present, there was only the question which was said that she had had voices and that she asserted them to be of God.\nAnd albeit to the same speaker there was shown the process in which it is stated that in the speaker’s presence certain informations were read (17), he says that he remembers not that he ever heard any read. He says nevertheless that Master Jean Lohier then came to the town of Rouen, and it was ordained that the process should be communicated to him in some wise; and after the same Lohier saw the process of this kind, he said to the speaker that it seemed to him that there ought not to be proceedings against the same Joan in a matter of faith without a preceding information upon the ill-fame, and that such an information was required of right. He says also that he well remembers that in his first deliberation he never deliberated the same Joan to be a heretic save under condition, in case she should pertinaciously maintain that she ought not to submit herself to the Church (18); and lastly, so far as his conscience can testify before God, it seems to him that he said that she was as before, and if she were before a heretic, that she then was (19), nor did he ever positively deliberate her to be a heretic. He says also that in the first deliberation there was great contention and difficulty among those opining whether the same Joan ought to be reputed a heretic. He asserts also that he never deliberated of any punishment to be inflicted upon the same Joan.\nOf the contents of the seventh and eighth he remembers nothing.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the ninth article, he says and deposes that the same Joan was in the prisons of the castle, in the keeping of a certain Jean Gris and his servants, and that she was in iron fetters; but whether ever he knows not. He says nevertheless that many of the assistants were of the opinion and would well have willed that the same Joan had been placed in the hands of the Church and in ecclesiastical prisons; but he remembers not that this was spoken of in the deliberations.\nOf the contents of the tenth article he says and deposes that he never heard it laid in the deliberations that the same Joan ought to be visited whether she were a virgin or not, albeit it seems to him likely and he believes, by the things which he heard and which were said by the said lord bishop of Beauvais, that she was found a virgin. And he believes that if she had not been found a virgin but corrupted, they would not have kept silence in the same process.\nUpon the eleventh, thirteenth and fourteenth he deposes that many interrogations were made to the same Joan; but of them he remembers not, save that once she was interrogated whether those of her party kissed her hands; nor moreover does he remember that the same Joan complained of the interrogations which were made to her.\nItem, of the contents of the twelfth and eighteenth articles, he deposes that he well remembers that once it was ordained, after many interrogations made to the same Joan, that henceforth the interrogations should be made before few; but who moved them or with what intent, he knows nothing; yet it seems to him that Master Jean de la Fontaine was one of those ordained to interrogate her. Of the contents of the fifteenth he knows nothing. Of the contents of the sixteenth he deposes that many times the same Joan was interrogated upon the fact of the submission, and required that she should will to submit her sayings and deeds to the determination of the Church; upon which she made many answers which are contained in the process, to which he refers himself. Nor otherwise would he know to depose.\nUpon the contents of the nineteenth he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second he deposes that certain articles, twelve in number, were made and extracted from the asserted confessions and answers of the same Joan, and which were made, as it seems to him by likely conjectures, by the late Master Nicolas Midi; and upon those twelve articles so extracted all the deliberations and opinions were made and given. Yet he knows not whether it was deliberated that they should be corrected, and whether they were corrected.\nUpon the contents of the twenty-second article, he knows only that he many times heard from Master Nicolas Loiseleur that he had many times spoken with the same Joan in a dissimulated habit, but what he said to her he knows not; and to such a degree that he said to the same speaker that he would manifest himself to the same Joan and make known to her that he was a priest. He believes also that he heard the same Joan in confession.\nOf the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth articles he deposes that, a little before the first preaching made at Saint-Ouen, Master Jean de Châtillon, in the presence of the speaker, made certain exhortations to the same Joan; and he likewise heard Master Pierre Maurice say that he had brotherly exhorted the same Joan to submit herself to the Church. Nor has he memory of aught else.\nInterrogated moreover who made the schedule of abjuration which is contained in the process, which begins Thou, Joan, he says that he knows not; nor moreover does he know that it was read to the same Joan or given her to understand. He says moreover that afterwards a certain preaching was made at Saint-Ouen by Master Guillaume Évrard; and he who speaks was in the ambon behind the prelates; yet he remembers not any words uttered by the same preacher save that he said the pride of this woman. And he says that afterwards the bishop began to read the sentence; yet he remembers not what was said to the same Joan, nor what she answered. He says nevertheless that he well remembers that Master Nicolas de Vendères made a certain schedule which began How many times the eye of the heart; but whether it be that schedule contained in the process, he knows not. Nor does he know whether he saw that schedule in the hands of the same Master Nicolas before the abjuration of the same Maid or after, but he believes he saw it before; and he well heard that certain of the assistants spoke with the bishop of Beauvais, in that he did not perfect his sentence and received the same Joan to call her back; but of the words uttered, and who said them, he remembers not.\nThen, interrogated what he knows to attest or depose of the contents of the twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth articles: he says and deposes that, after the first preaching, words came that the same Joan had resumed the male habit; and on this account the same bishop of Beauvais went to the prison of the same Joan, in whose company he who speaks was; and he addressed the same, interrogating for what cause she had resumed the male habit. Who answered that she had resumed that habit because it seemed to her more fitting to bear the male habit with men than the habit of a woman.\nItem, interrogated lastly what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the other articles: he says and deposes that he was present at the last preaching made in the Old Market on the day on which the same Joan died; yet he did not see the same Joan burned, for as soon as the preaching was made and the sentence rendered he departed. He says moreover that before the preaching and sentence of this kind she had received the sacrament of the Eucharist, as he believes, for he was not present when she received it. Nor else does he know.\n(10) See t. I, p. 190.\n(11) These letters are reported below as a piece of the procedure.\n(12) The outlays, the expenses.\n(13) See t. I, p. 30, note 3.\n(14) The mandate of payment delivered for the cooperation of Jean le Maître is in fact addressed to Pierre Surreau, receiver-general in Normandy. See the pieces justificatives in t. IV.\n(15) Notre-Dame manuscript, Ruet. This personage is not named in the procès-verbaux of the first judgement.\n(16) Renel, secretary of the king of England.\n(17) Tome I, page 32.\n(18) Ibid., p. 428.\n(19) Ibid., p. 467.\nMaster Jean Monnet # Master Jean Monnet, professor of sacred theology, canon of Paris, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined upon the articles produced in this cause, on the third day of April.\nAnd first, interrogated what he knows to depose or attest of and upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he deposes that of the same Joan, or of her father and mother and kinsfolk, he had no knowledge save from the time when he who speaks went to Rouen, with Master Jean Beaupère, whose servant he who speaks was, and in the company of Masters Pierre Maurice, Thomas de Courcelles and many others who were summoned to be present at the process; during which process he saw the same Joan many times.\nItem, interrogated what he knows to depose of the contents of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles: he deposes that, when the same Masters Jean Beaupère, Thomas de Courcelles and Pierre Maurice and the other summoned came to Rouen, a little after the process against the same Joan was begun, and he who speaks was present three or four times and wrote the interrogations made to the same Joan and her answers, not as notary but as clerk and servant of the same Master Jean Beaupère, and he who speaks recognised his writing in the paper or process made in French.\nAnd among other things he who speaks remembers that he heard the same Joan say, speaking to the same speaker and to the notaries, that they did not write well, and many times she made them correct. He says also that many times, in her interrogations and answers, when she was interrogated upon certain things whereof it seemed to her that she ought not to answer, she said that she referred to the consciences of the interrogators whether she ought to answer or not. He says moreover that the process was begun against her because the same Joan was too prejudicial to the English, and that she had already done them very many harms. Yet he believes that the process of this kind was conducted at the expense of the English; but with what zeal the judges proceeded, he refers to their consciences.\nUpon the ninth article he knows nothing, save only that she was detained in the Castle of Rouen.\nUpon the tenth article he who speaks deposes that he heard it said that the same Joan, during the process, was visited whether she were a virgin or not, and was found a virgin; and of this he has memory, because it was then said that the same Joan had been hurt in the lower parts from riding, when she was visited upon her virginity.\nMoreover, interrogated of and upon the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth, he says and deposes that very difficult questions and interrogations were made to the same Joan, to which a master in theology would with difficulty have answered, and it seems to the same speaker that the same Joan was much burdened in this. He says also that during the process of this kind she was infirm; but whether she was visited by the physicians he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth articles he knows nothing; and of certain things he refers himself to the process.\nUpon the contents of the twentieth and twenty-first he says and deposes that of those articles he knows not who made or fabricated them, or whether (20) they were well or ill extracted from the confessions of the same Joan. Yet he knows that Master Jean Beaupère went to Paris and brought those twelve articles.\nUpon the contents of the twenty-second he deposes only that he heard it said that certain ones went to speak with the same Joan in a dissimulated habit; but who he was who did such things he knows not.\nOf the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth articles, he who speaks says and deposes that he was at the preaching made at Saint-Ouen, and he who speaks was in the ambon, sitting at the feet of Master Jean Beaupère his master; and when the preaching was finished, when the sentence began to be read, the same Joan said that, if she were counselled by clerks and it seemed to her consciences, she would willingly do that which was counselled her; and these things heard, the same bishop of Beauvais inquired of the Cardinal of England, who was there, what he ought to do, having regard to the submission of the said Joan. Which cardinal then answered the same bishop that he ought to receive the same Joan to penance. And then that sentence which he had begun to read was set aside, and he received the same Joan to penance. And then he who speaks saw a certain schedule of abjuration, which was then read, and to the same speaker it seems that it was a little schedule of as it were six or seven lines; and he well remembers, as he says, that she referred herself to the consciences of the judges whether she ought to revoke herself or not. He says moreover that on that day on which the aforesaid things were done, it was said that the torturer was in the square, awaiting that she be handed over to the secular justice.\nOf the contents of the other articles he knows nothing, for, as he says, he departed from the town of Rouen on the Monday or Sunday preceding the death of the same Joan. Nor else does he know.\nLouis de Contes # The noble and prudent man Louis de Contes (21), squire, lord of Novion and of Reugles, of the age of forty-two years or thereabout, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined upon the contents of the articles produced in the process of this nullity, on the third day of the month of April, after Easter.\nAnd first, interrogated of and upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles, all the others being omitted because he knows nothing of them: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that, in the year when the same Joan came to the king in the town of Chinon, he who speaks was as it were fourteen or fifteen years old and served and dwelt with the lord de Gaucourt, who was captain of the said place of Chinon. And at that time the same Joan arrived at the said place of Chinon, accompanied by two men; who was led to the king; and he who speaks many times saw the same Joan go and return to the king, and a lodging was assigned to the same Joan in a certain tower of the castle of Coudray (22). In which tower indeed he who speaks dwelt with the same Joan, and for the time which he stayed there, conversing continually with her by day; but by night she had women with her. And he well remembers that, at that time when he stayed in the said tower of Coudray, for many days men of great estate came to speak with the same Joan; but what they did or said he knows not, for always, when he who speaks saw the same men approach, he withdrew; nor does he know who those men were.\nHe says moreover that, at that time when the same Joan and the speaker were in the same tower, he many times saw the same Joan on bended knees, as it seemed to him, praying; yet he could not perceive what she said, albeit sometimes she wept. And afterwards the same Joan was led to the town of Poitiers, and afterwards brought back to the town of Tours, into the house of a certain one called Lapau; and in which place the lord duke of Alençon gave the same Joan a horse, which he who speaks saw in the said house of the same Lapau. And in the said town of Tours it was said and intimated to the speaker that he should be the groom of the same Joan, together with a certain Raymond; and from that hour he ever stayed with the same Joan and went ever with her, serving her in the office of groom, both at Blois and at Orléans, and until they came before the town of Paris.\nHe says moreover that, the same Joan being in the town of Tours, armour was given to the same Joan, and the same Joan then had estate from the king. And from the town of Tours she came to the town of Blois, in the company of the men of arms of the king, which company then had great (23) confidence in the same Joan. And the same Joan stayed with the men-at-arms in the said town of Blois for certain times, of which he remembers not; and then it was concluded to depart from the town of Blois and go to the town of Orléans, by the side of the Sologne; and the same Joan departed armed with her arms, with the company of the men-at-arms, ever admonishing the men-at-arms that they should have great confidence in the Lord and that they should confess their sins. And in this company he who speaks saw the same Joan receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.\nHe says moreover that, they having arrived beside the town of Orléans on the side of the Sologne, the same Joan, the speaking witness and many others were conducted across the water, on the side of the city of Orléans, and thence entered the town of Orléans. And he who speaks says that the same Joan was much hurt in coming as far as the town of Orléans, for she lay with her arms on the night of her departure from the town of Blois. And the same Joan was lodged in the town of Orléans, in the house of the treasurer (24), before the gate of Bannier (25); and in which house, as it seems to the speaker, the same Joan received the sacrament of the Eucharist.\nAnd he says that on the morrow, on which they entered the town of Orléans, the same Joan went to the lord Bastard of Orléans and spoke with him, and on the return was much angered that, as she said, there was an appointment that on that day there would be no going to the assault. Nevertheless the same Joan went to a certain boulevard which the king’s men-at-arms had against the boulevard of the English, and there the same Joan spoke with the English being in the other boulevard, saying to them that they should depart in the name of God: else she would drive them out; to which Joan a certain one called the Bastard of Granville said many injuries, asking of the same Joan whether she willed that they should surrender themselves to a woman, calling the French being with the same Joan maquereaulx mescréans — miscreant pimps. These things done, the same Joan returned to her lodging and went up into her chamber, and the speaker believed she would go to sleep. Straightway and a little after she came down below and said to the same speaker these words: Ah, bloody boy, you did not tell me that the blood of France was being shed! commanding the same speaker to go and seek her horse; and she meanwhile caused herself to be armed by the lady of the house and her daughter, and when the speaker came from making ready her horse he found the same Joan already armed; and she said to the speaking witness that he should go and seek her banner, which was above; and he who speaks handed it to the same Joan through the window. Which banner being received, the same Joan hastily ran toward the gate of Burgundy; and then the same hostess said to the speaker that he should go after her; which also he did. And there was then a certain onset or skirmish toward Saint-Loup, and in that onset the boulevard was taken, and the same Joan met certain wounded French, whereat she was angered. And the English prepared themselves for defence when the same Joan with haste came upon them, and as soon as the French saw the same Joan they began to cry out, and the bastille or fortress of Saint-Loup was taken. And he heard it said that certain ecclesiastical men assumed ecclesiastical garments, coming to meet the same Joan; whom the same Joan received, nor suffered that any evil be done to them, and caused them to be brought with her to her lodging, the other English being slain by the folk of the town of Orléans. And that evening the same Joan came to sup at her lodging; who was very sober, for many times in the whole day she ate naught save a morsel of bread; and he marvelled that she ate so little. And whilst she was at her lodging she ate only twice in the day.\nHe says moreover that on the following day, about the hour of tierce, the men-at-arms of our lord the king crossed the bank in boats, to go against the bastille or fortress of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc (26), and the French took the same, and also the bastille of the Augustins (27); and the same Joan passed with the same men-at-arms the river Loire, and the speaker himself with her, and they returned to the town of Orléans, in which the same Joan lay in her lodging with certain women, as she had been wont to do, for ever by night she had a woman lying with her if she could find one; and when she could not find one, when she was in war and in the fields, she lay clad in her clothes. And on the day immediately following, the same Joan, many lords gainsaying, to whom it seemed that she willed to put the king’s people in great peril, caused the gate of Burgundy and a certain little gate being beside the great tower to be opened, and passed the water with other men-at-arms to attack the bastille or fortress of the Bridge, which the English still held. In which place the king’s people stood to attack from the first hour until night, and there the same Joan was hurt and disarmed of her arms, to have her wound dressed; and after she was dressed she again clad herself in arms and went with the others to the attack and assault, which had lasted from the first hour until evening unceasingly. And at length the boulevard was taken, the same Joan ever standing with the men-at-arms at the assault, exhorting them to have good heart and not to draw back, for they would have that fortress in brief; saying, as it seems to him, that, when they should perceive the wind carrying the banners towards the fortress, they would have it. And insomuch that, towards evening, when the king’s people saw that they wrought nothing and that night was already nigh, they despaired of the taking of that fortress. Yet the same Joan ever persisted, promising them infallibly that that day they should have that fortress. And the king’s people made ready a fresh assault; which seeing, the English put up no defence, but were utterly dismayed, and were as it were all drowned; nor was there on the part of the English in that last onset or assault any defence. And on the morrow all the English being about the town departed to the town of Beaugency and the town of Mehun. Whom the king’s army followed, in which was the same Joan; and there they made a composition of surrendering the town of Beaugency or of fighting. And the day of battle coming, the English departed from the said town of Beaugency; whom the king’s people followed with the same Joan; and La Hire had the vanguard; whereat the same Joan was much angered, for she much desired to have the charge of the vanguard. So also the king’s people bore themselves that La Hire, who led the vanguard, fell upon the English, and the king’s people had the victory, and as it were all the English were slain.\nHe says moreover that the same Joan was very pious and had great pity for so great a slaughter, for, when on a certain occasion a Frenchman was leading certain English captives, he who led them smote one of the (28) English on the head, insomuch that he rendered him as it were dead. The same Joan seeing this descended from her horse and caused the same Englishman to confess, holding him by the head and consoling him as she could. Afterwards the same Joan, in the company of the king’s people, went before the town of Jargeau, which was taken by assault, and there very many English were made captive, among whom were\n(20) The manuscripts, vel sive.\n(21) We have been able to find nothing upon Louis de Contes save that he was the brother-in-law of Jean Beauharnais, that burgess of Orléans whose deposition has been reported above, p. 31; and that, in the time when he was the Maid’s page, the men of war gave him the surname of Minguet. (See the so-called Chronicle of the Maid, p. 507 of Godefroy’s edition.)\n(22) Today called the Coudray-Montpensier, a league from Chinon.\n(23) Manuscript 5970 on the contrary reads minimam, but the other lesson, drawn from the Notre-Dame manuscript, is more conformable to the narrative of the chroniclers.\n(24) Jacques Boucher, then argentier of the duke of Orléans and treasurer of the town.\n(25) Such is still the name of the faubourg by which one comes from Paris to Orléans.\n(26) The church of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc is situated on the levee of the Loire, a kilometre upstream of the bridge of Orléans. The English, in fortifying this position, had willed to make of it less a bastille than a watch to guard the passage. (Journal du siège d’Orléans — Jollois, Histoire du siège, p. 17.)\n(27) Read Augustinorum, and see below, p. 79. The bastille of the Augustins established in the convent of that name covered the famous fortress of the Tourelles, situated at the end of the bridge of Orléans. (Jollois, ibid., p. 36.)\n(28) Read: of the other.\nSuffolk and La Poule (29). And thence, after the raising of the siege of Orléans and the victories obtained, the same Joan with the men-at-arms went towards the king then being in the town of Tours, and it was concluded that the king should go to Reims for his consecration. And the king went out with his army, in which was the same Joan, making toward the town of Troyes, which was surrendered to the king, and thence to the town of Châlons, which likewise was reduced into the king’s hands; and then to the town of Reims, in which our same lord the king was crowned and consecrated, in the presence of him who speaks; who was, as has been said, the groom of the same Joan, and with whom he ever was. And he stayed with the same until the same Joan came before the town of Paris.\nHe says moreover that, so far as he could have knowledge of her, the same Joan was a good and worthy woman, living catholicly; who heard mass right willingly, for she never failed to hear mass if it were possible to her. She was also much angered when she heard the name of Our Lord blasphemed and when she heard any one swear; for also many times he heard that, when the lord duke of Alençon swore or said some blasphemy, she reprehended him; and generally none of the army would have dared to swear or blaspheme before her without being reprehended by the same.\nHe says that she willed not that there should be women in the army, for once, beside the town of Château-Thierry, when she had seen a certain woman, the leman (30) of a certain man of arms who was a knight, she pursued the same woman with a drawn sword; which woman nevertheless she smote not, but sweetly and charitably admonished her that she should not be found henceforward in the company of the men-at-arms, else she would do the same woman a displeasure.\nNor does he who speaks know aught else, for, as he says, from the time when the same Joan came before the town of Paris he saw not the same Joan.\nGobert Thibault # The honest and prudent man Gobert Thibault, squire of the squire-ty of the king of France and elected upon the fact of the subsidies in the town of Blois, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, as he says, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined before the aforesaid lords judges, on the fifth day of the month of April.\nAnd first, interrogated what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he who speaks was in the town of Chinon when the same Joan arrived toward the king, who was then in the town of Chinon; but of the same Joan he then had no great knowledge. But of the same he afterwards had ampler knowledge, for, when the king willed to go to the town of Poitiers, the same Joan was led there, and was lodged in the house of Master Jean Rabateau. And he who speaks knows that the same Joan was in the town of Poitiers interrogated and examined by the late Master Pierre de Versailles, professor of sacred theology, then abbot of Talmont and at the time of his death bishop of Meaux, and by Master Jean Erault, also professor of sacred theology; with whom he who speaks went, by command of the late lord bishop of Castres. And she was, as he said before, lodged in the house of the said Rabateau, in which house the same de Versailles and Erault spoke with the same Joan in the speaker’s presence; and when they arrived at that house, the same Joan came to meet them and smote the speaker upon the shoulder, saying to the same speaker that she would fain have more men of the speaker’s will. Then the same de Versailles said to the same Joan that they were sent on the king’s part to her; who answered: Well do I believe that you are sent to interrogate me; saying: I know neither A nor B. And she was then interrogated by the same to what end she came. She answered: I come on the part of the King of heaven, to raise the siege of Orléans, and to lead the king to Reims for his crowning and consecration. And then she asked of the same whether they had paper and ink, saying to Master Jean Erault: Write those things which I shall say to you. You, Suffort, Classidas and La Poule, I summon you, by the King of the heavens, that ye get you gone to England. Nor did the same Versailles and Erault do aught else that time, that he remembers; and the same Joan stayed in the town of Poitiers as long as the king did. The same Joan also said that her counsel had told her that she ought sooner to have gone to the king. And the speaker saw those who had brought the same Joan to the king, to wit Jean de Metz, Jean Coulon and Bertrand de Poulangy (31), with whom she had great familiarity and friendship; and he was once present when they who had brought her told the late lord of Castres, then the king’s confessor, that they had passed through Burgundy and through the places occupied by the enemies; yet ever they passed without any impediment: whereat they much marvelled.\nHe says further that he heard the said late lord confessor say that he had seen in writing that a certain Maid was to come who was to help the king of France. Nor did he who speaks see, nor knows whether the same Joan was otherwise examined, than as he deposed above. Yet he heard it said by the said lord confessor and other doctors that they believed the same Joan to be sent by God, and that they believed she was she of whom the prophecy spoke; and that, having regard to her bearing, simplicity and manner of life, the king could help himself by her, since in the same they found or could perceive naught save good, nor did they perceive in her aught contrary to the catholic faith.\nHe says nevertheless that he was not present at those things which were done in the town of Orléans; yet the common fame was that all things were done by means of her, and as it were miraculously. And he who speaks says that, on that day when the lord de Talbot was brought into the town of Beaugency who had been taken at Patay, he who speaks went to the said town of Beaugency, and from the place of Beaugency the same Joan went with the men of arms to the town of Jargeau, which was taken by assault, and the English were put to flight; and thence the same Joan returned into the town of Tours, in which was our lord the king; and from the town of Tours they began the journey to go to Reims, for the consecration and crowning of the king; and the same Joan said to the king and the men-at-arms that they should go boldly, and that all things would fall out prosperously, and that they should not fear, for they would find none who could hurt them, nay they would have no resistance; saying further that she doubted not that she would have folk enough, and that many would follow her.\nHe says also that the same Joan caused men of arms to be gathered between the town of Troyes and the town of Auxerre, and many were found, for each one followed her; and the king and his people came without impediment as far as Reims; for the king suffered no repulse, but the gates of the cities and towns opened to him of their own accord.\nThe same witness says also, by means of his oath, that the same Joan was a good christian, willingly hearing mass and daily, often receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist, and was much angered when she heard swearing, and this was a good sign, as the king’s confessor said, who inquired solicitously of her deeds and life.\nHe says also that in the army she was ever with the men-at-arms, and he heard it said by many familiar with the same Joan that they never had concupiscence of her, albeit sometimes the will of lust was present, yet never did they presume of her, and they believed that she could not be lusted after; and many times, when they spoke of the sin of the flesh and of certain words which could draw to lust, when they saw her and drew nigh, they could not speak of this, nay they suddenly lost the motion of the flesh. And of this he interrogated many who sometimes lay by night in the company of the said Joan, who answered him as he deposed above, saying further that they never had carnal concupiscence whilst they beheld the same. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same articles.\nSimon Beaucroix # The noble man Simon Beaucroix, squire, a married clerk, dwelling at Paris in the Hôtel-Neuf (32), a witness produced, received, sworn and examined before the aforesaid lords, the archbishop of Reims and the bishop of Paris, and Brother Thomas Ferel, of the order of Preaching Friars, professor of sacred theology, deputed sub-inquisitor in this part by the aforesaid Brother Jean Bréhal, on the twentieth day of the month of April; of the age of fifty years or thereabout, as he says.\nAnd first, interrogated what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he was in the town of Chinon, with the lord Jean d’Aulon, knight, seneschal of Beaucaire (33), and in which town was our lord the king, when the same Joan came toward the king. Who, after she had spoken with the king and the others of the king’s council, was placed in the keeping of the said d’Aulon. And from the town of Chinon the same Joan came in the company of the said d’Aulon to the town of Blois, and from the town of Blois, by the Sologne, as far as the town of Orléans. And he well remembers that the same Joan commanded all the men-at-arms that they should confess and set themselves in good state, asserting that God would help them, and that if they were in good state they would obtain the victory with God’s help. And the same Joan was then of the intention that the men of arms ought to go straight to the fortress or bastille of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc; which they did not, nay they went between the city of Orléans and Jargeau, to a certain place where the citizens of Orléans had sent boats to receive the victuals and conduct them into the town of Orléans. And the victuals were put into the boats and conducted to the town of Orléans; and because the men of arms could not cross beyond the river Loire, certain ones said that they must return and go to cross the river Loire at the town of Blois, for there was no nearer bridge in the king’s obedience; whereat the same Joan was much indignant, fearing lest they should will to depart and the work remain imperfect. Nor would the same Joan go with the others to cross at the town of Blois; but the same Joan crossed with two hundred lances or thereabout, along the bank, in boats, and they crossed to the other side of the bank and entered the town of Orléans by land. And the lord marshal de Boussac went the whole night to seek the king’s army which was at the town of Blois. And he who speaks remembers that, a little before the coming of the lord marshal de Boussac to the town of Orléans, the same Joan said to the said lord Jean d’Aulon that the said lord marshal was coming, and that she well knew he would have no ill. And when the same Joan was in her lodging, she, led by the spirit, as he says, suddenly said: In the name of the Lord, our people have much to do! And she sent to seek her horse and armed herself, and went toward the fortress or bastille of Saint-Loup, where there was a certain onset of the king’s people against the English; and after the same Joan arrived at that onset, the said fortress was taken. And on the morrow the French went in the company of the same Joan to attack a certain fortress of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc; and they drew nigh as far as a certain island (34), and when the English perceived that the king’s people were crossing the water, they left the said bastille of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc and withdrew to another fortress situated at the Augustins, where he who speaks saw the king’s army in the greatest peril, the same Joan saying: Let us go boldly, in the name of the Lord. And they came as far as the English, who were in great peril and had three fortresses or three bastilles (35). And incontinently without great difficulty the same bastille of the Augustins was taken; and afterwards the captains concluded that the same Joan should enter the town of Orléans; which nevertheless she willed not to do, saying: Shall we leave our people?\nAnd on the morrow they came to attack the fortress situated at the end of the bridge, which was very strong and as it were impregnable; and the king’s people had there much to do, for the assault lasted the whole day until night; and he saw that the said lord seneschal of Beaucaire caused the bridge to be broken with a bombard. And when it was already evening and they were as it were despairing of having this fortress or bastille of the bridge, it was said that the banner of Joan should be brought (36), and it was brought (37), and they began to attack the said fortress, and straightway, without great difficulty, the king’s people entered with the said banner, and the English began to flee, insomuch that, when they came to the end of the bridge, the bridge was broken, and many of the English were drowned. And on the morrow the king’s people again went out to vanquish the English who, seeing the French, fled; and when the same Joan saw them fleeing and the French following them, she said to the French: Suffer the English to go, nor slay them. Let them depart; their departure sufficeth me. And on the same day they went out of the town of Orléans and returned to the town of Blois, to which they arrived the same day. And there the same Joan stayed two or three days (38), and then she was at Tours and at Loches, where the king’s people prepared themselves to go to the town of Jargeau; and they went and took the same town by assault.\nNor does he know aught else of these things which she did; yet he knows that the same Joan was a good catholic, fearing God; who most often confessed every two days, and also every week received the sacrament of the Eucharist, and heard mass each day, and exhorted the men-at-arms to live well and confess often. And he who speaks well remembers that, at the time when he conversed with the same, he never had the will to do ill.\nHe says further that the same Joan ever lay with young girls, nor would she lie with old women. She also much abhorred oaths and blasphemies, and rebuked those who swore and blasphemed; and in the army she would never have willed that any of her company should plunder aught; for of victuals which she knew to be plundered she would never eat. And once a certain Scot gave her to understand that she had eaten of a plundered calf: whereat she was much angered, and on this account willed to smite the said Scot.\nHe says also that she never willed that ill-famed women should ride in the army with the men-at-arms: wherefore none would have dared to be found in the company of the same Joan; but whomsoever she found, she constrained to depart, unless the men-at-arms themselves willed to take them to wife.\nAnd finally he who speaks believes that she was a true catholic, fearing God, and keeping his precepts, and also obeying the mandates of the Church so far as she might; pious also, not only toward the French but also toward the enemies. And these things he who speaks knows, for he conversed with her for long times, and many times helped her to arm.\nHe says moreover that the same Joan much grieved and it displeased her that certain good women came to her, willing to salute her, and it seemed a sort of adoration, whereat she was angered. Nor else does he know.\nMaster Jean Barbin # The venerable and learned man Master Jean Barbin, doctor of laws, advocate of our lord the king in his court of Parliament, of the age of fifty years, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined before the same lords judges, on the last day of the month of April.\nAnd first, interrogated upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles produced in this cause, the others being omitted since he could depose nothing of them: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that, at the time when the same Joan went toward the king in the town of Chinon, he who speaks was in the town of Poitiers; and he heard it said that the king at first sight willed not to give faith to the same Joan, but willed that she should first be examined by clerks, and also sent, as he heard, into the place of the nativity of the same Joan, to know whence she was. And that the same Joan should be examined, she was sent to the town of Poitiers, in which he who speaks then was, and in the same town of Poitiers he first had knowledge of the same Joan. Who, when she came into the same town, was lodged in the house of Master Jean Rabateau; and at the time when she was lodged there, he heard it said by the wife of the said Rabateau that she was every day after dinner on bended knees for a great space of time, and also by night, and that she many times entered a certain little chapel of that house and there prayed for a great time. And many (39) clerks visited her, to wit Master Pierre de Versailles, professor of sacred theology, at the time of his death bishop of Meaux, and Master Guillaume Aymeri, also professor of sacred theology, and others graduated in theology, of whose names he remembers not, who likewise interrogated her as they willed. And he who speaks then heard it reported by the same doctors that they had examined her and had made her many questions, to which she answered very prudently, as if she had been a good clerk; so that they marvelled at her answers and believed that this was divinely, having regard to her life and manner of life. And finally it was concluded by the clerks after the examinations and interrogations made by them that there was in her nothing evil nor anything contrary to the catholic faith; and, seeing the necessity in which the king and the realm then were, since the king and the inhabitants obeying him were at that time in despair and without hope of any aid save it proceeded from God, that the king could help himself by her. And in those deliberations a certain Master Jean Erault, professor of sacred theology, reported that he had otherwise heard it said by a certain Marie d’Avignon (40), who had aforetime come to the king, to whom she had said that the realm of France had much to suffer, and would sustain many calamities, saying further that she had had many visions touching the desolation of the realm of France, and among other things she saw many armours which were presented to the same Marie; at which the same Marie being affrighted feared lest she should be constrained to receive those armours; and it was said to her that she should not fear, and that she should not bear arms of this kind, but a certain Maid who should come after her should bear the same arms and deliver the realm of France from the enemies. And he firmly believed that the same Joan was she of whom the same Marie d’Avignon had spoken.\nHe says moreover that the men-at-arms reputed her as it were a saint, for she so bore herself in the army, in sayings and deeds, according to God, that she could be reprehended by none.\nHe says further that he heard Master Pierre de Versailles say that, when on a certain occasion the same Master Pierre was in the town of Loches in the company of the same Joan, certain folk seized the feet of her horse and kissed her hands and feet. And he himself said to the same Joan that she did ill to suffer such things, which belonged not to her, saying that she should beware of such, for she made men idolatrise. The same Joan answered: In truth, I should not know how to guard myself from such, unless God guarded me.\nAnd briefly he who speaks says that, in his sight, the same Joan was a good catholic, and that whatsoever was done by her was of God; and he is moved to say this because she was in all things to be commended, as well in manner of life as in food and drink and the rest; nor did he ever hear aught sinister said of the same, but ever heard her maintained and reputed a good and catholic woman.\nThe lady Marguerite La Touroulde # The honest and prudent woman, the damsel Marguerite La Touroulde, widow of the late Master René de Bouligny, in his lifetime councillor of our lord the king (41), of the age of sixty-four years or thereabout, produced, sworn and examined in the year and day contained in the deposition of the preceding witness.\nAnd first, interrogated, by means of her oath, what she knows to depose or attest of and upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause of nullity: she says and deposes that, when the same Joan arrived toward the king at Chinon, she who speaks was in the town of Bourges, where the queen was; at which time there was in this realm and in the parts obedient to the king such calamity and penury of moneys that it was pity; nay all obeying the king were as it were in despair. And this she who speaks knows because her husband was at that time receiver-general, who at that time had, neither of the king’s money nor of his own, save four écus; and the city of Orléans was besieged by the English, and there was no way whereby it could be helped. And in that calamity the same Joan came, and, as she who speaks firmly believes, she came from God, and was sent to relieve the king and the inhabitants obeying him, for then there was no hope save from God. Yet she who speaks did not see the same Joan save at that time when the king returned from the town of Reims in which he had been consecrated; and the king came into the town of Bourges, in which were the queen and she who speaks with her. And the king drawing nigh, the queen went to meet the king at the town of Selles-en-Berry, and she who speaks with her; and while the queen went to meet the king, the same Joan came before and saluted the queen, and the same Joan was then led to Bourges and lodged, by command of the lord d’Albret, in the house of her who speaks, albeit the late husband of her who speaks had told the same that the same Joan should be lodged in the house of a certain Jean Duchesne; and she stayed in the same house for the space of three weeks, lying, drinking and eating. And as it were daily she who speaks lay with the same Joan, nor in her saw or perceived aught sinister; but she ruled and governed herself as a worthy and catholic woman, for she most often confessed, heard mass willingly, and many times required the speaker to go to matins; for she who speaks at her instance many times went and led her.\nShe says moreover that when they sometimes spoke one with another and it was said to the same Joan that she doubted not to go to the assaults because she well knew that she would not be slain: she answered that she had no more security than the other men-at-arms. And the same Joan sometimes narrated how she had been examined by the clerks, and that she had answered them: There is in the books of Our Lord more than in yours.\nAnd she who speaks says further that she heard those say who had brought her to the king that at first sight they believed her foolish, and were of the intention to put her in a certain strong place; but when they began the journey to conduct her, they were made ready to all the same Joan’s good pleasures, and as much desired to present her to the king as she herself did; nor could they have resisted the will of the same Joan. They said that in the beginning they had the will to require her carnally; but, when they believed to speak of it, they were ashamed suchwise that they durst not speak to the same of it or have a word with her. And she heard the same Joan say that the duke of Lorraine, who had a certain infirmity, willed to see her; and with the same the same Joan had spoken, and had said to him that he ruled himself ill, and that he would never be healed unless he amended himself, and had exhorted the same that he should receive his good spouse (42).\nShe says moreover that the same Joan much abhorred the play of dice.\nShe says also that the same Joan was very simple and ignorant, and knew absolutely nothing, in the speaker’s sight, save in the fact of war. And she who speaks remembers that many women came to the speaker’s house whilst the same Joan dwelt in the same, and brought paternosters and other beads that she might touch them; whereat the same Joan laughed, saying to the same speaker: Touch them yourselves, for they shall be as good from your touch as from mine. The same Joan was also very liberal in alms, and most willingly succoured the needy and the poor, saying that she was sent for the consolation of the poor and the needy.\nShe says moreover that she many times saw her in the bath and in the stews (43), and, so far as she could perceive, believes her to be a virgin. And whatsoever she knows, she was all innocence in her fact, save in arms, as she said above, for she rode with a horse, bearing a lance as the best man-at-arms would have done; and at this the men-at-arms marvelled.\n(29) La Poule (in English Pôle) was the family name of the Suffolks; all bore it alike. It is easy nevertheless to recognise that the witness wills to designate here by Suffort, William Pôle, then count, since duke of Suffolk, whom Henry V had created count of Dreux, and by La Poule, his brother John Pôle, captain of Avranches. The same distinction between the two brothers will be seen below, p. 74, established by Joan of Arc herself.\n(30) In plain French, amiete, that is to say, little friend, mistress.\n(31) Corruption of the name of Poulangy.\n(32) Hospitium novum is the Hôtel-Neuf, formerly du Petit-Musc, which Charles VI caused to be rebuilt. It communicated with the hôtel de Saint-Paul; a circumstance whence it may be inferred that Simon Beaucroix was attached to the court. (See Sauval, Histoire et Antiquités de Paris, t. II, p. 65.)\n(33) At the moment of the deposition, for in 1429 Jean d’Aulon was as yet neither knight nor seneschal of Beaucaire.\n(34) The island here in question has disappeared upon the rebuilding of the bridge of Orléans, but it still figures in the old plans under the name of the Île-aux-Toiles. In the Journal du Siège it is called the little island over against Saint-Aignan. It almost joined the levee of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc. (Jollois, Histoire du siège d’Orléans, p. 39.)\n(35) Only on the left bank of the Loire; to wit the fort of the Augustins, that of the Tourelles, and that of Saint-Privé, to the west of the two preceding.\n(36) Notre-Dame manuscript, auferretur.\n(37) The manuscripts give ablatum.\n(38) Read diebus.\n(39) Notre-Dame manuscript, magni.\n(40) Marie Robine, called the Gasque d’Avignon, a woman whose predictions made a great stir at the beginning of the fifteenth century. This is what I find written on her account in the manuscript of the Bibliothèque du roi, no. 10318-2. Fol. 18: She had a vision, as she recites in that vision, how God commanded the king of France (Charles VI) by the said Marie that he should not make nor suffer subtraction to be made to the pope Benedict XIII, but hinder it with all good power.\n(41) He is styled in the original dires councillor of the king upon the fact of all the finances, and was called Régnier de Boullegny. He had figured in the finances from the time of Charles VI, for the States-General of 1412 demanded his destitution as one of the useless and guilty. (Martial d’Auvergne, Bibl. Roy. — Monstrelet.)\n(42) Marguerite de Bavière, who lived apart from her husband, in the practices of devotion. Charles of Lorraine then suffered himself to be governed by a girl named Alison Dumay, of whom he had several children. (Calmet, Hist. de Lorraine, t. II, liv. 27.)\n(43) In the stews.\nJean Marcel # Jean Marcel, citizen and burgess of Paris, of the age of fifty-six years or thereabout, produced, sworn and examined by the same lords commissioners in the aforesaid year and day, etc.\nAnd first, interrogated of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he in no wise knew the same Joan at the time when she was brought into the town of Rouen; and first saw her when she was preached at Saint-Ouen.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth articles, he deposes that he knows only the things which follow: to wit that he who speaks dwelt in the town of Rouen at the time when the same Joan was taken near Compiègne and brought into the town of Rouen. And he says that Master Pierre Cauchon was then bishop of Beauvais, who, as he heard it said, required her that he might make her process; but with what zeal or how he proceeded, he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the tenth article he who speaks deposes that he heard it said that the lady of Bedford (44) caused the same Joan to be visited whether she were a virgin or not, and that she was found a virgin; and he heard it said by a certain Jeannotin Simon, a tailor of tunics, that the lady duchess of Bedford had caused a certain woman’s tunic to be made for the same Joan, which when he willed to put upon her she took him sweetly by the breast. Who was indignant at this and gave the said Jeannotin a slap.\nThen, interrogated of the contents of the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth, he deposes only that he heard a certain Master Jean Le Sauvaige (45), of the order of Preaching Friars, who many times spoke with the speaker of the same Joan, say that he had been in the process conducted against her, whereof he would speak with great difficulty. Yet one thing he told him, that he had never seen a woman of such age who had given so great pains to the examiners; and he much marvelled at the answers of the same Joan and at her memory, for she had memory of the things she had said. And once, when the notary had written something and reported what he had written, the same Joan said to the notary that she had not so answered, and referred herself to the bystanders; which bystanders all said that the same Joan spoke well; and the correction of that answer was made.\nOf the contents of all the other articles he who speaks deposes that, as he said above, he was at the sermon made at Saint-Ouen, and there first saw the same Joan; and he remembers that Master Guillaume Erard, doctor in theology, made the preaching in the presence of the said Joan, who, as it seems to the speaker, was in the male habit; but what was done or said in the same sermon he knows nothing, for, as he says, he stood far from the preaching, and albeit he who speaks heard that Master Laurent Calot and certain others said to Master Pierre Cauchon that he delayed too much the uttering of his sentence, and that he judged ill, and the same Master Pierre Cauchon answered that they lied.\nHe says moreover that he was at the second preaching, on the day on which the same Joan was burned by fire, and heard the same Joan crying and saying many times Jesus aloud in the fire. And he most firmly believes that she died catholicly and ended her days well, and in the state of a good christian. And this he knows from the report of the religious who accompanied her in the hour of her death; and he saw many, and as it were the greater part of the bystanders, weeping and sorrowing for pity, because it was said that the same Joan had been unjustly condemned.\nNor does he who speaks know aught else, being duly interrogated upon the contents of the said articles.\nThe lord Duke of Alençon # The illustrious and most mighty prince and lord, the lord Jean, duke of Alençon (46), of the age of fifty years or thereabout, produced, received, sworn and examined before the aforesaid lords judges, on the third day of the month of May of the aforesaid year of the Lord 1456.\nAnd first, interrogated what he knows to depose of and upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that, when the same Joan came toward the king, the king was in the town of Chinon and he who speaks in the town of Saint-Florent (47), and he who speaks being there and disporting himself at quail-hawking, in French aux cailles, a certain steward of the speaker came to him, notifying him that there had come toward the king a certain girl asserting herself sent on God’s part to drive off the English and raise the siege set by the same English before the town of Orléans. For which cause he who speaks on the morrow went to the king being in the town of Chinon, and found the said Joan speaking with the king. And he who speaks drawing nigh, the same Joan asked of the speaker who he was, and the king answered that he was the duke of Alençon. Then the same Joan said: You are the right well come. The more there are of the blood of the king of France together, the better. And on the morrow the same Joan came to the king’s mass, and when she perceived the king she bowed herself, and the king led the same Joan into a certain chamber; and with him were he who speaks and the lord de la Trémoille, whom the king retained, commanding the others to withdraw. Then the same Joan made many requests to the king, and among others that he should give his realm to the King of heaven, and that the King of heaven, after the donation of this kind, should do for him as he had done for his predecessors and restore him to his pristine state; and many other things, which he who speaks recalls not, were spoken until dinner. And after dinner the king went to disport himself in the meadows, and there the same Joan ran with a lance, and on this account he who speaks, seeing the same Joan so bear herself in bearing the lance and running with the lance, gave the same Joan a horse. And afterwards the king concluded that the same Joan should be examined by the men of the church; and there were deputed the bishops of Castres, the king’s confessor; of Senlis (48), of Maguelonne (49) and of Poitiers (50); Master Pierre de Versailles, afterwards bishop of Meaux, and Master Jordan Morin, and very many others of whose names he recalls not. Who interrogated the same Joan, in the presence of him who speaks, to what end she had come and who had made her come to the king. Who answered that she had come on the part of the King of heaven, and that she had voices and counsel which counselled her what she should do; but of these things he who speaks remembers not. But afterwards the same Joan, who then dined with the speaker, said to the speaker that she had been much examined, but she knew and could more than she had said to those interrogating her. And the king, the relation of the said commissioners for examining her heard, again willed that the same Joan should go to the town of Poitiers; and there she was again examined. Yet he who speaks was not present at the examination of this kind made at Poitiers. Yet he knows that afterwards in the king’s council it was reported that those who had examined her said that in the same they had found nothing contrary to the catholic faith, and that, the necessity considered, the king could help himself by her. And these things heard, the king sent the speaker toward the queen of Sicily (51) to prepare victuals to be led to Orléans for the army to be conducted; and there he found the lord Ambroise de Loré and the lord Louis, of whose surname he remembers not (52), who prepared the victuals. But there was need of moneys, and to have moneys for the said victuals he who speaks returned to the king and notified him how the victuals were made ready, and there lacked only moneys for the victuals and the men-at-arms. And then the king sent certain ones to deliberate the moneys necessary to accomplish this work; insomuch that the men-at-arms with the victuals were made ready to go to the town of Orléans, to try whether the siege could be raised. With which men-at-arms the same Joan was sent; and the king caused armour to be made for the same Joan. And so the king’s men-at-arms departed with Joan; but what they did on the way, and of the things which were done in the town of Orléans, he who speaks knows nothing save by hearsay, for he was not present nor went with those men-at-arms; but afterwards he saw the fortresses being before the town of Orléans and considered their fortification; which he believes were taken rather miraculously than by force of arms, and especially the fortress of the Tourelles at the end of the bridge and the fortress of the Augustins, in which, if he who speaks had been with few men-at-arms, he would well have dared to await for six or seven days all manner of power of men-at-arms, and it seems to him that they would not have taken them; and, as he heard it reported by the men-at-arms and captains who were there present, that as it were all the deeds at Orléans they ascribed to God’s miracle, and that they had not been done by human work, but had come to pass from above. And this he heard many times said by the lord Ambroise de Loré, late provost of Paris. Nor did he see the same Joan from the time of her departure from the king until after the siege of Orléans was raised. And they wrought so much that there were gathered together of the king’s people to the number of six hundred lances, desiring to go to the town of Jargeau, which the English held occupied; and that night they lay in a certain wood; and the morrow coming, there came other men-at-arms of the king whom the lord Bastard of Orléans and the lord Florent d’Illiers (53) were conducting, and certain other captains; and they being gathered one with another, they found that they were about twelve hundred lances; and there was then contention among the captains, for certain were of opinion that assault should be made on the town, others to the contrary, asserting that the English had great power and were in great multitude. The same Joan then seeing the difficulty among them said that they should not fear any multitude, nor make difficulty of giving assault to the same English, for God was conducting their work; the same Joan saying that, unless she were sure that God was conducting this work, she would liefer keep sheep than expose herself to such perils. And these things heard, they took their way toward the town of Jargeau, believing to take the suburbs and there pass the night; which the English knowing came to meet them, and at first sight repelled the king’s people. Which the same Joan seeing, her banner taken, went to the onset, admonishing the men-at-arms to have good heart. And they wrought so much that that night the king’s men-at-arms were lodged in the suburbs of Jargeau. And the speaker believes that God was conducting this work, for that night as it were no watches were made, so that, if the English had come out of the town, the king’s men-at-arms would have been in great peril. And the king’s men-at-arms made ready the artillery and in the morning caused bombards and engines to be drawn against the town, and after certain days had among themselves a council what should seem to be done against the English being in the town of Jargeau for the recovery of the said town. They being in council, it was reported that La Hire was speaking with the lord de Suffolk; whereat he who speaks and the others who had the charge of this people of men-at-arms were ill content with the said La Hire; and the same La Hire was sent for, who came. After whose coming it was concluded that assault should be made against the town, and the heralds cried: To the assault! and the same Joan said to the speaker: Forward, gentle duke, to the assault! And, when it seemed to the same speaker that they wrought prematurely so soon to begin the assault, the same Joan said to the speaker: Doubt not; the hour is ready when it shall please God; and that one must work when God willed; work, and God will work; saying further to the same speaker: Ah! gentle duke, fearest thou? Knowest thou not that I promised thy wife to bring thee back safe and sound? For in truth, when he who speaks departed from his wife to come with the same Joan to the army, the speaker’s wife said to the same Joan that she much feared for him who speaks, and that he had lately been prisoner, and that so great moneys had been laid out for his ransom, that she would fain have asked the same speaker to remain. Then the same Joan answered: Lady, fear not. I shall give him back to you safe, and in such or better state than he is.\nHe says also that, during the assault against the town of Jargeau, the same Joan said to the speaker being in a certain place that he should depart from that place, and that unless he departed, that machine, showing a certain engine being in the town, will slay thee. And the speaker departed, and a little after, by the same engine, in the same place whence he who speaks had departed, a certain one was slain who was called Monseigneur du Lude (54); whereat he who speaks had great fear, and much marvelled at the sayings of the same Joan, the aforesaid things considered. Afterwards the same Joan went to the assault, and he who speaks with the same. And the men-at-arms attacking, the count of Suffolk caused it to be cried that he willed to speak with the speaker; who nevertheless was not heard, nay they accomplished the assault. And the same Joan was on the ladder, holding her banner in her hand, which banner was smitten, and the same Joan was smitten upon the head by a stone which was broken upon the headpiece (55) of the same Joan. Yet the same Joan was cast down to the earth; and when she had risen she said to the men-at-arms: Amys, amys, sus! sus! Nostre Sire a condempné les Angloys. This hour they are ours; have good heart! And instantly the same town of Jargeau was taken, and the English departed toward the bridges: whom the French pursued; and in the pursuit more than eleven hundred were slain.\nAnd the town taken, he who speaks, Joan and the men-at-arms went to the town of Orléans, and from the town of Orléans went to Meung (56), where the English were in the town, to wit the Child of Warwick and Scales. And he who speaks with few men-at-arms passed the night in a certain church beside Meung, where he who speaks was in great peril; and on the morrow they went to Beaugency, into certain meadows where they found other men-at-arms of the king, and there a certain onset was made against the English being in the town of Beaugency. After which onset the English quitted the town and entered the castle; and watches were set before the castle, lest\n(44) Anne de Bourgogne, daughter of Jean-sans-Peur, married in 1423 to the duke of Bedford.\n(45) Called in the procès-verbaux of the condemnation Radulphus.\n(46) It is this Jean d’Alençon who, for having corresponded clandestinely with the king of England, was afterwards condemned to perpetual prison; whom Louis XI pardoned at his accession, and who died in 1476 after having had himself condemned a second time.\n(47) Saumur.\n(48) The then bishop of Senlis must be understood, Simon Bonnet, and not he who occupied the see in 1429, who was devoted to the party of the English.\n(49) The manuscripts read Magloriensis.\n(50) Hugues de Combarel, whom the sire de Giac would have cast into the river in 1426, because at the States held at Mehun-sur-Yèvre he had voted the taille on the express condition that the king should put order to the pilleries of the men of war. (Chronique de la Pucelle, p. 492.)\n(51) Yolande d’Aragon, mother-in-law of Charles VII, a woman of a great capacity who had much part in the government, when the intrigues of the favourites did not hinder her from acting. The fact reported by the witness is confirmed by the following article which I extract from a title preserved at the library of Orléans: To Geffroy Diron, of Orléans, for having busied himself for the space of twenty days in two journeys which he made from Orléans to Blois to receive and put in safety the wheat which the queen of Sicily had caused to be brought to the said place of Blois. (Mandates and quittances of the expenses of the town of Orléans in 1429 and 1430, bundle 2, piece 29.)\n(52) Perhaps Louis de Culant. See above, p. 4.\n(53) Gentleman of the pays chartrain, captain of Châteaudun, who has left his name to a street of Orléans. (See Hist. de Charles VII by Godefroy, p. 849.)\n(54) The so-called Chronicle of the Maid, which reports the same event, applies it to a gentleman of Anjou, which shows that the seigneury of the Lude is in question, which Jean de Daillon acquired in 1457 from his mother-in-law Jeanne de Vendôme-Ségré; but it is not found from whom this last held it. (Hist. gén. de la maison de France, t. VIII, pp. 189 and 728.)\n(55) So. Read capellinam, in French chapeline, a light helmet in the form of a skull-cap, without mask or beaver.\n(56) Meung-sur-Loire.\nthe English should come out. And they being before the castle, they heard news that the lord constable was coming with certain men-at-arms; wherefore he who speaks, the same Joan and the others of the army were ill content, willing to depart from the said town, for they had in mandate not to receive the lord constable into their company. And the speaker said to the same Joan that if the constable himself should come, he would depart. And on the morrow, before the coming of the lord constable, news came that the English were coming in great number, in whose company was the lord de Talbot, and the men-at-arms cried: à l’arme! and then the same Joan said to the speaker, who willed to depart on account of the coming of the lord constable, that it was needful to help oneself. And at length the English surrendered the castle by composition and departed with the safe-conduct which he who speaks granted them, who at that same time was lieutenant for the king in this army. And when the English departed, there came a certain one of the company of La Hire, who said to the speaker and the king’s captains that the English were coming, and that they would soon have them at will (57), and that they were as it were a thousand men of arms. Which the same Joan hearing, asked what that man of arms said, and it being notified to her, she said to the lord constable: Ah! fair constable, you did not come by my doing; but since you have come, you are right welcome. And many of the king’s people feared, saying that it were good to send for the horses. But the same Joan said: En nom Dieu, we must fight them; if they were hung from the clouds we should have them, for God sends them to us that we may punish them, asserting herself to be sure of the victory, saying in French words: The gentle king shall have this day the greatest victory that ever he had. And my counsel tells me that they are all ours. And the speaker knows that without great difficulty the English were vanquished and slain, and among the others Talbot was taken. And there was made a very great slaughter of the English, and afterwards the king’s people came to the town of Patay in the Beauce; into which town the said Talbot was brought before him who speaks and the lord constable, the same Joan being present. For he who speaks said to the said Talbot that he did not believe in the morning that it would so befall him; which Talbot indeed answered that it was the fortune of war. And thence they returned toward the king, who afterwards deliberated to go to the town of Reims for his crowning and consecration.\nAnd he sometimes heard the said Joan saying to the king that the same Joan would endure for a year and not much more, and that they should think in that year of working well, for she said she had four charges, to wit: to rout the English; to have the king crowned and consecrated at Reims; to deliver the duke of Orléans from the hands of the English; and to raise the siege set by the English before the town of Orléans.\nHe says moreover that the same Joan was chaste, and much hated those women who followed the men-at-arms. For he who speaks heard, at Saint-Denis on the return from the king’s coronation, that the same Joan pursued with a drawn sword a certain young girl being with the men-at-arms, so far that, pursuing her, she broke her sword. She was also much angered when she heard any men-at-arms swear, and chid them much, and most of all him who speaks, who sometimes swore; and when he saw her he refrained from swearing.\nHe says also that sometimes in the army he who speaks lay with the same Joan and the men-at-arms on the straw, and sometimes saw the same Joan making herself ready, and sometimes saw her breasts, which were fair; yet he who speaks never had carnal concupiscence of her.\nHe says further that, so far as he could perceive, he ever held her for a good catholic and worthy woman, for he saw her many times receive the body of Christ; and, when she saw the body of Christ, she wept, many times with great tears. She also received the holy eucharist twice in the week, and confessed often.\nHe says also that the same Joan in all her deeds, outside the fact of war, was simple and young; but in the fact of war she was very expert, as well in the bearing of the lance as in gathering the army and ordering battles, and in the preparation of the artillery; and at this all marvelled that she wrought so warily and providently in the fact of war, as if she had been a captain who had exercised the deeds of war for twenty or thirty years, and most of all in the preparation of the artillery, for in this she bore herself right well.\nNor else does he know, interrogated upon this.\nBrother Jean Pasquerel # The venerable and religious man Brother Jean Pasquerel, of the order of the Hermit Friars of Saint Augustine, of the convent of Bayeux, produced, received and sworn yesterday by the lords commissioners, and today, the fourth of the month of May, examined by the notaries by mandate of the lords commissioners.\nAnd first, interrogated of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles read to him: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that, when he first had news of the same Joan and how she had come toward the king, he who speaks was in the town of Anché (58), in which town were the mother (59) of the same Joan and certain of those who had brought the same Joan toward the king; and because they had some acquaintance with the speaker, they said to the same speaker that it was fitting that he should come with them to the said Joan, and that they would never leave the same speaker until they had brought him to the same Joan. And with them he came as far as the town of Chinon and thence as far as the town of Tours, in whose convent of the town of Tours he who speaks was lector. And in the same town of Tours the same Joan was then lodged in the house of Jean Dupuy, burgess of Tours, and they found the same Joan in the same house, and those who had brought the same speaker addressed the same Joan, saying: Joan, we have brought you this good father; if you knew him well, you would much love him. To whom the same Joan answered that she was well content with the speaker, and that she had already heard him spoken of, and that on the morrow she willed to confess to the same speaker. And on the morrow he heard her in confession and sang mass before her, and from that hour he who speaks ever followed her, and dwelt with her as far as the town of Compiègne, where she was taken.\nAnd he heard it said that the same Joan, when she came toward the king, was visited twice by women what she was, and whether she were man or woman, and whether corrupt or virgin; and she was found a woman, yet a virgin and a maid. And they visited her, as he heard, the lady de Gaucourt (60) and the lady de Trêves (61). And afterwards she was led to Poitiers, to be examined by the clerks being there in the university, and to know what was to be done of her; and Masters Jordan Morin and Pierre de Versailles, who died bishop of Meaux, and many others examined her; and, she being examined by them, they concluded that, the necessity considered which then menaced the whole realm, the king could help himself by her, and that in her they had found nothing contrary to the catholic faith. And this done, she was brought back to the town of Chinon, and believed she should speak with the king: which she could not that time. At length, by deliberation of the Council, the same Joan spoke with the king; and that day, whilst the same Joan entered the king’s house to speak with him, a certain man being upon a horse said these words: Is not that the Maid there? denying God that if he had her by night he would not render her back a maid. But the same Joan then said to the same man: Ha! en nom Dieu, thou deniest him, and thou art so nigh thy death! Afterwards the same man, within the hour, fell into the water and was drowned. And this he says as he heard from the said Joan and many others who said they had been present at this. And the same Joan was led toward the king by the lord count of Vendôme, who introduced her into the king’s chamber. And as soon as he saw her, the same Joan asked him his name; who answered: Gentil Daulphin, my name is Jehanne la Pucelle; and the King of the heavens sends you word by me that you shall be consecrated and crowned in the town of Reims, and you shall be lieutenant of the King of the heavens, who is king of France. And after many interrogations made by the king, the same Joan again said: I tell thee on the part of Messire that thou art the true heir of France and the king’s son; and he sends me to thee to lead thee to Reims, that there thou mayest receive thy coronation and consecration, if thou wilt. And these things heard, the king said to the bystanders that the same Joan had told him certain secrets which none knew or could know save God; wherefore he much trusted in her. And all the premises he heard from the same Joan, for at the premises he was not present.\nHe heard also from the same that she was not content with so many interrogations, and that they hindered her from accomplishing the business for which she was sent, and that there was need and it was time to act; saying further that she had inquired of the messengers of her lord, to wit God, appearing to her, what she ought to do, and they said to the same Joan that she should take the banner of her lord; and on this account the same Joan caused her banner to be made, in which was depicted the image of our Saviour seated in judgement in the clouds of heaven, and a certain angel was depicted holding in his hands a fleur-de-lis which the image blessed. And he who speaks arrived at Tours at that time when that banner was being painted.\nAnd a little after, the same Joan went with the other men-at-arms to raise the siege being at Orléans: and he who speaks was in the company of the same Joan, from whom he departed not until she was taken before Compiègne; and served her as chaplain, hearing her in confession and singing mass.\nAnd the speaker says that the same Joan was very devout toward God and blessed Mary, and as it were daily confessed and frequently communicated. For she said to the same speaker, when she was in any place where there were convents of the Mendicants, that he should give her memory of the days on which the little boys of the Mendicants received the sacrament of the Eucharist, that on that day she might receive with the same boys, as she many times did; for with the little boys of the Mendicants she received the sacrament of the Eucharist. He says also that when she confessed, she wept.\nMoreover the speaker says that, when the same Joan went out of the town of Tours to come to Orléans, she asked the speaker that he should not leave her, but ever stay with her as her confessor: which the speaker promised her. And they were in the town of Blois about two or three days, awaiting the victuals which were there loaded into boats; and there she said to the speaker that he should cause a banner to be made for gathering the priests, in French une bannière, and that in the same banner he should cause to be depicted the image of Our Lord crucified: which also he who speaks did. And the banner of this kind being made, the same Joan every day twice, to wit in the morning and at evening, caused all the priests to be gathered by him who speaks; which being gathered, they sang antiphons and hymns of blessed Mary, and with them was the same Joan; nor would she suffer any men-at-arms among those priests unless they had confessed that day, admonishing all the men-at-arms that they should confess, that they might come to the congregation of this kind; for in the same congregation all the priests were ready to confess whomsoever who willed to confess to them.\nAnd when the same Joan went out of the town of Blois to go to Orléans, she caused all the priests to be gathered with that banner, and the priests themselves went before the men-at-arms. Who went out by the side of the Sologne so gathered, singing Veni Creator spiritus and very many antiphons, and lay that day in the fields, and also the following day. And on the third day they arrived near the town of Orléans, where the English held the siege beside the bank of the river Loire; and the king’s men-at-arms arrived nigh enough to the English, so that the English and the French could see each other with the eye, and the king’s men-at-arms were conducting the victuals. And the bank was then so small that the boats could not go up nor come as far as the bank where the English were; and as it were suddenly the water rose, so that the boats arrived toward the men-at-arms; into which boats the same Joan with certain men-at-arms entered and went into the town of Orléans. And he who speaks, by order of the said Joan, with the priests and the banner returned to the town of Blois; and thence, a few days passed, he who speaks with many men-at-arms came to the city of Orléans by the side of the Beauce, with the said banner and the priests, without any impediment; and when the same Joan knew of their coming, she went to meet them, and together they entered the town of Orléans without impediment, and brought in the victuals, the English looking on. And it was a marvel, for all the English with a great multitude and power, armed and ready for battle, saw the king’s men-at-arms in a small company in comparison of the English; they saw also and heard the priests chanting, among whom was the speaker bearing the banner; and yet no Englishman was moved, nor made any onset upon the same men-at-arms and priests. And they being so received into the city of Orléans, the men-at-arms again went out of the town of Orléans, the same Joan urging, and went to attack and make assault upon the English being in the fortress or bastille of Saint-Loup. And he who speaks with the other priests, after dinner, came to the lodging of the said Joan, and when they came there the same Joan cried: Where are they who ought to arm me? The blood of our people is running upon the ground. And she being armed, straightway went out of the city and went to the said place of the fortress of Saint-Loup (62), where was the onset or assault; and on the way she found many wounded, whereat she greatly condoled, and arrived with the others at the assault, suchwise that by force and violence the same fortress was taken, and the English being in the same taken. And he who speaks remembers that it was on the vigil of the Ascension of the Lord, and many English were there slain: whereat the same Joan much grieved, because she said they were slain without confession, and much bewept them, and forthwith the same confessed to him who speaks. And she commanded the same speaker\n(57) This is the lesson of the ms. ND.; the ms. 5970 gives vulneratim.\n(58) Villa Aniciensis is the town of Puy-en-Velay, which cannot here be in question. M. Le Brun de Charmettes, in his Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc, t. I, p. 148, supposes that one must read villa Aziacensi, to make Azay-le-Rideau; but one would remain nearer the text in conjecturing villa Ancensi, which would be Anché, a village situated between Chinon and l’Île-Bouchard.\n(59) M. Le Brun de Charmettes, ibid., conjectures with reason that mater is a fault and that one must read frater.\n(60) Jeanne de Preuilly.\n(61) Jeanne de Hortemer.\n(62) So; read Saint-Loup.\nthat he should publicly admonish all the men-at-arms that they should confess their sins and render thanks to God for the victory obtained; else she would not be with them, nay would leave their company; saying further, on the said day of the vigil of the Ascension of the Lord, that within five days the siege being before the town of Orléans would be raised, nor would any Englishman remain before the city: which so came to pass, for, as he already said, on the said Wednesday the fortress or bastille of Saint-Loup was taken, where the nuns are (63), and in which fortress there were more than a hundred chosen men well armed, of whom none remained but was taken or slain. And that day at evening, when she was in her lodging, she said to the same speaker that on the morrow, which was the feast-day of the Ascension of the Lord, she would not make war nor arm herself, out of reverence for the said feast, and that that day she willed to confess and receive the sacrament of the Eucharist: which also she did; and that day she ordered that none should presume on the morrow to go out of the town and go to onset or assault unless he had first gone to confession; and that they should beware lest ill-famed women should follow her, for on account of sins God would suffer the battle to be lost. And so it was done, as the same Joan had ordered.\nHe who speaks says also that that day of the feast of the Ascension of the Lord the same Joan wrote to the English being in the fortresses or bastilles in this wise:\nYou, men of England, who have no right in this realm of France, the King of heaven commands and sends word to you by me, Joan the Maid, that you leave your fortresses and depart into your own parts, or I shall make you such a hahai (64) whereof there shall be perpetual memory. And these are the things which for the third and last time I write to you, nor shall I write more. So signed: Jhesus Maria, Jehanne la Pucelle. And further: I should have sent you my letters more honourably; but you detain my heralds, in French mes héraulx; for you have detained my herald called Guyenne. Whom you shall will to send back to me, and I shall send you certain of your people taken in the fortresses of Saint-Loup, for they are not all dead.\nAnd afterwards she took an arrow and bound the said letter with thread at the end of the said arrow, and commanded a certain crossbowman that he should shoot the arrow of this kind toward the English, crying: Read; it is news! And the English received the same arrow with the letter and read it. Which read, they began to cry with a very great cry, saying: They are news from the whore of the Armagnacs! At which words the same Joan began to sigh and weep with an abundance of tears, calling upon the King of heaven in her aid. And afterwards she was comforted, as she said, for she had had news from her lord; and at evening, after supper, she ordered the speaker that he should rise on the morrow earlier than he had done on the day of the Ascension, and that he should confess her right early in the morning: which also he did.\nAnd on the said day, to wit Friday, on the morrow of the said feast of the Ascension, he who speaks rose right early in the morning and heard the same Joan in confession and sang mass before her and her people in the town of Orléans; and afterwards they went to the assault, which lasted from morning until evening. And the same day the fortress of the Augustins was taken with a great assault, and the same Joan, who had been wont to fast on Fridays, could not fast that day, for she had been too much vexed, and the same Joan supped. After her supper there came to the same Joan a valiant and notable knight, of whose name he who speaks remembers not, and said to the same Joan that the captains and the king’s men-at-arms had been together in council, and that they saw that they were few men-at-arms in comparison of the English, and that God had done them a great grace for the contents (65) obtained, [adding]: Considering that the town is full of victuals, we shall be able well to keep the city awaiting the king’s succour; nor does it seem expedient in counsel that the men-at-arms go out tomorrow. The same Joan answered: You have been in your council, and I have been in mine; and believe that the counsel of my Lord shall be accomplished and shall hold, and counsel of this kind shall perish; saying to the same speaker, who was then near her: Rise on the morrow right early, and more than you have done today, and do as well as you can. Keep yourself ever near me, for on the morrow I shall have much to do and more than ever I had, and on the morrow blood shall issue from my body above the breast.\nAnd the Saturday coming, he who speaks rose right early and celebrated mass; and the same Joan went to the assault at the fortress of the Bridge, where Glasdale the Englishman was; and the assault lasted there from morning until sunset without intermission. In which assault and after dinner the same Joan, as she had foretold, was smitten by an arrow above the breast, and when she felt herself wounded she feared and wept, and was comforted, as she said. And certain men-at-arms seeing her so hurt willed to charm her, in French charmer; but she would not, saying: I should liefer die than do aught that I knew to be sin, or to be against the will of God; and she well knew that she must once die; yet she knew not when, where or how, nor at what hour; but, if remedy could be put to her wound without sin, she willed well to be healed. And they applied to the same wound oil of olives with lard, and after the application of this kind the same Joan confessed to him who speaks, weeping and lamenting. And she returned again to the onset or assault, crying and saying: Clasdas, Clasdas, yield thee, yield thee to the King of heaven. Thou didst call me whore; I have great pity of thy soul and of thy people. Then the same Glasdale, armed from head to foot, fell into the river Loire and was drowned; whereat the same Joan, moved by pity, began mightily to weep for the soul of the same Glasdale and of the others drowned there in great number. And that day all the English who were beyond the bridge were taken or slain.\nAnd thence, on the Sunday before the rising of the sun, all the English who had remained in the fields gathered themselves together and came as far as upon the fosses of the town of Orléans, and went to the town of Meung upon the Loire; and there remained certain days. And on the said Sunday a solemn procession with a sermon was made in the town of Orléans; and they concluded to go to the king, and the same Joan went toward the king, and the English gathered themselves and went to the town of Jargeau, which was taken by assault. And thence the English were vanquished and overcome beside the town of Patay.\nAnd thence the same Joan, willing to proceed further, as she had said, to the coronation of the king, led the king to the town of Troyes in Champagne, and from the town of Troyes to the town of Châlons, and from Châlons into the town of Reims, where the king was there miraculously crowned and consecrated, as the same Joan had foretold at the beginning of her coming. And many times he heard the said Joan say that of her deed there was a certain ministry; and when it was said to her: Never were such things seen as are seen of your deed; in no book is it read of such deeds; she answered: My Lord has a book in which never any clerk has read, how perfect soever he be in clerkship.\nHe who speaks says moreover that, so often as she rode through the fields and drew nigh the fortresses, she ever lodged apart with women; and he saw her on many nights set herself on bended knees to the ground, praying God for the prosperity of the king and the accomplishment of her mission committed to her by God.\nHe says moreover that, in the army and when she was in the fields, victuals necessary were sometimes not found; yet she never would have eaten of stolen victuals. And the speaker firmly believes that she was sent from God, for she exercised good works and was full of all virtues; for of the poor men-at-arms, although they were of the English part, she had much compassion, for, when she saw them at the last or wounded, she caused them to confess. She also much feared God, for, for nothing would she have willed to do aught that would displease God; for, when she was wounded in the shoulder by a certain shot of a crossbow, suchwise that the shaft appeared on either side, certain ones willed to charm her, promising her that she would be healed immediately. She answered that it was sin, and that she had liefer die than offend Our Lord by such enchantments.\nHe says moreover that he well marvels that so great clerks as were they who delivered her to death in the town of Rouen dared to make attempt upon the same Joan and to cause to die so poor and simple a christian so cruelly and without cause (at least which should suffice for death), and whom they could have kept in prisons or elsewhere without that she had done them displeasure; and most of all that they were her capital enemies; and it seems to him that they unjustly assumed the judgement.\nAnd of her acts and deeds our lord the king and the duke of Alençon know most fully and are informed of certain secrets which they could declare if they willed. Nor else does he know, save that the same Joan many times said to the same speaker that, if it should befall her to end her life, the lord king should cause chapels to be made to beseech the Most High for the salvation of the souls of those who had died in the war for the defence of the realm.\nSo signed: I Brother Jean Pasquerel have so written and deposed, in the year of the Lord 1456, on Friday, the morrow of the Ascension of the Lord. J. Pasquerel.\nBrother Jean de Lenozolles # The venerable and religious man Brother Jean de Lenozolles, priest of the order of Saint Peter Celestine, of the age of fifty-eight (66) years or thereabout, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined in the aforesaid year, on the seventh day of the month of May.\nAnd first, interrogated what he knows to attest or depose of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause: he deposes that he had no knowledge of the same Joan, for he only saw her in the two preachings which were made at Rouen.\nThen, interrogated of the contents of the fifth to the twenty-third, he deposes that of the contents of the same he who speaks knows only that, at the time when the same Joan was detained at Rouen, he was servant of the late Master Guillaume Erard. And he who speaks came from Burgundy with the same master of his as far as the town of Rouen, and when they arrived there the speaker heard that mention was made of the process of this kind; but what was done in the same process he who speaks knows nothing, for he departed from the said town of Rouen and went to Caen, and stayed there until about the feast of Pentecost: on which feast he returned to Rouen and found his master, who said to him that he had the charge of making a certain preaching for the same Joan, whereat he was much displeased, saying to the same speaker that he would have willed to be in Flanders, and that the matter much displeased him. Then, interrogated of the contents of the said articles, he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he was at the preaching made by the said master of his at Saint-Ouen; but what was said he remembers not, for he stood afar. And he remembers that the popular rumour at the end of the sermon was that the same Joan had revoked herself, and that she had been brought back, whereat many rejoiced; but what she had revoked he knows not. And he says that after the revocation of this kind there was given her a woman’s garment by Masters Pierre Maurice and Nicolas Loyseleur, and so she was brought back into the prison. Yet he heard it said that her male garment was left to her in the prison: which male garment she afterwards resumed; but for what cause or who moved her, he knows not. Yet he knows that, after the resumption of this kind of the habit, the judges were gathered to know what was to be done; but what they concluded he knows not, save by hearsay, it being commonly said that she had been adjudged relapsed because she had resumed the male habit and said that her voices had appeared to her.\nHe says also that he saw the same Joan at the second preaching, at which he who speaks was present; and in the morning, before the preaching of this kind, he saw the body of Christ brought to the same Joan very solemnly, the litany being sung and Orate pro ea said, and with a great multitude of torches; but who deliberated or ordered this he knows nothing. Nor was he who speaks present at the reception, albeit he heard it said afterwards that she had received very devoutly and with a great abundance of tears. And a little after the same Joan was led into the pulpit made ready in the Old Market, and there the preaching was made by Master Nicolas Midi; but what was done in the preaching of this kind he remembers not, for he was far from the preacher.\nHe says also that he did not see her rendered to secular justice; but, a little after the preaching of this kind, he saw her led to the supplice, and there saw her burned. He says nevertheless that she cried aloud Jesus, many times repeated. Nor else does he know.\nThe lord Simon Charles # The noble and learned man the lord Simon Charles, president of our lord the king in his Chamber of Accounts (67), of the age of sixty years or thereabout, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined in the aforesaid year and day.\nAnd first, interrogated what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he knows only the things which follow: to wit that, in the year in which the same Joan came toward the king, he who speaks had been sent by the king in an embassy to Venice, and returned about the month of March; at which time he heard it said by Jean de Metz, who had brought the same Joan to the king, that she was on the way to the king. And the speaker knows that, when the same Joan arrived at the town of Chinon, it was deliberated in the Council whether the king should hear her or not. And first they interrogated her to what end she had come and what she sought. Albeit she would say nothing unless she spoke to the king, she was nevertheless constrained on the king’s part to tell the cause of her mission, and she said that she had two things in mandate on the part of the King of heaven: one to wit to raise the siege\n(63) The bastille of Saint-Loup was indeed established on the site of a convent of women which the Orléanais had demolished in the preceding month of December. (Journal du siège.)\n(64) Read de hahai. Instead of hahu there is hahai in the letter reported, Procès de condamnation, t. I, p. 244.\n(65) Translate contentments, if nevertheless contentis is not a fault.\n(66) The manuscript ND.: Forty-five.\n(67) He was only maître des requêtes in 1429 (according to the dires of the B. H.\nof Orléans; the other to lead the king to Reims for his crowning and consecration. Which heard, certain of the king’s councillors said that the king ought to give no faith to the same Joan; and others that, since she said herself sent by God and that she had certain things to speak with the king, the king at least ought to hear her. Yet the king willed that she should first be examined by clerks and ecclesiastical men; which also was done. And at length, albeit with difficulty, it was appointed that the king should hear her. And when she entered the castle of Chinon to come before the king, still the king, by the counsel of the greater of his court, doubted to speak with her, until it was reported to the same king that Robert de Baudricourt had written to the king that he had sent him a certain woman, and she had been led through the country of the king’s enemies and had as it were miraculously crossed many rivers at the ford, to be brought to the king. And on this account the king was moved to hear her, and audience was given to the same Joan. And when she went toward the king, he drew himself apart from the others; yet the same Joan well knew him and showed him reverence, and she spoke with the king for a long space. And she being heard, the king appeared to be rejoicing. And thence the king, willing to do nothing further unless he had counsel from the ecclesiastical men, sent the same Joan again to the town of Poitiers, that she might there be examined by the clerks of the university of Poitiers; and after the king knew her examined, and that it had been reported to him that naught was found in her save good, the king caused armour to be made for her and delivered men to her; and she had command in the fact of war.\nAnd he who speaks says that the same Joan was very simple in all her doings, except in the fact of war, in which she was most expert. And he who speaks heard from the mouth of the king many good words of the same Joan, and this was at Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire: in which place the king had pity of her and of the pain she bore, and commanded her that she should rest. And then the same Joan said to the king, weeping, that he should not doubt and that he should obtain his whole realm, and that shortly he should be crowned. And he says that she much chid the men-at-arms when she saw them do aught which seemed to her not to be done.\nAnd of the things which were done at Orléans he knows nothing save by hearsay, for he was not present; but one thing he heard said by the lord de Gaucourt, that when she was at Orléans and it had been concluded by the men who had the charge of the king’s people that it seemed not good that any onset or assault should be made, on the day on which the bastille of the Augustins was taken, and the same lord de Gaucourt was commissioned to keep the gates lest any should go out of the gate: yet the same Joan was not content with this; nay she was of opinion that the men-at-arms ought to go out with the people of the town and go to the assault at the said bastille, and of this opinion were many men-at-arms and men of the town; and the same Joan said to the same lord de Gaucourt that he was a bad man, saying to him: Will you, will you not, the men-at-arms shall come and shall prevail as they have otherwise prevailed. And against the will of the same lord de Gaucourt the men-at-arms went out with the men of the town (68), and went to the assault to attack the said bastille of the Augustins, which they took by force and violence. And, as he heard it said by the same lord de Gaucourt, he was in the greatest peril.\nHe says further that the same Joan was with the king as far as the town of Troyes, through which the king willed to pass to go to Reims to have his coronation; and the king being before the aforesaid town of Troyes, and when the men-at-arms saw that they had no victuals, and so were in despair and as it were departing, the same Joan said to the king that he should not doubt of aught and that on the morrow he should obtain the city. And then the same Joan took her banner, and many men on foot followed her, to whom she commanded that each should make faggots to fill the fosses. Who made many, and on the morrow the same Joan cried: To the assault! feigning to cast faggots into the fosses. And the citizens of Troyes seeing this, fearing the assault of this kind, sent to the king to treat of a composition to be had with the king. And the composition was made by the king with the citizens, and the king entered the town of Troyes with great array, the same Joan bearing her banner near the king.\nAnd he says that a little after, the king with his army went out of the town of Troyes and went toward Châlons and thence to Reims; and when the king doubted lest haply he should have resistance at Reims, the same Joan said to the king: Doubt not, for the burgesses of the town of Reims shall come to meet you; and that, before he should draw nigh the city of Reims, the burgesses would surrender themselves. And the king feared the resistance of those of Reims because he had no artillery, in French, nor engines to set a siege, if they should be rebels. For the same Joan said to the king that he should proceed boldly and doubt of nothing, for, if he would proceed manfully, he should obtain his whole realm.\nHe who speaks says moreover that he believes she came from God, for she did the works of God, often confessing and receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist as it were every week. He who speaks says moreover that, when she was in arms and on horseback, she never came down from the horse for the necessities of nature; and all the men-at-arms marvelled how she could stay so long upon the horse. Nor else does he know.\nThe witnesses produced in this cause, and received, sworn and examined by us, Jean, by divine mercy archbishop of Reims, a judge deputed by apostolic authority, in the presence of the venerable and religious man Brother Thomas Verel, professor of sacred theology, of the order of Preaching Friars, vicar and substitute of the lord inquisitor of the faith, and of Gérard Detasalle, priest, public notary, deputed for this by us in the absence of the notaries of the cause, in the town of Paris, in the year of the Lord 1456, on the days contained in the depositions of the same witnesses. And the sayings and depositions and attestations of the same follow in these words:\nThe lord de Termes # And first, the noble and prudent lord Thébaud d’Armagnac, otherwise de Termes, knight, bailiff of Chartres, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, examined upon the contents of the articles produced in this cause, on the seventh day of May.\nAnd first, interrogated of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the same articles: he deposes that he had knowledge of the same Joan only when she departed to the town of Orléans to raise the siege there set by the English: in which town of Orléans, and for its keeping, he who speaks was in the company of the lord of Dunois. And when they knew that the same Joan had come, the said lord count of Dunois, he who speaks and many others crossed the river Loire, and went to seek the same Joan, who was on the side of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc; and they brought the same Joan into the said town of Orléans. After whose coming he who speaks saw her in the assaults made at the bastilles of Saint-Loup and the Augustins, Saint-Jean-le-Blanc and the Bridge; in which assaults the same Joan was so valiant and so bore herself that it would not be possible to any man to do better in the fact of war. And all the captains marvelled at her valour and diligence, and the pains and labours borne by her.\nAnd he believes that she was a good and worthy creature, and that the things she did were more of divinity than of humanity, for she often reprehended the vices of the men-at-arms; and (as he heard the same said by a certain Master Robert Baignart, professor of sacred theology, of the order of Preaching Friars, who had heard her many times in confession) that the same Joan was a woman of God, and that she was sent by God; and that she was of good soul and good conscience.\nHe says also that, after the siege of Orléans raised, he who speaks with many other men-at-arms went in the company of the said Joan to Beaugency, where the English were. And on the day on which the English lost the battle at Patay, he who speaks and the late La Hire, knowing the English to be gathered and ready for battle, said to the same Joan that the English were coming and were in battle array ready for the fight. Who answered, saying to the captains: Strike boldly; they shall take to flight; nor would they stay there long. And then at her word the captains disposed themselves to attack, and straightway the English were turned to flight. And the same Joan had foretold to the French that of her people none or few would be slain, nor would they have loss: which so befell, for of all our men there was slain only a certain nobleman of the speaker’s company.\nHe who speaks says also that he was with our lord the king before the town of Troyes and as far as the town of Reims, in the company of the said Joan.\nAnd of all the deeds done by the same Joan he believes more to be of divinity than of humanity, for, as the speaker says, she confessed most often, received the sacrament of the Eucharist, and was most devout in hearing mass. He says nevertheless that outside the fact of war she was simple and innocent; but in the conduct and disposition of the men-at-arms, and in the fact of war, and in ordering battles and animating the men-at-arms, she so bore herself as if she had been the subtlest captain in the world, who had been taught in war all his days. Nor else does he know.\nThe lord Haimond de Macy # The lord Haimond, lord of Macy, knight, of the age of fifty-six years or thereabout, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined by us, the aforesaid archbishop, in the presence of the same Brother Thomas Verel, in the aforesaid year and day.\nInterrogated of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he first had knowledge of the same Joan because he saw her imprisoned in the Castle of Beaurevoir, for and in the name of the lord count of Ligny; whom he many times saw in the prison and with her many times spoke. And he who speaks many times attempted, playing with her, to touch her breasts, trying to put his hands in her bosom: which nevertheless the same Joan would not suffer, nay repelled him who speaks with all her might. And the same Joan was of honest conversation, as well in words as in bearing.\nHe says also that the same Joan was led to the castle of Crotoy, where there was then detained prisoner a very notable man called Master Nicolas de Queuville, chancellor of the church of Amiens, doctor of both laws, who often celebrated in the same prisons, and whose mass the same Joan most often heard; insomuch that he heard it said afterwards to the same Master Nicolas that he had heard the same Joan in confession, and that the same Joan was a good and most devout christian; and very many good things he said of the same Joan.\nHe who speaks says further that the same Joan was led into the castle of Rouen, into a certain prison toward the fields; and in the same town, during the time in which the same Joan was detained in the same prisons, the same lord count of Ligny came, in whose company was he who speaks. And on a certain day the same lord count of Ligny willed to see the same Joan, and came to her in the company of the lords counts of Warwick and of Stafford (69), the chancellor of England, then bishop of Thérouanne (70), being present, and the brother of the said count of Ligny, and he who speaks; and the same count of Ligny addressed the same Joan, saying these words: Joan, I have come hither to put you to ransom, provided nevertheless that you will promise that you will never arm yourself against us. Who answered: En nom Dé, you mock me, for I well know that you have neither the will nor the power; and those words she said repeated times, for the same lord count persisted in the said words, saying further: Je sçay bien que ces Angloys me feront mourir, believing after my death to win the realm of France; but, if there were a hundred thousand godons (71), in French, more than there are at present, they shall not have the realm. And at these words the count of Stafford was indignant, and drew his dagger as far as the middle to smite her; but the count of Warwick hindered him. And after certain times, he who speaks still being in the town of Rouen, the same Joan was led into the place before Saint-Ouen, where a certain preaching was made which Master Nicolas Midi (72) made, who among other words said, as he who speaks heard: Joan, we have such pity of thee: it behoves that thou revoke those things which thou hast said, or that we deliver thee to secular justice. And she answered that she had done no ill, and that she believed in the twelve articles of the faith and in the ten commandments of the Decalogue; saying further that she referred herself to the Roman Court and willed to believe in all things in which holy Church believed. And notwithstanding these things, she was much pressed to revoke herself; who nevertheless said these words: You take much pains to seduce me; and to avoid the peril she said that she was content to do all things which they willed. And then a certain secretary of the king of England, then present, called Laurent Calot, drew out of his sleeve a certain little written schedule, which he delivered to the same Joan to sign; and she answered that she knew neither to read nor to write. Notwithstanding this the same Laurent Calot, secretary, delivered to the same Joan the said schedule and a pen to sign; and by way of derision the same Joan made a certain round thing. And then the same Laurent Calot took the hand of the same Joan with the pen, and caused to be made by the same Joan a certain sign whereof he who speaks remembers not. And he believes that she is in paradise.\nColeta, wife of Pierre Milet # Coleta, wife of Pierre Milet, clerk of the élus of Paris, of the age of fifty-six years, received, sworn and examined by us, the aforesaid archbishop, in the presence of the said Brother Thomas and the notary, in the year of the Lord 1456, on the eleventh day of the month of May.\nAnd first, interrogated of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause, she who speaks deposes that she first had knowledge of the same Joan when she came to Orléans. And she says that she was lodged in the house of Jacques Bouchier, where she who speaks\n(68) All the manuscripts have for a single word villatenen.\n(69) Humfrey, count of Stafford, constable of France for the king of England.\n(70) Louis de Luxembourg, bishop of Thérouanne.\n(71) A popular expression of the fifteenth century to designate the English; as one said lately the goddem.\n(72) Error of the witness. It is of Guillaume Erard that he means to speak.\nwent to visit the same Joan. Which Joan ever and continually spoke of God, saying: Messire has sent me to succour the good town of Orléans.\nShe says also that she many times saw the same Joan hear mass with the greatest devotion, as a good christian and catholic.\nShe says moreover that the same Joan, at the time when she came to Orléans to raise the siege, slept in the house of her host, called Jacques Le Bouchier, on the vigil of the Ascension of the Lord, and suddenly awakened, called her groom, called Mugot (73), and said to him: En nom Dé, it is ill done. Why was I not sooner awakened? Our people have much to do; and she asked for her arms and caused herself to be armed, and her groom brought her her horse; and she mounted upon the horse armed, holding her lance in her fist; and began to run through the Great Street suchwise that fire issued from the pavement, and went straight as far as Saint-Loup, and caused it to be proclaimed with the sound of a trumpet that none should take anything in the church.\nShe says also and deposes that, on the day on which the fortress or bastille of the Bridge was taken, in the morning, she being in the house of her said host, a certain one brought her a shad; which the same Joan seeing, said to her host: Keep it for me until evening, for this evening I shall bring you a godon, and I shall cross over the bridge.\nShe says further that the same Joan was very sober in food and drink, and bore herself honestly in conversation, gesture and carriage; and she who speaks firmly believes that her deed and her works were the work of God rather than of man.\nNor else does she know, duly interrogated.\nPierre Milet # Pierre Milet, clerk or registrar of the élus of Paris (74), of the age of seventy-two years or thereabout, a witness produced, received and sworn and examined by us, in the presence of the said sub-inquisitor and notary, on the eleventh day of the month of May.\nAnd first, interrogated of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause: he deposes, by means of his oath, that he had knowledge of the same Joan la Pucelle only during the siege set by the English before the town of Orléans, in which town he who speaks with the others was besieged (75). And that time enduring, the same Joan arrived at Orléans, and was lodged in the house of Jacques Bouchier, in which house she demeaned herself justly, holily and soberly and with the greatest honesty, most devoutly heard mass daily, and most often received the sacrament of the Eucharist.\nHe says further that a little after her coming to Orléans she sent to the English holding the siege before the town, and summoned them in writing, and sent a certain schedule very simply made, which he who speaks read, which in effect contained that she notified the English that it was God’s will, saying these words in her tongue: Messire commands you that you go hence into your country; for it is his pleasure, or else I will make you such a hahay — (76)\nOf the taking of the bastille or fortress of Saint-Loup he deposes that she was sleeping in the house of her host, and straightway awaking said that her people had much to do; and caused herself to be armed, and went out of the town, and caused it to be proclaimed that none should take goods in the church.\nAnd he deposes in like manner of the bastille of the Bridge as his wife.\nHe says further that she reprehended those whom she knew to be delinquent, and most of all the men-at-arms when they blasphemed or swore or said any blasphemies. She also drove back the women who were with the men-at-arms, and uttered many threats to them that they should depart from the men-at-arms.\nAnd he firmly believes that her works and deeds were rather of divinity than of humanity. He heard it said also by the lord de Gaucourt and other captains that she was much learned in arms; and each one marvelled at her skill. Nor else does he know.\nMaster Anian Viole # Master Anian Viole, licentiate in laws, advocate in the venerable court of Parliament, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, sworn and examined by us, the archbishop, in the presence of the same sub-inquisitor and notary.\nInterrogated of the contents of the prescribed articles: he deposes that, of the knowledge of the same Joan la Pucelle, he had knowledge only from the time of the siege of Orléans; during which the same Joan arrived at the town of Orléans and was lodged in the house of Jacques Bouchier. And he well remembers that on a certain day, after dinner, on the day on which the fortress of Saint-Loup was taken, she sleeping, suddenly awoke and said: En nom De, our people have right much to do. Bring my arms, and bring the horse. And straightway the horse brought and her arms taken, she went to the fields with the other men-at-arms who were at the fortress of Saint-Loup, and a little after the fortress of this kind was taken and the English vanquished.\nHe says also that, before the taking of the fortress of the Bridge, she had said that that fortress would be taken, and that she would return over the Bridge: which seemed to all impossible, at least very difficult. Nay she had said before that she would be wounded before the said fortress of the Bridge, and so it befell.\nHe says further that, on a certain Sunday after the taking of the said fortresses of the Bridge and of Saint-Loup, the English ordered themselves for battle before the town of Orléans; wherefore many and the greater part of the men-at-arms willed to fight them, and went out of the town, the same Joan being wounded with the men-at-arms, clad in a certain jazerant, and ordered the men-at-arms; yet she forbade them to attack the English, for, as she said, it was the Lord’s pleasure and will that, if they willed to depart, they should suffer them to go. And for that hour the men-at-arms returned to the town of Orléans. And then it was said that she was so expert (77) in the ordering of the men-at-arms for battle as any could be; nay a captain nourished and taught in war could not have done so expertly, whereat the captains were marvellously astonished.\nHe said further, interrogated upon this, that she frequently confessed, most often received the sacrament of the Eucharist, and in all gesture and conversation bore herself most honestly; and in other things, outside the fact of war, she was so simple that it was a marvel. And on this account he believes, the things considered which were done and followed, that she was led by the spirit of God, and that in her was a divine, not a human virtue. Nor else does he know.\nRecollection of the Rouen witnesses # In the year of the Lord 1456, the fourth indiction, in the months and days written below, in the city of Rouen, before the lords the archbishop of Reims and Guillaume, bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, inquisitor of heretical pravity in the realm of France, on the part of the honest persons Isabelle d’Arc, the lord Pierre d’Arc, knight, and Jean d’Arc, brothers, and of the venerable man Master Simon Chapitault, master in arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter in this business: in this cause against and adverse to the reverend father in Christ and lord, the lord bishop of Beauvais and the sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais and the promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, there were produced, received, sworn and examined the witnesses whose names and surnames follow below.\nBrother Pierre Migier # And first, Brother Pierre Migier, professor of sacred theology, prior of the priory of Longueville-Giffard, of the diocese of Rouen, of the Cluniac order, of the age of seventy years, otherwise on the sixteenth day of December in the year 1455 examined as a witness about to swear, and afterwards, on the twelfth day of the month of May next following, recollected; a witness produced, received and examined on the said sixteenth day of December.\nAnd first, upon the contents of the second, third and fourth articles of the articles delivered by the side of the same plaintiffs, interrogated: of the father and mother of Joan he could depose or attest nothing, nor of the same Joan, save from the time when she was brought to the town of Rouen, in which town he saw the same many times, during the process carried on against her. And it seems to him that she answered those interrogating her catholicly and prudently in the things pertaining to the faith, her age and state considered, albeit it seems to him that she persisted too much in the visions which she said she had; and she seemed to him very simple; and that, if she had been in her liberty, he believes she would have been as good a catholic as any other good catholic. And he heard that she had received the body of Christ at the same Joan’s instance. He knows also that, on the day on which she was delivered to secular justice, she began to cry and lament, calling on the name of the Lord Jesus; and so bore herself that very many grieved much; and he who speaks could not look upon her, nay departed, moved by pity even to tears, as also many did, and most of all the lord bishop of Thérouanne, who died cardinal of Thérouanne.\nThen, interrogated of the contents of the fifth and sixth articles, what he knows to depose: he deposes as to the fifth that he was present at the conducting of the process made against the said Joan, or in the greater part, and in the consultations in which he heard that mention was made of certain informations; yet he saw them not nor heard them read.\nAnd as to the sixth, he deposes that, as he believes and as he could perceive from the effects thence following, the English pursued the same Joan with a capital hatred and hated her, and thirsted for her death in every wise, for she had been in aid of the most christian king of France. And, as he heard from a certain English knight, the English feared her more than a hundred men-at-arms; and they said that she used sorcery, fearing her on account of the victories obtained by her; and they decreed that a process should be brought against her, which, as he esteems, the judges began at the motion and under the impressions of the English, since the English ever detained her under their guard and keeping, nor suffered her to be detained in ecclesiastical prisons.\nAnd he who speaks adds that, the first sermon made at Saint-Ouen being finished, when the said Joan had been admonished to revoke herself and she deferred, it was said to Master Pierre Cauchon, bishop of Beauvais, by an English ecclesiastic, that he was a favourer of the same Joan. To whom the said bishop answered: You lie; I ought by my profession to seek the salvation of the soul and body of the same Joan. And he who speaks himself was denounced to the lord Cardinal of England as being a favourer of the same Joan: whereat the speaker excused himself toward the lord Cardinal, fearing peril of body. And he believes that none would have dared to afford her counsel or defence unless it had been granted him. And he believes certain of the judges not to have been wholly free; others however he believes to have been willing; and it seems to him that, the hatred of the English conceived against her considered, the process may deservedly be called unjust, and consequently the sentence unjust; and, as it seems to him, that by the process of this kind they tended to the infamy of the king of France.\nOf the contents of the seventh article he knows nothing save as he deposed above.\nUpon the contents of the ninth article, as to the same Joan’s age, he deposes that he believes her to have been twenty years. And she was so simple that she believed that the English would release her for money, nor did she believe that they tended to her death. As to the prisons, he says that the English put her in private or lay prisons, and kept her with chains, nor did any speak with her; nay she was kept by certain English who suffered none to speak with her. Yet he knows not that she was in iron fetters.\nOf the contents of the tenth he knows nothing.\nUpon the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth he knows nothing save as he deposed above.\nUpon the contents of the fifteenth, he says that he well remembers that the same Joan many times said that of her sayings and deeds she referred herself to our lord the Pope.\nUpon the contents of the seventeenth article, he deposes that he heard from her many times in the process, whilst she was interrogated, that she asserted and protested that she willed to hold nothing against the catholic faith, and that, if in her sayings and deeds there were aught which deviated from the faith, she willed to repel it from herself; and that she expressly professed many times that she submitted herself and all her sayings and deeds to the judgement of the Church and of our lord the Pope.\nOf the contents of the twentieth and twenty-first, the others omitted, he knows nothing, and refers himself to the confession of the said Joan and the articles drawn up, from which it may appear.\nOf the contents of the twenty-second article, he deposes that he heard it said that, during the conducting of the process, there were certain ones hidden behind the curtains, who were said to write certain of the sayings and confessions of the same Joan; but what was done of this, he knows nothing; and this he heard from Master Guillaume Manchon, notary in the process of this kind with two others. Of this also he who speaks complained to the judges, saying that it seemed to him not a good fashion. And whatsoever be of those hidden notaries,\n(73) A corrupted form of the surname of Imerguet which the men-at-arms gave to Louis de Contes. See above, p. 69.\n(74) Clerk or registrar of the élus of Paris.\n(75) Read obsessus.\n(76) The phrase has remained thus unfinished in all the manuscripts.\n(77) For experta.\nhe most truly believes that the notaries who signed the process were faithful, and that they faithfully set down the things which were of the process.\nUpon the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth, he deposes that it is true that two sentences were uttered against her, as is contained in the process, and that she was abandoned to secular justice. Nor does he know that any sentence was uttered by the secular justice; but straightway, the sentence uttered by the bishop and she abandoned, she was taken by the English men-at-arms and led to the supplice with great fury. As to the fact of the abjuration, whereof in the article, he says that it was made by her and was in writing, and lasted as many, or thereabout, as a Pater noster.\nOf the contents of the twenty-sixth, he knows only what he heard said, that a man went to her by night, in the habit of a captive, feigning himself a captive of the part of the king of France, and persuading the same Joan that she should persist in her assertions, and that the English would not dare to inflict any ill upon her; and (as he heard from Guillaume Manchon, another notary) that it was a certain Master Jean Loyseleur who feigned himself captive. Nor does he know aught of the male garments set before her, as mention is made in the article; nor does it seem to him that for the resumption of the male habit she ought to have been adjudged heretic; nay it seems to him that he who on that sole occasion adjudged her heretic, ought to be punished with the penalty of retaliation.\nOf the contents of the twenty-seventh he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, thirtieth, thirty-first, thirty-second and thirty-third, beyond what he deposed, he says that many of those present in the process were right wroth and reputed the execution very rigorous and ill done; and it was the common voice that she was ill judged.\nThe same witness says also that otherwise in a certain ancient book, where the prophecy (78) of Merlin was recited, he found written that there was to come a certain maid out of a certain hoar-wood, from the parts of Lorraine.\nAnd of all and singular the articles read and expounded to him, and of their contents, he could depose nothing else save as he deposed above. Nor else does he know.\nThe lord Guillaume Manchon # The lord Guillaume Manchon, priest, notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen and curate of the parish church of Saint-Nicolas of Rouen, of the age of sixty years or thereabout, as he says; otherwise, on the seventeenth day of December in the year of the Lord 1455, at the instance of the procurator of the said plaintiffs, produced by the lords the archbishop of Reims and the bishop of Paris and Brother Jean Bréhal as a witness about to swear and of ancient memory, and again on Wednesday, the twelfth day of the month of May, produced, received and examined upon the articles of the same plaintiffs (79). And first, interrogated of the contents of the second, third and fourth articles of the same articles: he deposes that, of the knowledge of the father and mother and kinsfolk of the same Joan, he had no knowledge. And of the same Joan he had knowledge when she was brought to the town of Rouen; and, as it was said, she was taken in the diocese of Beauvais; on which occasion the lord Pierre Cauchon, then bishop of Beauvais, pretended himself to be judge, and with all his might procured that she should be rendered to him, writing to the king of England and the duke of Burgundy, from whom finally he obtained her; by means nevertheless of the sum of a thousand pounds or écus and three hundred pounds of annual revenue, which (80) the king of England delivered to a certain man of arms of the duke of Burgundy who had taken the same Joan. And at length the process in the matter of faith was begun against the aforesaid Joan, in the conducting of which he who speaks was assumed as notary, with a certain Guillaume Boisguillaume; and on this account he had knowledge of the same Joan. Who, as it seemed to him, was very simple, albeit sometimes she answered very prudently, and at whiles simply enough, as may be seen in the process.\nAnd he believes that, in so difficult a cause, she was not of herself sufficient to defend herself against so many doctors, unless she had been inspired.\nAnd the process produced by him being exhibited to him, in force of a citation, which he asserted to be the true process made in the conducting of the cause, he recognised that the same had been signed by him and his fellows, and, as he says, contained the truth, and that he made it with two others, of whom one was given to the lord Inquisitor, another to the king of England and another to the lord bishop of Beauvais. And the said processes were made upon a certain minute in French, which also, as he said, he delivered to the lords judges, which is written in his own proper hand. Which processes were afterwards reduced from French into Latin by Master Thomas de Courcelles and the speaker, in the form in which they now stand, as best and according to the truth could be done, long after the death and execution made of the same Joan. He says nevertheless that the same Master Thomas did as it were nothing in the fact of the process, of the libel (81) and the rest, nor did he much interpose himself in this.\nThe same witness being interrogated, and the process made in French being shown to him, in which there are in the head of certain articles many Nota, what those Nota serve: he answered that at the first interrogations made to Joan there was made the greatest tumult, on the first day of her interrogation, in the chapel of the castle of Rouen, and as it were each word of the same Joan was interrupted when she spoke of her apparitions, for there were there certain secretaries of the king of England, two or three, who registered as they willed the sayings and depositions of the same Joan, omitting the excuses of the same and the things which made to her discharge. And he who speaks then complained of this, saying that, unless another order were set, he would not undertake the charge of writing in the same matter; and on this account on the morrow the place was changed, and they came together in a certain hall of the castle being near the great hall; and there were two English keeping the door. And since sometimes there was a difficulty upon the answers of the same Joan and her sayings, and that certain ones said that she had not so answered as was written by the speaker, where it seemed difficult to them, he put Nota in the head, that she might be again interrogated and the difficulty cease. And this is what those Nota set in the head denote.\nAnd whether the same Joan lived catholicly, he knows naught else save that often, during the process, he heard her asking to hear mass, to wit on the Sundays of Palm Sunday and Easter, asking on the same day of Easter to confess and receive the lordly body; and yet it was not suffered that she should confess save to a certain Master Nicolas Loyseleur; and she much complained that it was denied her.\nOf the contents of the fifth and sixth, he deposes that, albeit it is contained in the process that the judges said they had caused informations to be made, and yet he remembers not to have seen or read them, he knows nevertheless that, if they had been produced, he would have inserted them into the process. And whether the judges proceeded out of hatred or otherwise, he refers himself to their conscience. Yet he knows and firmly believes that, if she had been of the parts of England, they would not so have treated her, nor made such a process against her. For she was brought to the town of Rouen and not to Paris, for, as he believes, the king of England was in the town of Rouen, and the principals of his council; and she was set in the prisons of the castle of Rouen. And he who speaks in this matter was constrained to be present as notary, and this he did unwillingly, for he would not have dared to contradict the precept of the lords of the king’s Council. And the English pursued the process of this kind, and it was conducted at their expense. Yet he believes the bishop of Beauvais not to have been pressed to conduct the process against the said Joan, nor also the promoter; nay they did this willingly. Of the assessors and other councillors, he believes that they would not have dared to contradict or to refuse to come, nor was there any who did not fear; for in the beginning of the process a certain congregation was made, in which were the lord bishop of Beauvais, the abbot of Fécamp, Master Nicolas Loyseleur, and many others, in a certain house near the castle, who sent for the speaker (82); and the bishop said to the same speaker that he must serve the king, and that they intended to make a fair process against the said Joan, and that he should advise of another notary who should assist him; and then he named Boisguillaume. And he who speaks said that many times before the beginning of the process of this kind, and during it, the same Joan oftener required that she should be led to the episcopal or spiritual prisons; yet they heard her not as to this, nor yielded to her request, for, as he says, he believes that the English would not have delivered her to them, and that the bishop would not have willed her to be set outside the castle.\nHe says also that no councillors would have dared to speak of this, since each one feared to displease the same bishop and the English; for at that time when the process was made, the late Master Jean Lohier arrived at the town of Rouen. Who, sent for by the lord of Beauvais and required to say his opinion upon the process of the same Joan, certain answers made to the same bishop which he knows not, for he was not present, on the morrow he met the same Lohier in the church and inquired of him whether he had seen the process. Which Lohier answered that he had seen it and that the process was null and could not be sustained, for they made the said process in the Castle and in a place not safe for the judges and councillors and practisers; because also the process touched many who had not been summoned, and likewise because she had no counsel, with many other reasons. And finally the same Lohier said to the same speaker that he should await no longer in this city of Rouen and that he would depart; and that, as it seemed to him, they were of intention to make her die. And he departed, and he who speaks is certain that from that day he would not have dared to remain in the same town and in the obedience of the English. And two days or thereabout afterwards passed, the same lord bishop, interrogated by the doctors and councillors whether he had spoken with the said Lohier, answered that yes, and that the said Lohier had willed to put their process in interlocutory and to impugn it, and that he would do nothing for him.\nHe says also that when a certain Master Jean de Fonte, who had been sent to make certain interrogatories to the same Joan, in the place of the lord bishop of Beauvais, and for this in the holy week, with two religious brothers of the order of Preaching Friars, to wit Ysambert de la Pierre and Martin Ladvenu, had come to the same Joan to induce her to submit herself to the Church: this brought to the notice of the lord of Warwick and the lord bishop of Beauvais, they were ill content, and for fear the said de Fonte departed from this city nor returned more, and the other two brothers were in great peril.\nHe says also that a certain Master Nicolas de Houppeville was summoned to be present at the process, and because he refused, he was in great peril. He says also that Master Jean Le Maistre, sub-inquisitor, so far as he could, deferred to be present at the process of this kind, and it much displeased him to be present.\nHe says also that once Jean de Châtillon, whilst the interrogatories were made to the same Joan, and he in some wise favoured the same Joan, saying that perchance she was not bound to answer, or aught else whereof he precisely remembers not: yet these things pleased not the lord bishop of Beauvais and certain others affected to the cause, and of which words there was a great tumult, and then the same bishop said to the same de Châtillon that he should hold his peace and suffer the judges to speak.\nHe says also that he well remembers that to another speaking to the same Joan and in some wise directing and admonishing her in the fact of the submission to the Church, the same bishop said in a certain session: Hold your peace, in the devil’s name! Yet he remembers not the name of him to whom it was said.\nHe says also that on a certain occasion, when some one, of whose name he remembers not, said something of the same Joan which pleased not the lord de Stafford, the same lord de Stafford so pursued the same speaker as far as a certain place of immunity with a drawn sword, so far that, unless it had been said to the same de Stafford that the place in which that man was, was a sacred place and of immunity, he would have smitten him who speaks.\nHe says also, interrogated upon this, that those who seemed to him affected to the cause were Beaupère, Midi and de Touraine.\nInterrogated what he knows to depose of the contents of the seventh and eighth articles: he deposes that he knows nothing save as he deposed above.\nItem, interrogated upon the contents of the ninth article: he answers that of the contents of the same he knows that, on a certain occasion the bishop of Beauvais, the count of Warwick and the same witness who speaks entered the prison in which the same Joan was, and there found her in iron fetters; and, as he then heard, it was said that by night she was bound with a certain iron chain about the body, albeit he did not see her so bound. Yet there was in the same prison no bed or any couch; but there were there four keepers or five miserable men. Item, interrogated of the contents of the tenth article: he answers that he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth, he deposes that, after he who speaks and Boisguillaume were assumed as notaries to make the process of the said Joan, the lord de Warwick, the bishop of Beauvais and Master Nicolas Loyseleur said to the speaker and his said fellow notary that she spoke marvellously of her apparitions, and that, to know the truth more fully from her, they had advised that the same Master Nicolas should feign himself to be of the parts of Lorraine, of which the same Joan was, and of the obedience of the king of France, and should enter the prison in a short habit (83), and that the keepers should withdraw and they should be alone in the prison. And there was in a certain chamber adjoining the same prison a certain hole specially made for this cause, in which they ordered him who speaks and his fellow to be present, to hear the things which should be said by the same Joan; and there were he who speaks and the count, who could not be seen by the same Joan. Which Joan the same Loyseleur then began to interrogate, feigning certain news of the king’s state and his revelations; to whom the same Joan answered, believing him\n(78) Or prophetia?\n(79) Articulorum in the manuscripts.\n(80) The manuscripts, Qui.\n(81) There is in the manuscripts libello.\n(82) Unless perhaps ipsum loquentem.\n(83) In a short habit, that is to say, of a layman.\nto be of his country and of the king’s obedience. And when the bishop and the count had said to the same speaker and his fellow that they should register the answers aforesaid, he who speaks answered that he ought not to do this, and that it was not honest to begin a process in such fashion, and that if she should say such things in form of judgement, they would willingly register them. And he says that ever after, the same Joan had great confidence with the said Loyseleur, so that he many times heard her in confession after the said feignings, nor was the same Joan commonly led to judgement unless the same Loyseleur had first spoken with her.\nHe says moreover that, during the process, she was wearied with many and divers interrogations; and as it were daily interrogatories were made to her in the morning, in which they persisted for about three or four hours; and sometimes out of the sayings of the same Joan they drew certain difficult and subtle interrogations, whereof after dinner they again interrogated her for two or three hours. And many times there was made a passage from one interrogatory to another, changing the purpose; and, notwithstanding the passage of this kind, she answered prudently, and had the greatest memory, for most often she said: I have otherwise answered you of this, saying: I refer me to the clerk, meaning him who speaks.\nUpon the contents of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth he knows nothing, and of this refers himself to his process.\nUpon the contents of the twentieth and twenty-first, otherwise interrogated, when the promoter constituted in the cause had delivered seventy (84) articles against the same Joan, and yet in the end of the process the articles are only reduced to twelve, who made the other articles, and why the promoter’s articles were not put into the instrument of the sentence, since it was his petition which is among those articles, and the twelve articles (85) were put: he deposes that, long before the articles contained in the process were made, she had been many times interrogated and had made many answers, upon which interrogatories and answers those articles were made, by the counsel of the assistants, which the promoter delivered, that the matters, which were diffuse, might be taken in order; and afterwards upon all she was interrogated, and it was concluded by the councillors, and most of all by those who had come from Paris, that as the custom was, out of all the articles and answers there ought to be made certain little articles and the principal points collected, to gather the matter briefly, that the deliberations might be made better and more speedily. And for this the twelve articles were made; but he who speaks in no wise made the same articles, nor knows who composed or extracted them.\nItem, interrogated how this could be done, that so great a multitude of articles and answers should be reduced into twelve articles, most of all in a form so distant from the confessions of the said Joan, since it is not likely that such men would have willed to compose such articles: he says that he believes that in the principal process made in French he inserted the truth of the interrogatories and articles delivered by the promoter and the judges, and of the answers of the said Joan; but of the same twelve articles he refers himself to the composers, whom he would not have dared to contradict, neither he nor his fellow.\nInterrogated, when those twelve articles were brought forward, whether he made a collation of the same articles with the answers of the same Joan, to see whether they were consonant with the same answers: he says that he remembers not.\nAnd the articles of this kind being read and shown to him, and a patent difference evidently perceived; a certain little note written in his hand being also shown to the same speaker, as he who speaks asserted; Guillaume Colles, otherwise Boisguillaume, and Nicolas Taquel, notaries in the process of this kind, being also commanded to recognise the little note of this kind, of the date of the fourth day of April, in the year of the Lord 1431; in which little note in French, contained in the process, it is expressly held that the twelve articles of this kind were not well drawn up, but were, at least in part, foreign to the confessions, and on this account were to come to be corrected; and corrections seem to have been there added and certain things taken away; yet they were not corrected according to the little note of this kind:\nTherefore the same three notaries being interrogated why they were not corrected; and by whom it stood; and how they inserted them into the process and sentence without correction; and how they were sent to the deliberating parties, whether with correction or without correction: he who speaks and the other two notaries answered that the same little note is written in the hand of the same Manchon; but who made the twelve articles of this kind, they know nothing. They say nevertheless that then it was said that it was the custom that such articles ought to be made and drawn from the confessions of the accused in the matter of heresy, and as the masters and doctors in theology had been wont to do at Paris in the matter of faith. Item, that they believe that, of the correction of the articles of this kind to be made, it was so appointed as appears in the said little note shown and recognised by them; but whether the correction of this kind was added in the articles sent as well to Paris as elsewhere to those giving opinion, they know not. Yet they believe not, for it appears to them by a certain other little note written in the hand of Master Guillaume d’Estivet, promoter in this cause, that they were transmitted on the morrow by the same d’Estivet without correction. And of the rest he refers himself to the process.\nItem, the same Manchon interrogated whether he believes those articles to have been composed into truth, and whether there is a great difference between the same articles and the answers of the same Joan: he says that those things which are in his process are true. Of the articles he refers himself to the composers, for he made them not.\nItem, interrogated whether the deliberations were made upon the whole process, or upon those twelve articles: he answers that he believes the deliberations were not made upon the whole process, since it was not yet put in form, for it was reduced into the form in which it is after the death of the same Joan; but deliberations were given upon the twelve articles of this kind.\nInterrogated whether those twelve articles were read to the same Joan: he answers no.\nInterrogated whether he ever perceived the difference between those articles and the confessions of the same Joan: he says that he remembers not, for they who exhibited them said that it was the custom to draw out such articles; and he who speaks did not advert to this, and also would not have dared to rebuke so great men.\nItem, the instrument of the sentence (86) being shown to him, signed in his hand and that of the other notaries, in which the articles of this kind were inserted; interrogated whether he signed it, and why he inserted into the same the twelve articles of this kind and not the petition of the promoter: he answers that he signed the instrument of this kind as also his fellows; and of the narrations in the sentence he refers himself to the narration of the judges; but of the articles he says that it so pleased the judges to do, who willed this.\nUpon the contents of the twenty-second article, he deposes that in the beginning of the process, whilst the same Joan was interrogated, there were certain notaries hidden in a certain window, with cloths between, that they might not be seen; and he believes that Master Nicolas Loyseleur was hidden with the same, who looked upon the things which the same notaries wrote; and the same notaries wrote the things which they willed, the excuses of the same Joan omitted. And he who speaks was at the feet of the judges with Guillaume Colles and the clerk of Master Guillaume Beaupère (87), who wrote; but in their writings there was a great difference, so far that among them there was a great contention; and on this account, as he said above, in those things in which he doubted (88), he made a Nota, that the same Joan might afterwards be interrogated.\nUpon the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth, he deposes that, the process completed, deliberations were sought and collation was made of them; and it was concluded that there should be a preaching; and she was set on a certain little scaffold, Master Nicolas Loyseleur assisting her for counsel, who said to her: Joan, believe me, for if you will, you shall be saved. Take your habit, and do all things which shall be ordered you; else you are in peril of death. And if you do those things which I say to you, you shall be saved, and shall have much good and shall not have ill; but you shall be delivered to the Church. And she was then led upon the scaffold or pulpit; and two sentences were composed, one of abjuration and the other of condemnation, which the bishop had with him. And when the same bishop uttered and read the sentence of condemnation at the end of the condemnation, the same Master Nicolas Loyseleur said to Joan that she should do that which he had said to her, and that she should take the female habit. And because then there was a little interval, an Englishman who stood by there said to the bishop that he was a traitor: to whom the bishop answered that he lied. And these things intervening, the same Joan answered that she was ready to obey the Church; and then they caused her to say the abjuration of this kind, which was read to her; but he knows not whether she spoke after the reader, or whether after it was read she said that she so said. But he says that she smiled. He says also that the executioner with the cart was in the street, awaiting that she should be given to be burned. He says also that he did not see that letter of abjuration made; but it was made after the conclusion of the opinions and before they came to that place; nor does he remember that the same schedule of abjuration was ever expounded to the same Joan, or given to be understood, or read, save in that instant when she made the abjuration of this kind. And that first preaching, sentence and abjuration were made on the Thursday after the feast of Pentecost; in which sentence she was condemned to perpetual prisons.\nInterrogated what moved the judges to condemn her to perpetual prisons, seeing that they had promised her that she should have no ill: he says that he believes this befell on account of the diversity of the obediences; and they feared lest she should escape. And whether they judged well or not, the speaker refers himself to the right and the consciences of the judges.\nThen, interrogated of the contents of the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh articles: he deposes that, during the process, he who speaks heard that the same Joan complained to the said bishop and the count of Warwick, when she was interrogated why she did not clothe herself in a woman’s garments, and that it was not becoming to a woman to have a man’s tunic, and hose tied with many thongs strongly bound: saying that she durst not put off the said hose, nor keep them unless they were strongly bound, for, as she said (89), the said bishop and count well knew that her keepers had many times attempted to violate her; and once, when she cried, the same count came at the cry and to her aid, so that unless he had come, the said keepers would have violated her; and of this she complained.\nOf the contents of the other articles consisting in fact, beyond the things he deposed, he who speaks says that, on the Sunday on the following feast of the Holy Trinity, when he who speaks and the other notaries were sent for by the bishop and the count of Warwick to come to the castle of Rouen, because it was said that the same Joan was relapsed and had resumed the male habit: they so sent for came into the said castle, and they being in the court of the said castle, the English being there to the number of fifty or thereabout, with arms, made an assault upon the speaker and his fellows, saying to them that they were traitors and that they had borne themselves ill in the process. And with the greatest difficulty and fear they could escape their hands; and he believes they were wroth because at the first preaching and sentence she had not been burned. And he says further that on the Monday, sent for by the same bishop and count, he went to that castle into which he would not have dared to enter for the fear otherwise put to him and his fellows, unless he had had security from the said count of Warwick; who conducted him who speaks as far as the place of the prison; and there he found the judges in the place of the prison, and certain others in small number. And in the presence of him who speaks she was interrogated for what cause she had resumed the male habit of this kind. Who answered that she had done this for the defence of her modesty, for she was not safe in the female habit with her keepers, who had willed to make attempt upon her modesty, and whereof she had many times complained to the same bishop and count; and that the same judges had promised her that she should be in the hands and prisons of the Church, and that she should have a woman with her; saying further that, if it pleased the same lords judges to put her in a safe place, in which she should not fear, she was ready to receive the woman’s habit, as the speaker says is contained in the process. And of the other things which were said to be abjured by her, she said she understood nothing of the contents of the same abjuration. And whatsoever she had done, this had been for fear of the fire, seeing the executioner ready with the cart. And he who speaks says further that afterwards the same lords judges with the councillors deliberated upon this, insomuch that on the Wednesday next following the same bishop pronounced another sentence, as is more largely contained in the process.\nInterrogated whether the sacrament of the Eucharist was administered to the same Joan: he answers that yes, on the said Wednesday, in the morning, before the sentence of this kind was borne against her.\nInterrogated moreover how they delivered to her the sacrament of the Eucharist, seeing that they had declared her excommunicate and heretic, and whether they absolved her in the form of the Church: he says that upon this it was deliberated by the judges and councillors whether to her asking the sacrament of the Eucharist ought to be given, and that she should be absolved in the penitential forum; yet he did not see any other absolution exhibited to her.\nHe says moreover that, after the sentence uttered by the bishop, by which she was delivered and abandoned to secular justice, the bailiff said only, without other process or sentence: Take her, take her. Which heard, the same Joan made such pious lamentations that as it were all were moved\n(84) The manuscripts read lxxvii; but there are only 70. See t. I, p. 322.\n(85) There is a transposition in the texts: Since it was his petition and the twelve articles were put, which is among those articles.\n(86) This piece will be found reported below.\n(87) Jean Monnet, who deposed above, p. 62.\n(88) So; read rather dubitabat.\n(89) The manuscripts give dicebant.\nto weeping, and also the judges.\nAnd the speaker says that he was so moved that for a month he remained terrified. And he who speaks knows that her issue and end was, as appeared to all, very catholic; nor did she ever will to revoke her revelations, but stood in the same until the end.\nHe says also that of the moneys which he had for his pains and labours in being employed in the said process, he bought a missal, that he might have memory of her and pray God for her.\nNor else does he know, and further refers himself to the contents of the process, and to the things he otherwise deposed before Master Philippe de la Rose, treasurer of Rouen, commissioned and deputed by the lord cardinal d’Estouteville (90), legate in France; and which deposition was read to him, in which he fully persists.\nThe lord Jean Massieu # The lord Jean Massieu, priest, curate of the parish church of Saint-Cande-le-Vieux (91) of Rouen, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, otherwise as the preceding witness, on the seventeenth day of the month of December, as a witness about to swear, cited, sworn and examined, and afterwards on the twelfth day of the month of May, upon the articles of the same plaintiffs again sworn and examined.\nAnd first, interrogated what he knows to depose or attest upon the contents of the articles written below, others being omitted for their prolixity and others by consent of the producers; to wit upon the contents of the second, third and fourth articles of the same plaintiffs and complainants: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he knows only the things which follow. To wit that, of the father and mother, kinsfolk, life and conversation of the same Joan, before the time of the process begun against the same Joan, he could depose nothing save by hearsay of the same Joan, who was interrogated upon these during the said process carried on against her; nor had he any knowledge of her save from the time when she was brought to the town of Rouen, in which she was detained in the prisons of the castle of Rouen, that against her a certain process might be made afterwards made, and in which process he who speaks, who was then dean of the christianity of Rouen, was the executor of the mandates against the same Joan. He had also the charge of convoking the councillors, and of leading and leading back the said Joan before the judges; whom he many times led and led back from the prison to the judgement, and executed many mandates against the same, calling her to judgement; and for this cause he had great familiarity with her. And, in his sight, she was a good, simple and devout girl; for it befell once, whilst he led her before the judges, that she asked the speaker whether there was in his way any chapel, or any church, in which was the body of Christ; and to whom he who speaks said yes, showing her a certain chapel being within the castle, in which was the body of Christ. Then the same most instantly asked him that he would lead her past before the chapel, that she might there salute God and pray; which he who speaks willingly did, and suffered the same Joan to pray before that chapel on bended knees; who there on bended knees very devoutly made her prayer. Whereat nevertheless the lord bishop of Beauvais was ill content, and forbade the same speaker that he should no more suffer her so to pray. Of her conversation otherwise he could depose nothing.\nItem, interrogated upon the contents of the fifth and sixth articles, he deposes that he knows not whether they made any information against her, for he never saw any. Yet he knows that very many had great hatred against her, and most of all the English, who much feared her, for before her capture they would not have dared to appear in a place in which they had believed her to be. And he heard it then said that all the things which the bishop of Beauvais did were at the instigation of the king of England and his council, then being at Rouen; and he believes that the same bishop did not act moved by zeal of justice, but at the will of the same English, who were then in great number in the town of Rouen, in which was then the king of England. And among the councillors there was then a murmur that the same Joan was in the hands of the English. For certain councillors said that the same Joan ought to be in the hands of the Church; yet the same bishop cared not, but left her in the hands of the English. For the same bishop was much affected to the party of the English; for also many of the councillors much feared and were not in their free will, for Master Nicolas de Houppeville, who, seeing the fashion of this kind, willed not to be present in the councils, was banished with many others of whose names he remembers not.\nHe says also that Master Jean Fabri, of the order of the Hermit Friars of Saint Augustine, now bishop of Demetriade, seeing the same Joan most greatly wearied upon that which was inquired of her whether she were in a state of grace, and, albeit she had made answers competent in his sight, yet upon this the interrogators much infested her: said that she was too much vexed. Then the interrogators said to him that he should hold his peace; yet he knows not nor remembers who they were. Yet he knows that the abbot of Fécamp, in his sight, proceeded in that matter rather out of hatred of the same Joan and favour of the English, than by zeal of justice. He says moreover that, when Master Jean de Châtillon, then archdeacon of Évreux, said to the same bishop and assistants that the process, in the manner in which it was made, seemed to him to be null; but for what cause he remembers not: it was forbidden to the same speaker, who, as is premised, convoked the assistants and councillors, that he should no more convoke the same de Châtillon in the process of this kind; nor from that hour did the same de Châtillon take part.\nHe says also likewise that Master Jean de Fonte was commissioned for certain days to interrogate her; and who was present at the same process, absented himself, for he had said certain things which in the said process seemed to him not to be done. He knows also that Master Jean Le Maistre, the inquisitor inserted into the process, many times refused to be present at the process of this kind, and did his best that he should not be present at the process; but by certain ones known to him it was said to him that unless he were present, he would be in peril of death; and this he did constrained by the English, as he many times heard from the said Le Maistre, who said to him: I see that, unless the matter of this kind be proceeded in to the will of the English, death menaces. And he who speaks himself was in great peril, because, in conducting and re-conducting the same Joan, he who speaks had met a certain Englishman, chanter of the chapel of the king of England, called Anquetil, which Englishman indeed interrogated the speaker what seemed to him of the same Joan. And when he who speaks had answered that in her he knew naught save good, and that she seemed to him a good woman: the same chanter reported this to the count of Warwick, who was ill content with the speaker, and for this had much to do; but nevertheless by excusing himself he escaped.\nThen, interrogated what he knows to attest or depose of the contents of the seventh article: he says and deposes, beyond the things he deposed, that he remembers that, on a certain day during the process and about its beginning, the same Joan said to the bishop of Beauvais that he was her adversary; and then the said bishop answered: The king has ordered that I make your process, and I shall make it.\nItem, interrogated what he knows to attest or depose upon the contents of the eighth and ninth articles: he deposes that, of the prison, he knows verily that the same Joan was in the castle of Rouen, in a certain middle chamber, into which one ascended by eight steps; and there was there a bed in which she lay; and there was there a certain great beam in which was a certain iron chain, with which the same Joan being in iron fetters was bound, and it was closed with a padlock set upon the same beam. And she had five English of the most miserable state, in French houcepailliers, who kept her, and much desired the death of the same Joan, and most often mocked her; and she reproved the same for such things.\nHe says also that he heard from Étienne Castille, a smith, that he had constructed for the same a certain cage of iron, in which she was detained upright, and bound by the neck, hands and feet; and that she had been in the same state from the time when she had been brought to the town of Rouen, until the beginning of the process carried on against her. Yet he did not see her in the same state, for, when he led and re-conducted her, she was ever outside the fetters.\nItem, interrogated what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the tenth article: he says and deposes that he well knows that she was visited whether she were a virgin or not by matrons or midwives, and this by the order of the duchess of Bedford, and signally by Anne Bavon and another matron of whose name he remembers not. And after the visitation they reported that she was a virgin and whole, and he heard the same reported by the same Anne; and on this account the same duchess of Bedford caused it to be forbidden to the keepers and others lest they should bring her any violence.\nThen, interrogated of the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth articles: he says and deposes that, whilst the same Joan was interrogated, there were six assistants with the judges who interrogated her, and sometimes, when one interrogated and she answered the question, another interrupted her answer, so that she many times said to the same interrogators in these words: Beaux seigneurs, one after another.\nOf the contents of the fifteenth and sixteenth articles he knows nothing save as he deposed above.\nOf the contents of the seventeenth, he deposes that he heard from the same Joan that it was asked whether she willed to submit herself to the Church triumphant or militant: who answered that she willed to submit herself to the ordinance of the Pope. And he says that it was vulgarly said that a certain Master Nicolas Aucupis feigned himself a prisoner, and entered the prison with her, and that by this means he induced her to say and do certain things contrary to the same Joan, touching the said submission.\nItem, interrogated upon the contents of the twentieth and twenty-first articles: he says that of those articles he knows nothing, nor who expounded them.\nThen, interrogated what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth articles: he deposes that of the contents of the same, as to the abjuration whereof mention is made in the articles, that when the preaching was made by Master Nicolas Erardi at Saint-Ouen, the same Erardi held a certain schedule of abjuration, and said to Joan: Thou shalt abjure and sign that schedule. And then that schedule was delivered to the speaker to read, and the speaker read it before the same Joan. And he is well mindful that in the same schedule it was provided that thereafter she should not bear arms, the male habit, or shaven hair, and many other things whereof he remembers not. And he well knows that that schedule contained about eight lines, and no more; and he knows firmly that it was not that whereof mention is made in the process, for he who speaks read another than that which is inserted in the process, and the same Joan signed it.\nFurther he says that, whilst the same Joan was required to sign the said schedule, a great murmur arose among those present, so far that he heard that the bishop said to a certain one: You shall make me amends, asserting that injury had been done him, and that he would not proceed further until amends had been made him. And meanwhile he who speaks warned the same Joan of the peril menacing her, upon the signature of the said schedule; and the speaker well saw that the same Joan understood not the said schedule, nor the peril which menaced her. And then the same Joan, oppressed that she should sign the said schedule, answered: Let the same schedule be seen by the clerks and the Church, in whose hands I ought to be put; and if they give me counsel that I should sign it and do the things which are said to me, I shall willingly do it. Then the same Master Guillaume Erardi said: Do it now, else thou shalt end thy days by fire today. And then the same Joan answered that she had liefer sign than be burned; and at that hour there was a great tumult of the peoples standing by, and many stones were cast; but by whom he knows not. And that schedule signed, the same Joan inquired of the promoter whether she should not be put in the hands of the Church, and into what place she should go back. Then the promoter answered her that into the castle of Rouen, into which she was led, clad in a woman’s garments.\nFurther interrogated of the contents of the twenty-sixth article, he deposes that on the day of the Holy Trinity, when the same Joan was accused of relapse, she answered that, she lying in the bed, her keepers removed the woman’s garments from the bed in which she lay and set her male garment there; and, albeit she had required the same keepers that they should restore to her the female habit, that she might rise from the bed, intending to purge her belly, they refused to deliver it to her, saying to her that she should have none other than the said male habit. And when she had further said that the keepers well knew that the judges had forbidden her lest she should be clad in that garment, none the less they refused to deliver to her the female habit which they had taken away; and at length, constrained by natural necessity, she had assumed the same male habit, nor could she have any other habit from the same keepers all that day, so that she was seen by many in that male habit, and for this adjudged relapsed; for on that day of the Holy Trinity many were sent for that they might see her in that state, to whom she said the excuses of this kind; and among whom he saw Master André Marguerie, who was in great peril for, when he said: It is good to inquire of her for what cause she resumed the male habit, then an Englishman raised a certain spear which he held, and willed to smite the same Master André. And then the same Master André and very many fled terrified.\nThen, interrogated of the contents of the other articles, he deposes that of the abjuration he knows naught else save the things he deposed above. Of the sentence and death of the same Joan he knows the things which follow: to wit that, on the Wednesday morning, on which day the same Joan died, Brother Martin Ladvenu heard the same Joan in confession, and, the confession of the same Joan heard, the same Brother Martin Ladvenu sent him who speaks to the lord of Beauvais, to notify him how she had been heard in confession, and that she asked that the sacrament of the Eucharist be delivered to her. Which bishop gathered certain ones upon this; by whose deliberation the same bishop said to the same speaker that he should tell Brother Martin that he should deliver to her the sacrament of the Eucharist, and all things whatsoever she should ask. And then he who speaks returned to the castle and reported this to the said Brother Martin. Which Brother Martin indeed delivered to her in the speaker’s presence\n(90) See this deposition at chapter v of the Procès, t. II, p. 339.\n(91) Saint-Cande-le-Vieux, a church of Rouen today destroyed.\nthe sacrament of the Eucharist. And this done, she was brought in the woman’s habit, and was led by the said speaker and Brother Martin as far as the place where the same Joan was burned. In which way the same Joan made such pious lamentations that he who speaks and Brother Martin could not contain themselves from tears. For she commended her soul so devoutly to God and the Saints that she provoked the hearers to tears. And she was brought into the Old Market, where was Master Nicolas Midi, who was to make the preaching. Which preaching made, the same Midi said to the same Joan: Joan, go in peace; the Church can no more defend thee, and delivers thee into the secular hand. Which things heard, the same Joan, on bended knees, made her prayers to God most devoutly, and asked the same speaker that he should have a cross; and then a certain Englishman being there made a certain little cross of a stick, which she kissed and put in her bosom with the greatest devotion.\nYet she willed still to have the cross of the church, and she had it, and embracing it and weeping kissed it, commending herself also to God, blessed Michael, blessed Catherine and all the saints; and in the end she embraced the same cross, saluting the bystanders. And she came down from the pulpit, the said Brother Martin accompanying her as far as the place of the supplice, where she ended her life very devoutly.\nHe heard also then said by Jean Fleury, clerk and registrar of the bailiff, that the executioner had reported that, the body burned by the fire and reduced to powder, the heart remained whole and full of blood. And it was said to him that he should gather the ashes and whatsoever remained of her and cast them into the Seine; which also he did. Nor else does he know.\nThe lord Guillaume Colles # The lord Guillaume Colles, otherwise Boisguillaume, priest, public notary, of the age of sixty-six (92) years or thereabout, otherwise cited, sworn and examined on the eighteenth day of the month of December, and thence examined and recollected upon the articles in the process of this kind, on the twelfth day of the month of May.\nAnd first, interrogated upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he deposes that he had no knowledge of the said Joan, save when she was brought to the said town of Rouen for the process to be made against her, in which process he who speaks was the second notary.\nAnd the process of this kind being shown to him, he recognised his sign being at the end of the said process, and that that is the true process made against the same Joan; and there were made, as he says, five like processes of which that exhibited is one. There were also, as he says, fellow notaries in the process of this kind the lord Guillaume Manchon and the lord Pierre Tasquel, who faithfully set down the interrogations and answers as is held in the same process; for in the morning they registered the interrogations and answers, and after dinner made collation one with another, nor would the same notaries have done aught for anyone, for they feared none as to this. And he well remembers that the same Joan answered very prudently, for sometimes she said, when she was interrogated of a thing whereof she had otherwise been interrogated, that she had otherwise answered and that she would not answer; and then she caused her answers to be read by the notaries.\nItem, interrogated what he knows to depose upon the contents of the fifth, sixth and seventh articles: he deposes that he well knows that the lord bishop of Beauvais began the process against her because he said that she had been taken within the bounds of the diocese of Beauvais; but whether out of hatred or otherwise, he refers himself to his conscience. Yet he knows that all things were done at the expense of the king of England and at the prosecution of the English; and he well knows that the same bishop and the others who interposed themselves in the process of this kind obtained letters of guarantee from the king of England (93), for he saw them.\nAnd when certain letters of guarantee were shown to him, he asserted them to be those which he had otherwise seen, for he well knew the sign of Master Laurent Calot set upon the same.\nAnd of the informations whereof in the articles, he knows nothing, for he did not see them, nor believes that any were ever made.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the eighth and ninth, he says that the same Joan was in a strong prison and in iron fetters; yet she had, as he says, a bed. She had also English keepers, of whom she many times complained, saying that they much oppressed her and ill treated her.\nHe says also that Master Nicolas Loyseleur, feigning himself a cobbler and a captive of the part of the king of France, and of the parts of Lorraine, sometimes entered the prison of the same Joan, saying to her that she should not believe those men of the Church, for, if thou believe them, thou shalt be destroyed. And he believes that the bishop of Beauvais well knew those things, for else the same Loyseleur would not have dared to do such; whereat many assisting in the same process murmured against the same Loyseleur. And he says that the said Loyseleur at length died suddenly at Basel; and he heard it then said that, when the same Loyseleur saw the same Joan condemned to death, he was compunctious at heart, and mounted the cart willing to cry mercy to the same Joan; and at this many English being there were indignant, so that, unless it had been for the count of Warwick, the same Loyseleur would have been slain, and the same count enjoined the same Loyseleur that he should depart from the city of Rouen as quickly as he could, if he willed to save his life.\nFurther he says that Master Guillaume d’Estivet likewise entered the prison, feigning himself a prisoner, as also the same Loyseleur had done; and he says that the same d’Estivet was promoter, and in this matter was much affected on account of the English, whom he much willed to please. He was also an ill man, ever seeking, during the process of this kind, to calumniate the notaries and those whom he saw proceeding for justice; and to the same Joan he inflicted many injuries, calling her harlot and filth. And he believes that God in the end of days punished him, for he ended his days miserably; for he was found dead in a certain dovecote being outside the gate of Rouen.\nOf the contents of the tenth article, he deposes that he heard it said by many of whom he remembers not, that the same Joan had been visited by matrons, and that she had been found a virgin; and that the lady duchess of Bedford had caused the said visitation to be made, and that the duke of Bedford was in a certain secret place where he saw the same Joan visited.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth articles: he says and deposes that, during the process, the same Joan most often complained that subtle and impertinent questions were made her. And he well remembers that on a certain occasion she was interrogated whether she were in grace. She answered that it was a great thing to answer in such; and in the end she answered: If I be, may God keep me; if I be not, may God will to put me, for I should liefer die than not be in the love of God. At which answer the interrogators were much astonished, and at that hour left off, nor interrogated more for that time.\nHe says also, interrogated upon this, of the contents of the said articles, that he knows not that to any in particular out of hatred of the said process or otherwise any coercion was made, or that any were constrained to be present at the process of this kind, save only that Master Nicolas de Houppeville willed not to be present at the process of this kind; but departed from the town of Rouen, and this, as he believes, lest he should be constrained to be present.\nInterrogated of the contents of the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that of the contents of the same he refers himself to the process; else he knows not.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the twentieth and twenty-first, the others being omitted because he knows nothing upon them: he deposes that he knows well that in the process there are twelve articles; but who drew them up, or whether they be foreign to the confessions of the said Joan, he refers himself to the process. Yet he knows that he nor the other notaries made them.\nOf the contents of the twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth, he deposes that of the schedule of abjuration which was made at the first sentence, he knows that it was read in public; but by whom he remembers not. And he believes that the same Joan in no wise understood it, nor was it expounded to her, for a great time she refused to sign that schedule of abjuration; and at length constrained, for fear she signed it and made a certain cross. And whether after the abjuration of this kind she took the woman’s habit or not, he remembers not, referring himself upon this to the process and to that which is contained in it.\nItem, interrogated upon all the other articles in the sum expounded to him, he deposes that, as to the reception of the habit, on the Sunday following after the first sentence, he who speaks was sent for to the castle of Rouen, and went there with the other notaries that they might see the same Joan in the male habit; which having arrived at the castle, they entered the prison and saw her clad in a man’s garments. And she was interrogated why she had resumed the habit of this kind: who said certain excuses which are contained in the process. Naught else he knows, and believes rather that she was induced to do this, for certain of those who were present in the process made great applause and joy because she had resumed the habit of this kind; albeit many notable men grieved, among whom he saw Master Pierre Morice much grieving, and many others.\nHe deposes also that on the Wednesday following, the same Joan was led into the Old Market of Rouen; and a preaching was there made by Master Nicolas Midi, and the sentence of relapse pronounced by the lord bishop of Beauvais; after the uttering of which sentence she was straightway taken by the seculars and led, without any other sentence or process, to the executioner to be burned. Who, whilst she was so led, made very many pious lamentations, calling on the name of Jesus, and as it were all the bystanders could not contain themselves from weeping; and he knows verily that the judges and they who were present incurred a great reproach from the people; for, after the same Joan was burned by fire, the people pointed at those who had been present and abhorred them. And he heard it maintained that all who had been culpable of her death died a most shameful death: for example the same Master Nicolas Midi was smitten with leprosy after a few days, and the bishop died suddenly, having his beard made.\nNor else does he know of the contents of the same articles.\nBrother Martin Ladvenu # Brother Martin Ladvenu, priest, religious of the order of the Preaching Friars of the convent of Rouen, of the age of fifty-six years or thereabout, cited, sworn and examined otherwise on the nineteenth day of the month of December, and again on the thirteenth of May examined upon the articles contained in the process, and interrogated what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the same, hatred, love and favour set aside.\nAnd first, upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the said articles: he deposes that of the knowledge of the father and mother or friends and kinsfolk of the said Joan, he could attest or depose nothing; but he saw the same Joan in the town of Rouen, when she was there brought and rendered to the lord bishop of Beauvais. And she was very simple, about the age of twenty years or thereabout, and scarce knew the Pater noster, albeit sometimes, when she was interrogated, she answered prudently.\nThen, interrogated what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the fifth and sixth articles: he says and deposes that he well knows that the said Joan was brought to the city of Rouen and thrust into the prisons of the castle; and the process in the matter of faith was made and thrust against her, at the procuration and expense of the English. Yet, as he heard it said, he says that the bishop and the others who intermeddled with the process of this kind willed to have a letter of guarantee from the king of England, and they had it; which he recognised in the hands of the lords judges. And the letter of this kind was shown, signed with the manual sign of Master Laurent Calot, which sign, as he says, he well knew. He says further that, as it seemed to him, certain of the assistants in the process of this kind assisted on account of fear of the English, and others because they willed to favour the same English; for he who speaks knows that Master Nicolas de Houppeville was led to the king’s prisons, because he had refused to be present at the process of this kind. He knows also that the same Joan in the process of this kind had no doctor or councillor, save about the end of the process, and that none would have dared to counsel the same Joan or direct her in any wise, on account of the fear of the English; for once, during the process, certain ones were sent by order of the judges to direct the same Joan; but they were repelled by the English, and threats were inflicted upon them. He knows also that Brother Jean Le Maistre, sub-inquisitor, who was present at the process of this kind, and with whom he who speaks most often went, was constrained to be present at the process of this kind; for, as he says, a certain Brother Ysambert de la Pierre, who was the fellow of the said inquisitor, when once he willed in some wise to direct her, it was said to him that he should hold his peace, and that thereafter he should abstain from such, else he should be drowned in the Seine.\nUpon the seventh, eighth and tenth he knows nothing.\nUpon the ninth he knows only that the same Joan was in lay prisons, in fetters and bound with chains, and that none could speak to her save by the permission of the English who kept her day and night.\nThen, interrogated of the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth articles: he deposes that many times difficult interrogations were made to the same Joan which were not becoming to so simple a woman; and the interrogators much vexed her, for they did not cease sometimes to interrogate her for three hours in the morning, and as many after dinner; but with what intention they did this, interrog\n(92) Seventy-six in the manuscript of ND.\n(93) These letters are produced below by the procurator of the d’Arc family.\nators he knows nothing.\nUpon the contents of the fifteenth he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the sixteenth and seventeenth, he deposes that he many times heard the same Joan interrogated whether she willed to submit herself to the judgement of the Church, and she inquiring what the Church was, when it was answered her that they were the Pope and the prelates representing the Church, she answered that she submitted herself to the judgement of the supreme Pontiff, asking that she be led to him. And he heard otherwise from the mouth of the said Joan, outside judgement nevertheless, that she willed to hold nothing against the catholic faith; and if aught in her sayings or deeds were which deviated from the faith, she willed to repel it from herself, and to stand to the judgement of clerks.\nOf the contents of the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second he knows nothing save as he deposed above.\nUpon the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth, he deposes that he was present at the first sentence, and at the sermon made at Saint-Ouen by Master Guillaume Erard. And he firmly believes that all the things which were done, were done in hatred of the most christian king of France, and to defame him; for in the same sermon the same Master Guillaume Erard, exclaiming in a certain passage of his sermon, said in effect such words: O house of France! thou hast ever lacked monsters until now; but now in cleaving to this sorceress woman, heretic, superstitious, thou art defamed. To which the same Joan answered: Speak not of my king; he is a good christian.\nUpon the contents of the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh, he deposes that he heard from the same Joan that a certain great English lord had entered to her into the prisons and attempted to oppress her by force. And she said to the same speaker that this was the cause why she had resumed the male habit after the first sentence.\nUpon the other articles in the sum interrogated, so far as they consist in fact: he deposes that, on the day of the death of the same Joan, in the morning, the same witness who speaks, by the licence and ordinance of the judges, and before the sentence uttered, heard the same Joan in confession and ministered to her the body of Christ; which most devoutly and with the greatest tears, so far that he could not relate, she humbly received. And from that hour he left her not until the departure of the spirit; and as it were all the bystanders wept for pity, and most of all the bishop of Thérouanne. And he doubts not but that she died catholicly; for he would, as he says, that his soul were where he believes the soul of the same Joan to be.\nAnd he says that after the sentence uttered, she came down from the pulpit in which she had been preached, and was led by the executioner, without any other sentence of a lay judge, into the place in which the wood had been made ready to burn her; which wood was in the pulpit; and from beneath the same executioner set the fire. And when the same Joan perceived the fire, she said to the speaker that he should come down, and that he should lift the cross of the Lord on high, that she might see it: which also he did.\nHe says also that, whilst he was beside her to instruct her in her salvation, the bishop of Beauvais and certain canons of the church of Rouen came to see her; and, when the same Joan perceived the same bishop, she said to him that he was the cause of her death, and that he had promised her that he would put her in the hands of the Church, and he had left her in the hands of her capital enemies.\nHe says also, interrogated upon this, that they proceeded ill against the same Joan, for no sentence was uttered by the laymen, but only by the bishop; and on this account when, two years passed, a certain Georget Folenjant had been rendered by the ecclesiastical justice to the secular justice, before the same George was rendered, he who speaks on the part of the archbishop and the inquisitor was sent to the bailiff, and notified him that the same George ought to be delivered into the hands of the secular justice, and that he should not so do as he had done of the Maid, but should lead him into his court and do what justice should counsel, nor so swiftly as he had proceeded against the same Joan, but maturely.\nHe says also and deposes, interrogated upon this, that ever until the end of her life she maintained and asserted that the voices which she had had were from God, and that whatsoever she had done, she had done by God’s precept, nor believed she had been deceived by the same voices; and that the revelations which she had had were from God. Nor else does he know.\nMaster Nicolas de Houppeville # Master Nicolas de Houppeville, master in arts and bachelor in theology, of the age of sixty-five years or thereabout, otherwise examined as a witness about to swear, and again on the thirteenth day of May examined upon the articles.\nAnd first, upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he deposes that of the same Joan, her father, mother and kinsfolk he had no knowledge, save only when the same Joan was brought to the town of Rouen, in which town the process against her was conducted. And it seems to him that she was about the age of twenty years, and was simple and ignorant of right, nor was she of herself sufficient to defend herself in the same process, albeit she had a great constancy, whence many argued that she had a spiritual aid.\nItem, interrogated what he knows to attest of the contents of the fifth and sixth articles: he deposes that he never had the estimation that the same bishop began the process against the same Joan in the matter of faith for the good of the faith or zeal of justice, to bring back the same Joan; but out of the hatred which they had conceived against her, because she favoured the part of the king of France. Nor does he believe that the same bishop did this by fear or under impression, but did it willingly, albeit certain were present there, some for favour of the English, others for fear; for he heard from Master Pierre Minier that he had given his opinion in writing, which had not been pleasing to the bishop of Beauvais.\nHe says also that threats were inflicted by the count of Warwick upon Brother Ysambert de la Pierre, of the order of Preaching Friars, who was present in the process, to whom it was said that he should be drowned in the Seine unless he held his peace, because he directed the same Joan and reported her words to the notaries. And this he heard said by Brother Jean Le Maistre, sub-inquisitor.\nThe same witness who speaks says also that he, about the beginning of the process of this kind, was in certain deliberations, in which the same witness was of opinion that neither the bishop, nor they who willed to undertake the charge of judgement, could be judges; nor did it seem to him a good fashion of proceeding, that they who were of the contrary part should be judges, seeing that she had already been examined by the clergy of Poitiers and by the archbishop of Reims, the metropolitan of the same bishop of Beauvais. From which deliberation he who speaks incurred a great indignation from the same bishop, so that he caused the same speaker to be cited before him. Before whom he appeared, asserting himself not to be subject to him, and that he was not his judge, but the official of Rouen; and so departed. Finally nevertheless, when for this cause he willed to appear before the official of Rouen, he was taken and led to the castle, and thence to the king’s prisons; and when he inquired for what cause he was taken, it was said to him that it was at the request of the bishop of Beauvais. And he who speaks believes that it was on occasion of the words uttered in his deliberation, for, as he says, Master Jean de Fonte, the speaker’s friend, sent him a schedule by which it was made known that he was detained on occasion of the words of this kind, and that the same bishop was much indignant at him. And at length, at the prayers of the lord abbot of Fécamp, he who speaks was delivered from the same prisons; and he heard it then said that, by the counsel of certain ones whom the same bishop had gathered, he who speaks was to be sent into exile into England, or elsewhere outside the city of Rouen; which nevertheless the same lord abbot of Fécamp and certain friends of him who speaks hindered.\nHe says also that Brother Jean Le Maistre, sub-inquisitor, constrained interposed himself in the process of this kind, and much feared; and he saw him most perplexed, the process of this kind enduring.\nUpon the seventh, eighth and ninth articles, he knows only that the same Joan was in the prison, in the castle of Rouen, and was there kept by the English.\nUpon the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth, he deposes that he was not in the process; but he heard it said by the said Master Jean Le Maistre, sub-inquisitor, that the same Joan once complained of the difficult interrogatories which were made her, and that she was too much vexed upon the interrogatories of this kind and most of all upon certain ones not touching the process, as the same Joan said. And then there was a rumour that the notaries were forbidden to write certain of the sayings of the same Joan.\nUpon the contents of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth he refers himself to the process. And likewise of the contents of the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first.\nOf the contents of the twenty-second, he says and deposes that then there were rumours in the town of Rouen that certain ones, feigning themselves men-at-arms of the part of the king of France, had been introduced to her secretly, persuading her that she should not submit herself to the Church, else they would assume judgement upon her; and there were rumours that on account of that persuasion she afterwards varied in the fact of the submission. And he heard it then said that Master Nicolas Loyseleur was of those seducers who feigned themselves to be of the parts of the king of France.\nOf the contents of the other articles, he says and believes the same Joan to have been a good catholic, and knows that on the day of her death she received the body of Christ, and saw the same Joan going out of the Castle to the place of the supplice, weeping most much; and they led her, more than six score men of arms, of whom certain bore lances and others swords. Wherefore he who speaks, moved by compassion, could not go as far as the place of the supplice. And he believes that whatsoever was done against the same Joan, was in hatred of the king of France and to his defamation. And it was the common opinion that all the things done by the same in the process of this kind were null, and that the greatest injustice was done to the same Joan.\nHe says also that he heard from Master Pierre Minerii (94) that his opinion and the opinions of Masters Richard de Grouchet and Pierre Pigache had not been received (95), because they were not pleasing and because they were allegations of the Decretum. Nor else does he know.\nThe lord Jean Fabri # The reverend father in Christ and lord, the lord Jean Fabri, professor of sacred theology, of the order of the Hermit Friars of Saint Augustine, bishop of Demetriade, of the age of seventy years or thereabout, otherwise examined and sworn, and again on the twelfth day of May examined upon the contents of the articles given in the process of this kind.\nAnd first, interrogated what he knows to depose of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he deposes that of the same Joan, her father and mother or kinsfolk he had had no knowledge, save from the time when the same Joan was brought into the town of Rouen; at which time the process against her was begun in the matter of faith, by the bishop of Beauvais and the sub-inquisitor; and in which process he who speaks was present until the first sermon made at Saint-Ouen, and after was not. And, as it seems to him, the same Joan was about twenty years old, very simple, and answering prudently, so that for three weeks he believed her inspired, albeit much and too much, in the speaker’s sight, she persisted in her revelations.\nThen, interrogated of the contents of the fifth and sixth articles: he says and deposes that, according to his imagination, the English proceeded against her out of the hatred which they had against her, for they much feared her; but whether the judges proceeded out of hatred or favour, he knows nothing; albeit nevertheless he knows that the process was conducted at the expense of the English. And he well knows that all who were present at the process of this kind were not in full liberty, for none dared to say aught, lest he should be noted; for, when once the said Joan was interrogated by some one whether she was in grace, and he who speaks had said that it was a very great question, and that the same Joan ought not to answer the said question: the same bishop of Beauvais said to the same speaker: It had been better for you if you had held your peace.\nThen, interrogated what he knows to depose of the contents of the seventh, eighth and ninth articles: he says and deposes that the same Joan was in the prison, in the castle of Rouen; but how, he knows not. He says nevertheless that it much displeased certain of the assistants that the same Joan was not put in the prisons of the Church; and he who speaks himself murmured, for it seemed to him that the process was not well conducted in leaving her in the hands of laymen, and most of all of the English, seeing that she had been restored into the hands of the Church. Of which opinion there were many; but none dared to speak of this.\nUpon the tenth he knows not whether she was visited or not, but he well knows that, on a certain occasion, when she was interrogated why she called herself the Maid, and whether she were such, she answered: I can well say that I am such, and, if you believe not, cause me to be visited by women; and she offered herself ready to receive the visitation, provided nevertheless it were made by honest women, as is the custom.\nUpon the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth, he deposes that many profound questions were made to the same Joan, of which nevertheless she acquitted herself well enough. And\n(94) The manuscripts, Musneru.\n(95) They were blamed, but received, since they are inserted into the procès, t. I, p. 244.\nsometimes the interrogators interrupted their interrogatories, passing from one to another, to try whether the same Joan would change her purpose. They also much wearied her with long interrogations, for they were there for two or three hours, insomuch that the doctors assisting were therefrom much wearied; and sometimes the interrogators so cut short their interrogatories that she could scarce answer; nay the wisest man in the world would have answered with difficulty.\nAnd he deposes that he remembers that once, during the process, whilst the same Joan was examined upon her apparitions, and a certain article of her answers was read to her, it seemed to the speaker that it was ill registered, and that she had not so answered; and then he said to the same Joan that she should take heed. Who said to the notary writing (96) that he should read again; and the reading heard, she said to the notary that he had said the contrary, and that he had not well written; and that answer was corrected. And then Master Guillaume Manchon said to the same Joan that thereafter she should take heed.\nUpon the contents of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth, he deposes that he remembers not that she refused to submit herself to the Church; but he heard her many times say that she willed not to say or do aught which should be against God, so far as in her lay.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first, he says that of the contents of the same he knows nothing. He knows only that certain articles were made to send to those giving opinion; but whether they were well and faithfully made, and who made them, he knows nothing.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the other articles read and expounded to him in the sum: he says and deposes that, after the first sermon made at Saint-Ouen, as he already said, he was not in the process of this kind until the day of the last sentence. And he was at the sermon made in the Old Market by Master Nicolas Midi, and, as it seems to him, she ended her days catholicly, crying Jesus! Jesus! And she wept so much, making pious lamentations, that he believes not that there is a man having a heart so hard that, if he had been present, he would not have been moved to tears; for the lord of Thérouanne and all the lords assisting wept for exceeding pity. And he who speaks well remembers that in the said last sermon made in the Old Market, the same Joan asked all the priests there present that each one of them should give her a mass. Nor did he stay there until the end, for he departed, and also because he could not have seen.\nNor else of the contents of the same articles could he depose, as he said, interrogated upon this.\nThe lord Jean Lemaire # The lord Jean Lemaire, priest, curate of the parish church of Saint-Vincent of Rouen, of the age of forty-five years, otherwise, on the nineteenth day of December, examined as a witness about to swear, and afterwards, on the twelfth of May, recollected.\nInterrogated what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he deposes that he had little knowledge of the same Joan; for at the time when she was brought to the town of Rouen, he who speaks was studying in the university of Paris. And he arrived at that time at the town of Rouen, insomuch that, on the day on which the sermon was made at Saint-Ouen by Master Guillaume Evrard, he saw the same Joan (97).\nUpon the contents of the fifth and sixth articles: he deposes that the fame was in Rouen, at that time, that the English out of the hatred and fear which they had of the same Joan, caused the process to be made against her. And he says that he doubts not but that in the form and manner of the process and of the sentences thence following, justice was much offended. And at that time he heard it said that many of the lords assisting in the process were much wearied of the process of this kind, and ill content with the fashion of proceeding; and that certain were in great peril of their lives, and most of all, as he says, the late Master Pierre Morice, the abbot of Fécamp, Master Nicolas Loyseleur, and many others.\nNor else does he know of the contents of the other articles.\nMaster Nicolas Caval # Master Nicolas Caval, licentiate in laws, canon of Rouen, of the age of seventy years or thereabout, otherwise, on the nineteenth day of December, examined, and afterwards, on the twelfth of May, recollected, sworn and examined upon the contents of the articles given in the present process.\nAnd first, upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he deposes that of the same Joan he had knowledge only from the time when she was brought into the town of Rouen; and he saw her during the process, in which he was present for certain days; not sent for nevertheless, as he said. And he saw her on a certain occasion in the hall, and heard her answering prudently enough; and she had a very good memory, for when aught was asked of her, she said: I answered otherwise, and in such a form; and caused the notary to seek the day on which she had answered, and so it was found as she said, naught added or taken away: whereat he marvelled, her youth considered.\nOf the contents of the fifth and sixth he believes that the English had not a great love toward her; but of the judges he could depose nothing. Of the notaries, he believes that they wrote faithfully, all fear ceasing.\nOf the contents of the other articles, he deposes only that he heard that she died catholicly, and that in the end of her days she called upon the name of Jesus, for, as he says, he was not present at the condemnation. Nor else does he know.\nPierre Cusquel # Pierre Cusquel, layman, burgess of Rouen, of the age of forty-three years or thereabout, otherwise received, sworn and examined, and again, on the twelfth of May, recollected upon the articles produced in the present process.\nAnd first, examined upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he deposes that, of the knowledge of the father, mother and kinsfolk of the same Joan, he had no knowledge. Yet of the same Joan he had some knowledge from the same time when she was brought into the town of Rouen; and he saw her in the prisons; for at the instance and by the favour of Master Jean Son, master of the works of the castle of Rouen, he twice entered the prison of the same Joan and spoke with her, and warned her that she should speak prudently and that her death was in hand. And, as he who speaks perceived, the same Joan was about twenty years old, well simple, and, as he believes, ignorant of right, albeit she answered prudently.\nItem, interrogated upon the contents of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles: he deposes that the process was made against her in the matter of faith, not, as he believes, in favour of the faith, or by zeal of justice; but out of the hatred and fear which the English had of the same Joan. And he believes that the judges and assistants proceeded against her by favour and at the instance of the English, and that they would not have dared to contradict them; for, as he then heard it said, when there was murmur of the resumption of the habit, Master André Marguerie, as it seems to him, said that the truth should be well inquired of the manner of the change of habit of the said Joan, before they proceeded further; and it was said to him by a certain one that he should hold his peace in the devil’s name. And he believes that none would have dared to give counsel to the same Joan, or to defend or direct her.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the ninth article: he says and deposes that the same Joan was brought to the town of Rouen; she was put in the castle of Rouen, in the prisons of the castle, in a certain chamber situate beneath a certain stair toward the fields, where he saw her and spoke with her twice, as he already said. He says that a cage of iron was made to detain her upright, which he who speaks saw weighed in his house; yet he did not see her shut up in it.\nUpon the contents of the tenth article, he deposes that he heard it said that the lady duchess of Bedford caused the same Joan to be visited whether she were a virgin or not; and that she had been found such. And this, as he says, he heard from many of whom he recalls not.\nItem, interrogated upon the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth: he says and deposes that he was never in the process; but the fame was that they much wearied her by divers interrogatories, and that the interrogators laboured with all their might to catch her in words, because she had followed the war against the English.\nItem, interrogated upon the contents of the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth: he deposes that he heard it said that the same Joan had submitted herself to the Church and to our lord the Pope; and he heard from the mouth of the same Joan, in the full sermon made at Saint-Ouen by Master Guillaume Erard, that the same Joan willed to hold nothing against the catholic faith, and, if aught in her sayings or deeds were which deviated from the faith, she willed to repel it from herself and stand to the judgement of clerks.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first, he knows nothing.\nItem, of the contents of the twenty-second, he deposes that he heard it said by certain ones of whom he recalls not, that Master Nicolas Loyseleur feigned himself to be Saint Catherine, and induced the same Joan to say what he willed.\nItem, upon the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth interrogated and examined: he knows only that a certain preaching was made at Saint-Ouen by Master Guillaume Erard, at which he who speaks was present; but of the acts and deeds there he knows nothing, save as he deposed above.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the other articles, and most of all the twenty-ninth, thirtieth, thirty-first, thirty-second and thirty-third: he says and deposes that he well knows that a preaching was made in the Old Market, and that the same Joan was there burned; but he willed not to be present, for his heart could not have suffered or borne it, for pity of the said Joan; for the common fame was and as it were all the people murmured because a great injury and injustice was done to the same Joan; for, as he says, he heard from Master Jean Tressart, secretary of the king of England, returning from the place of the supplice of the said Joan, who mournful and grieving reported and lamentably bewept the things which had been done of the said Joan and which he had seen in the said place, saying in effect: We are all lost, for a holy person has been burned, and that he believed her soul to be in the hand of God; for, as he said, when she was in the midst of the flame, she ever cried the name of Jesus.\nHe says further that after the death of the same Joan, the English caused the ashes to be gathered and cast into the Seine, for they feared lest she should escape and lest any should believe her to have escaped. Nor else does he know.\nMaster André Marguerie # The venerable and circumspect man, Master André Marguerie, archdeacon of Petit-Caux in the church of Rouen, licentiate in both laws, of the age of seventy-six years or thereabout, otherwise, as a witness about to swear, on the nineteenth day of the month of December interrogated, and afterwards upon the articles given in the process of this kind, on the twelfth of May, examined.\nAnd first interrogated what he knows to depose of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the said articles: he deposes that of the same Joan he had knowledge only at the beginning of the process conducted against her; and she was, as he says, young, albeit very wary in her answers. And he was not many times in the process of this kind.\nItem, of the contents of the fifth and sixth, he deposes that, as he heard, the same Joan was taken within the bounds of the bishopric of Beauvais, near Compiègne, and was brought to the city of Rouen, and thrust into the castle of Rouen, in which the process of this kind was conducted in the matter of faith by the bishop of Beauvais and the sub-inquisitor, at the procuration of the English. And he says that many of the assistants in the process were rebuked, because they did not speak so fully to the intention of the English as they willed; but he knows not that any was for this in peril of death, albeit he heard it said that Master Nicolas de Houppeville willed not to give his opinion. And he says that certain English proceeded against her out of hatred; but the notable men proceeded with a good mind.\nUpon the seventh and eighth he knows nothing.\nUpon the ninth, he deposes that she was in the prison of the castle of Rouen, and he saw her there; and he believes that she was kept by the English, for the English had the keeping of the castle in which she was imprisoned; and in this it ever seemed to the speaker that they proceeded ill, holding her in lay hands during the process in the matter of faith, and most of all after the first sentence, when she was condemned to perpetual prisons.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the tenth article: he deposes that he believes she was visited whether she were a virgin or not; but in truth he would not dare to affirm; yet he knows that, during the process, she was reputed a virgin.\nUpon the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth, he knows nothing, for he was not much in the process.\nUpon the contents of the sixteenth and seventeenth, he deposes that he heard from the same Joan, who when she was interrogated whether she willed to submit herself to the Church, answered that of certain things she would believe neither her prelate, nor the Pope, nor anyone, for she had this from God. And this was one of the causes why the process was made against her to the revocation.\nUpon the contents of the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second, he knows nothing.\n(96) Either a member of the phrase is lacking or this et is too much.\n(97) To complete this phrase, supply a verb like advenit after the words in tantum quod.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth articles: he deposes that he was present at the first preaching. And he well remembers that, during the abjuration, whilst the abjuration was made, a certain chaplain of the Cardinal of England present at the first preaching said to the bishop of Beauvais that he favoured the same Joan too much. And then the same lord of Beauvais answered that he lied, for, as he said, he would not will to favour anyone in such a cause; and then the chaplain of this kind was reprehended by the English Cardinal, saying to him that he should hold his peace.\nItem, of the contents of the twenty-sixth, he deposes that, on a certain day, after the news that the same Joan had resumed the male habit, he who speaks went to the castle; and inquiring how and in what wise she had resumed the male habit, the English indignant at this made a great tumult, so far and insomuch that he who speaks, and many others who had come to the castle on this cause, were constrained hastily to return, on account of peril of body.\nOf the contents of the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth, he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the twenty-ninth, thirtieth, thirty-first, thirty-second and thirty-third, he says and deposes that he was at the last preaching; yet he was not at the execution of the sentence, for he departed for pity. Yet he knows that many wept, and most of all the lord bishop of Thérouanne, then chancellor.\nOf the same Joan’s devotion in death, he knows nothing, for he was not present; but she appeared troubled enough, for she said: Rouen, Rouen, shall I die here? He says also, as it seems to him, that, by the ordinance of the Cardinal of England after the death of the same Joan, the ashes were gathered and cast into the Seine. Nor else does he know.\nMauger Leparmentier # The honest man Mauger Leparmentier, an unmarried clerk, apparitor of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, of the age of fifty-six years or thereabout, otherwise examined and, on the twelfth of May, recollected and interrogated upon the articles.\nAnd first upon the first, second, third and fourth articles, he deposes that he knew the same Joan from the time when she was brought to the town of Rouen, and saw her in the castle of Rouen, into which place he who speaks and his fellow were sent for to put the same Joan in the tortures. And she was then in some wise interrogated. Who bore herself very prudently in her answers, so that the assistants marvelled. At length he who speaks and his fellow departed, nor did they set hand to her person.\nOf the contents of the fifth and sixth, he deposes that the process against the same Joan was conducted at the instance of the English, and by the bishop of Beauvais; and, as it was said, that she had been taken in the territory of Beauvais. He says nevertheless that the same bishop was much affected to the party of the English. He says moreover that certain brothers of the order of Preachers had much to do because they counselled the same Joan that she should submit herself to the Church, as he heard this from many; and it was the common voice that all the things which were done against the same Joan, were inflicted upon her in hatred of the king of France and the party which she held, and that a great injury was done to the same Joan.\nOf the contents of the seventh, eighth and ninth, he knows only that she was in the castle, in the great tower, and there he saw her when he was sent for, as he aforesaid, to put her in the tortures, albeit she was not put.\nInterrogated moreover of the contents of the twenty-third to the thirty-third, the others omitted, of which he knows nothing to depose: interrogated upon this, he deposes that he was present at the first preaching made at Saint-Ouen and likewise at the last preaching made in the Old Market, on the day on which the same Joan was burned; and the wood was there made ready to burn her, before the preaching was finished and before the sentence was uttered. And straightway the sentence uttered by the bishop, without any interval, she was led to the fire nor did he perceive that any sentence was uttered by the lay judge; nay she was straightway led to the fire; set in which fire she cried more than six times Jesus! and most of all in the last breath cried with a great voice Jesus! so far that she could be heard by all the bystanders. And he says that as it were all wept for pity. He says also that he heard it said that the ashes, after her burning, were gathered and cast into the Seine.\nNor else does he know of the contents of the same articles.\nLaurent Guesdon # The honest man Laurent Guesdon, burgess of Rouen, and advocate in the lay court, a married clerk, examined on the twelfth of May.\nUpon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles, he deposes that he knew the same Joan only from the time when she was brought into the town of Rouen; and because many desired to see her, he went to the castle of Rouen, and there saw the same for the first time. Nor did he see her after, until she was preached at Saint-Ouen.\nOf the contents of the fifth and sixth articles: he knows not with what zeal the judges in the process proceeded; but he believes that, if the same Joan had been of the party of the English, they would not so have proceeded against her.\nOf the other articles until the twenty-third article, he knows only that she was in the prisons of the castle of Rouen, not in the common prisons; but how or in what wise he knows not.\nThen, interrogated what he knows to depose of the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth: he says and deposes, as he already said, that he was at the first preaching made at Saint-Ouen; after which preaching he who speaks well knows that certain things were commanded the same Joan which she refused to do; but what it was, he knows not.\nItem, interrogated upon the contents of the twenty-ninth, thirtieth, thirty-first, thirty-second and thirty-third he deposes that he was at the last preaching made in the Old Market of Rouen, and there was with the bailiff, for then he who speaks was the bailiff’s lieutenant; and a certain sentence was uttered by which the same Joan was left to secular justice. After the uttering of which sentence, straightway and without interval, she being put into the hands of the bailiff, the executioner, without more, and without that by the bailiff or the speaker, to whom it belonged to bear the sentence, any sentence was borne, took the same Joan and led her to the place where the wood was already made ready; and she was burned. And it seemed to him that they had not well proceeded, for a little after a certain malefactor, called George Folenfant, was in like manner rendered by the ecclesiastical justice to the secular justice by sentence; after which sentence the same George was led à la cohue (98), and there condemned by the secular justice, nor was he so suddenly led to the supplice.\nAnd he who speaks believes that the same Joan died catholicly, when she died crying out the name of the Lord Jesus; and there was the greatest pity; and as it were all present were moved to tears. He deposes also that, after the death of the same Joan, the ashes which remained were gathered by the executioner and cast into the Seine. Nor else does he know of the contents of the same articles, duly interrogated upon the same.\nThe lord Jean Riquier # The venerable man, the lord Jean Riquier, priest, chaplain in the church of Rouen, and curate of the parish church of Heudicourt (99), of the diocese of Rouen, of the age of forty-seven (100) years or thereabout, a witness cited, produced, sworn and examined.\nUpon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles, he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he knows the things which follow: to wit that he first saw the same Joan at the preaching made at Saint-Ouen, and another time at the preaching made in the Old Market; and she was young, about twenty years or thereabout. And, as he believes, she was catholic and faithful, for at the end of her days she asked to have the sacrament of the Eucharist, which she had. Nor did he who speaks have other knowledge of her.\nOf the contents of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth articles, he says that it is true that the same Joan was brought to this city of Rouen, and a process carried on against her in the matter of faith. And he who speaks was then a chorister of the church of Rouen, and sometimes heard the lords of the church speak of the process of this kind; and among other things he heard it said by Master Pierre Morice and Nicolas Loyseleur, and others of whom he remembers not, that the English themselves so feared her that they dared not, she living, set a siege before the town of Louviers, until she should be dead, and that it was needful for them to please them; that the process should be made swiftly against her, and that the occasion of her death should be found. And he believes that whatsoever was done, was done at the intercession and expense of the English. And the fame then was that many who assisted at the process of this kind would willingly have abstained, and that they were present at the process of this kind more for fear than otherwise.\nUpon the contents of the ninth article, he deposes that he did not see her in the prison, for it was said that none dared speak to her. Yet he knows that she was in the castle, and, as he heard, was in irons and the English kept her.\nOf the contents of the tenth he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth articles, he says and deposes that he was not at the conducting of the process; but the fame was that the same Joan was interrogated with very difficult questions, and that, when she feared to answer, she asked delay. He says further that the process was according to the will of the English, and very prolix; and he heard from certain ones that the English were ill content that it was so prolix, and chid certain ones that they did not finish it more quickly. He says also that he then heard it said that the same Joan answered so prudently that, if one of the doctors who interrogated her had answered, he would not have answered better.\nOf the contents of the fifteenth and sixteenth articles, he says that he heard it said by certain ones that the same Joan said that she willed to say or affirm nothing which should be against the catholic faith.\nUpon the contents of the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second, he could depose nothing.\nAnd of the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth he deposes that he was present at the first preaching made at Saint-Ouen, in which among other things he heard that when Master Guillaume Erart, the preacher, said certain sinister things of the king of France whereof he precisely remembers not, the same Joan said, excusing the king of France: Speak not of the king, for he is a good catholic; but speak of me.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the other articles, he deposes, by means of his oath, that he was present at the preaching made in the Old Market, on the day of the death of the same Joan, whom he believes then to have died catholicly, as he already said. And he knows that she was abandoned by the ecclesiastical men, and straightway saw that the servants and English men-at-arms took her and led her straight to the place of the supplice, nor did he see that any sentence was uttered by the secular judge.\nHe says also and deposes that Master Pierre Maurice visited her in the morning, before she was led to the preaching made in the Old Market; to whom the same Joan said: Master Pierre, where shall I be this evening? And the same Master Pierre answered: Have you not good hope in the Lord? Who said that yes, and that, God favouring, she would be in Paradise; and which he heard from the aforesaid Master Pierre. He says also that when the same Joan saw the fire set to the wood, she began to cry with a great voice Jesus! and ever, until she was at her end, cried Jesus! And when she was dead, because the English doubted lest it should be said that she had escaped, they said to the executioner that he should draw the fire a little back, that the bystanders might see her dead, lest it should be said that she had escaped (101).\nHe says also that Master Jean d’Aussy, who was at that time canon of Rouen, was beside the speaker; whom he heard say such words, marvellously weeping: Would that my soul were in the place in which I believe the soul of this woman!\nNor else does he know of the contents of the same articles.\nJean Moreau # The honest man Jean Moreau, dwelling in the town of Rouen, of the age of fifty-three years, a witness cited, produced, sworn and examined on the tenth day of the month of May upon the contents of the articles delivered in this cause.\nAnd first, upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles, he says and deposes that he who speaks is born of Véville near Mont in Bassigny, which is not much distant from the place of Domrémy; whence the same Joan was born. Yet of the same Joan or her parents he had no knowledge; but the truth is that, at the time when the same Joan was on the way to the king of France, there arrived at the town of Rouen Nicolas Saussart and Jean Chando, merchant tinkers, from whom he heard said and reported the manner of the departure of the same Joan from the parts of Lorraine. And they said that the same Joan went to Vaucouleurs to Jean de Baudricourt, informing him that it behoved that he should lead her toward the king or cause her to be led; insomuch that he was content to cause her to be led to the king, who was then at Chinon. And when she had come there, it was said to her, since she had never known the king, of another that he was the king; who said that he was not. And at length examined by clerks and doctors, she spoke to the king. Nor did he have other knowledge of the same Joan until he saw her in the two preachings made against her, one to wit at Saint-\n(98) That is to say, to the audience of the bailliage.\n(99) Heudicourt, today department of the Eure, near the Andelys.\n(100) Manuscripts ND., forty-six.\n(101) These three last lines are omitted in the manuscript 5970.\nOuen, and the other in the Old Market of Rouen.\nUpon the contents of the fifth and sixth, he knows only that, at the time when the same Joan was in the town of Rouen and the process was made against her, a certain notable man of the parts of Lorraine came to the town of Rouen, with whom he who speaks had acquaintance because he was of the parts; and he said to him that he came from the parts of Lorraine, and that he had come to this city of Rouen because he had been specially commissioned to make informations in the place of origin of the same Joan, and what the fame said of her: which he had made, and had brought them to the lord bishop of Beauvais, believing to have satisfaction for his labour and expenses; and the same bishop had said to him that he was a traitor and an ill man, and that he had not done his duty in that which had been enjoined him. And of this the same man complained to the speaker, who, as he said, could not be paid of his salary, because those informations did not seem useful to the said bishop; saying to the same speaker that by the said informations he had found nothing in the same Joan that he would not will to find in his own sister, albeit he had made the same informations in five or six parishes near the said town of Domrémy, and also in the same town. The same man said also that he had found that the same Joan was very devout, and that she often frequented a certain little chapel in which she had been wont to bear garlands to the image of blessed Mary being there; and that sometimes she kept her father’s beasts.\nUpon the contents of the seventh, eighth and ninth he knows nothing. Item, of the contents of the tenth article, he heard it said, at the time when the process was made, that she had been visited whether she were a virgin or not, and that she had been found uncorrupt.\nItem, interrogated and examined what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth: he deposes that he only heard it said that she often besought those interrogating her that she should have to answer only one or two, and that they much troubled her with so many interrogations so made together.\nOf the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth, the others omitted because he knows nothing of them: he deposes, by means of his oath, that he was present at Saint-Ouen, at the preaching made of the same Joan; in which preaching he who preached said many opprobria to the same Joan, saying to her that she had done against the royal majesty, that she had done against God and the catholic faith; she had also erred in many things in the faith, and that, unless she now took heed of such things, she would be burned. And among other things he heard that the same Joan answered the preacher that she had taken the male habit because she had to do with men-at-arms, with whom it was safer and more fitting for her to converse in the male habit than the female, and that the things which she did and had done, she had done well. He who speaks saw also, as he says, that a certain schedule was read to the same Joan; but what was contained in it he knows not; he remembers nevertheless that it was said that she had committed the crime of lèse-majesté, and that she had seduced the people. And he knows that after the preaching she was led back to the castle; but what was afterwards done, he knows not, until the day on which she was burned.\nAnd of the contents of the other articles, he deposes that he was at the last preaching, and on the day on which the same Joan died. And the preaching was made by a certain one of whose name he remembers not; and the same preacher said that the same Joan had done ill, and that her sin had once been pardoned her, and that the Church could no more avail her. And he saw that after the preaching she was delivered to a certain serjeant, and there the serjeant delivered her to the executioner, without and it ceasing that any sentence was uttered by the bailiff; and she was led to the fire, in which fire he heard that she asked for holy water. And she cried Jesus aloud. She asked also for a cross. He heard also it said that on the same day or on the day before, she had received the body of Christ. Nor else does he know.\nThe lord Nicolas Taquel # The venerable man the lord Pierre (102) Taquel, priest, curate of the parish church of Bacqueville-le-Martel, imperial notary and of the court of Rouen, sworn, of the age of fifty-eight years or thereabout; a witness produced in this cause, received, sworn and examined on the eleventh day of the month of May, of the aforesaid year of the Lord 1456.\nAnd first, interrogated upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he deposes that he had knowledge of the same Joan during the process carried on against her in the matter of faith, for he was in the same process a second notary, albeit he was not in the beginning, as appears by his subscription; nor was he during the time when they proceeded in the great hall; but only at the time when the process was in the prisons; and, as it seems to him, he began to be present at the same process on the fourteenth day of the month of March in the year of the Lord 1430, as appears by his commission, to which he refers himself. And from that time until the end of the process he was present as notary at the interrogations and answers of the same Joan, albeit he wrote not; but heard, and reported to the other two notaries, to wit Boisguillaume and Manchon, who wrote, and most of all Manchon.\nAnd the process signed with his manual sign being shown to him, he acknowledged his sign; and confesses that he signed the same book and gave certification of the things at which he was present. He confesses also and recognises the other signs of Manchon and Boisguillaume. And he says that the process of this kind was reduced into the form in which it is, a great space of time after the death of the same Joan; but at what time he knows not. And he who speaks had for his pains and labours ten francs, albeit it had been said to him that he should have twenty: and the same ten francs were delivered to him by the hands of a certain Bénédicte (103); but whence the moneys came he knows not.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the other articles until the twentieth article: he deposes that of those, so far as it touches the process, and of the time when he was notary, he refers himself to the process. Of the others he knows nothing.\nItem, interrogated of the contents of the twentieth and twenty-first so far as it touches the articles whereof mention is made in the same: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he then heard speech among the notaries that certain articles were to be made; but who made them he knows nothing. And he knows that they were sent to Paris; but whether they were signed or not, he remembers not; and believes that he did not sign them; nor has he memory that he ever signed aught save the process and the sentence.\nMoreover interrogated whether, the articles of this kind extracted and seen by the judges, it was appointed that they should be corrected: he says and deposes that he remembers not.\nAnd a certain little note of the fourth day of the month of April, of the year of the Lord 1431, being shown to him, whereby it is provided that the articles in the form in which they were sent ought to be corrected, and the corrections set on the back: he confesses the same note to be written in the hand of Master Guillaume Manchon, and believes that he was present. He believes nevertheless that no correction was made, albeit it was so appointed, as appears to him; for further how this befell or by whom it stood, the length of time considered, he has no memory.\nOf the contents of all the following articles read to him in the sum, he says and deposes that he was present at Saint-Ouen when the first preaching was made; but he was not with the other notaries in the pulpit. Yet he was near enough, and in a place where he could hear the things which were done and said; and he well remembers that he saw the same Joan when the schedule of abjuration was read to her; and the lord Jean Massieu read it to her, and it was about six lines of great letter. And the same Joan said it after the said Massieu. And that letter of abjuration was in French, beginning: Je Jehanne, etc. And after the abjuration of this kind, she was condemned to perpetual prisons, and led into the castle. And he says that afterwards he was sent for to interrogate her, as it was said; but a certain tumult supervened, nor does he who speaks know what was done thereat. Yet he knows that afterwards another (104) preaching was made, on the day of the death of the same Joan; and in the morning of that day the same Joan received the body of Christ. And in that preaching he who speaks was present until the end of the preaching; which preaching accomplished, the same Joan was left to secular justice. Which done, the speaker departed, nor was present further.\nNor else does he know, duly interrogated upon this.\nHusson Lemaistre # The honest man Husson Lemaistre, layman, a worker of the tinker’s craft, dwelling in the town of Rouen, of the age of fifty years or thereabout, born of Véville beneath Mont-de-Bassigny, distant three leagues from the town of Domrémy; produced, received, sworn and examined by the aforesaid lords judges and commissioners, on the eleventh day of the month of May.\nAnd first interrogated upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause, all the others being omitted because he knows nothing of them: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he well had knowledge of the father and mother of the same Joan, who were good and simple persons, living catholicly; for, as he already said, he is born of Véville, distant three leagues from the town of Domrémy, whence the same Joan was born, and in which her father and mother dwelt. Yet he did not see the same Joan, nor had knowledge of her save when she came to Reims, at the king’s coronation; in which town he who speaks then dwelt; and there were the father of the same Joan, and the lord Pierre, her brother, who had great familiarity with the speaker and his wife, for they were compatriots, and they called his wife neighbour.\nHe says also that he was in the parts whence the speaker is born, at that time when the same Joan went to Vaucouleurs toward the lord Robert de Baudricourt, that he might conduct her or cause her to be conducted toward the king of France; and it was said at that time that she was the grace of God, and that the same Joan was led by the spirit of God.\nHe says also that the same Joan asked the same lord Robert that he should deliver her men to conduct her toward the lord Dauphin, as he then heard reported; and the same Joan was in the parts reputed a good and honest young woman, and that otherwise she had dwelt with a certain worthy woman called la Rousse, dwelling at Neufchâteau, and that she willingly and most often confessed and received the body of Christ. And he heard it said that, at the time when the same Joan was being led from Vaucouleurs to the king, certain of the men-at-arms who conducted her feigned themselves to be of the adverse party; and when they who were with her feigned to will to flee, she said to them: Flee not, en nom Dé; they shall do us no ill. And, as it was said, when she arrived toward the king, she knew him, albeit she had not seen him before. And at length she brought the king to Reims without impediment, where he who speaks saw the same Joan; and from the town of Reims the king came to Corbigny (105), and afterwards to Château-Thierry, which was surrendered to the king, and there the fame came that the English were coming to fight against the king; yet the same Joan said to the king’s people that they should not fear, and that the English would not come. Nor else does he know upon these, duly interrogated.\nPierre Daron # The honourable man Pierre Daron, lieutenant of the bailiff of Rouen, a witness produced, received, sworn and examined by the lord inquisitor in the presence of the notaries of the causes of this kind, and by mandate of the other judges, on the thirteenth day of the month of May; of the age, as he said, of sixty years or thereabout.\nAnd first, interrogated what he knows to depose or attest of the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles: he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he had knowledge of the same Joan only from the time when she was brought into the town of Rouen; and he who speaks was then procurator of the town of Rouen; who, of a certain curiosity much desired to see the same Joan, seeking propitious means to see her. And he found Pierre Manuel, advocate of the king of England, who likewise much desired to see her, and they went together to see her; whom they found in the Castle, in a certain tower, in irons in fetters, with a certain great beam about the feet, and she had many English keepers. And the same Manuel spoke to the same Joan in the presence of him who speaks, saying to the same Joan jestingly that she would not have come there unless she had been brought; and asked her whether she well knew before her capture that she was to be taken. Who answered that she much doubted it. And when it was further said to her why, since she doubted of her capture, did she not keep herself that day on which she was taken: she answered that she knew not the day nor the hour on which she was to be taken, nor when it should befall. Nor did they speak aught else with her.\nHe says also that another time he saw her, during the process which was made against her, when she was led from the prison to the great hall of the castle.\nOf the contents of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth he knows nothing, save only that certain ones were noted by the English, because they willed not to be present at the process of this kind, and most of all Master Nicolas de Houppeville.\nOf the contents of the ninth he knows nothing, save, as he deposed above, that he saw her in the prison, in a certain tower, bound with a certain great piece of wood about the feet.\nOf the contents of the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth he deposes that he well remembers that many clerks were gathered for the process; and the notaries of the process of this kind were Master Guillaume Manchon and the lord Guillaume Colles, otherwise Boisguillaume; but with what mind they proceeded he knows nothing. He says nevertheless that he heard it said by certain ones, during that process, that the same Joan did marvels in her answers, and that she had a marvellous memory, for, when\n(102) Constantly called Nicolas in the acts of the two preceding volumes.\n(103) That is to say, of Jean d’Estivet.\n(104) Manuscript 5970, aliqua.\n(105) A priory depending on Saint-Remi of Reims whither the kings went after their anointing to heal the scrofula.\non a certain occasion she was interrogated of something whereof she had been interrogated before, even eight days elapsed, she answered: I was interrogated on such a day, or it is eight days since I was interrogated of that, and so I answered. And albeit Boisguillaume, the other notary, said that she had not so answered, certain of the assistants saying that the same Joan spoke truth, the answer of that day was read, and it was found that the same Joan spoke well: whereat the same Joan rejoiced, saying to the same Boisguillaume that, if he should fail again, she would pull his ear.\nOf the fifteenth until the twenty-third article, he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the twenty-third, twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth articles, he deposes that he was present at the sermon made at Saint-Ouen, whereof he could depose nothing, for he was much distant, suchwise that he could hear nothing.\nOf the contents of the twenty-sixth, he deposes that the fame was that she had been induced after the first sentence to take the male garments.\nOf the contents of the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth he knows nothing.\nOf the contents of the other articles, he says and deposes that he was present at the sermon made in the Old Market, on the day on which the same Joan ended her life, and saw her delivered and left to secular justice, and after she was left to secular justice, without any interval and without any other sentence of a lay judge, the same Joan was delivered to the executioner and led into a certain pulpit where the wood was made ready to burn her. And he believes she ended her days catholicly, for she made many pious exclamations and lamentations, calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus; and, among other words, he heard the same Joan saying: Ha! Rouen, Rouen, wilt thou be my dwelling? And there was the greatest pity of her; and many were moved to tears; and many were ill content that the execution of the same Joan was done in the town of Rouen. And he knows that the same Joan until the last issue of life ever cried Jesus! And he says that afterwards the ashes and relics of the same were gathered and cast into the Seine. Nor else does he know.\nBrother Seguin Seguini # Brother Seguin Seguini, professor of sacred theology, of the order of Preaching Friars, dean of the Faculty of theology in the University of Poitiers, of the age of seventy years or thereabout; on the fourteenth day of the month of May, of the office of the lords judges, and for the fuller information of the same lords, sworn, interrogated and examined.\nAnd first, upon the contents of the first, second, third and fourth articles of the articles produced in this cause, most of all upon the knowledge which the same witness had of the said Joan, he says and deposes, by means of his oath, that he knows the things which follow: to wit that, before he had knowledge of the same Joan, he had already heard it said by Master Pierre de Versailles, professor of sacred theology, at the time of his death bishop of Meaux, that he, speaking of the same Joan, had heard it said by certain men-at-arms who had met the same Joan when she was coming toward the king, and who had set themselves in ambush to take the same Joan and to despoil her with her company (106), that, when they believed to do this, they could not move themselves from the place in which they were, and so the same Joan had departed with her company without impediment.\nHe says that he first saw her in the town of Poitiers; and the king’s Council was then gathered in a certain house called La Macée, in the said town of Poitiers, and among those of the Council was the lord archbishop of Reims, then chancellor of France. And they sent for the speaker, Masters Jean Lombart, professor of sacred theology in the university of Paris, Guillaume Le Maire (107), canon of Poitiers, bachelor in theology, Guillaume Aymeric, professor of sacred theology, of the order of Preaching Friars, Brother Pierre Turrelare (108), Master Jacques Maledon, and many others of whom he remembers not; and they said to them that they were sent for on the king’s part to interrogate the same Joan, and to report to the king’s Council what should seem to them of her; and they sent them to the house of Master Jean Rabateau, in the town of Poitiers, in which the same Joan was lodged, that they should examine her. And, when they arrived there, they made many questions to the same Joan, and among other questions Master Jean Lombart interrogated her why she had come, and that the king much willed to know what had moved her to come toward the king; and she answered in a great manner that, she keeping the beasts, a certain voice appeared to her which said to her that God had great pity of the people of France, and that it behoved that the same Joan should come into France. Who, this heard, had begun to weep; and then the voice said to her that she should go to Vaucouleurs, and that there she should find a certain captain who should lead her safely into France and to the king, and that she should not doubt; and that she had so done, and that she had come to the king without any impediment. And Master Guillaume Aymeric interrogated her: Thou saidst that the voice said to thee that God wills to deliver the people of France from the calamity in which it is. If he wills to deliver it, it is not needful to have men-at-arms. And then the same Joan answered: En nom Dieu, the men-at-arms shall fight and God shall give the victory. With which answer the same Master Guillaume was content.\nAnd he who speaks interrogated her what tongue the voice spoke: who answered that a better tongue than the speaker’s, who spoke the Limousin tongue. And again he interrogated her whether she believed in God: who answered that yes, better than the speaker. And then the speaker said to the same Joan that God willed not that she should be believed, unless aught else appeared for which it should seem to him that she was to be believed, and that they would not counsel the king that at her simple assertion men of arms should be delivered to her and put in peril, unless she said aught else. Who answered: En nom Dieu, I am not come to Poitiers to make signs; but lead me to Orléans; I shall show you the signs for which I am sent; and that men should be delivered to her, with as great quantity as should seem good to them; and that she would go to Orléans. And then she said to the speaker and the others standing by four things which were yet to come, and which afterwards came to pass. First, she said that the English should be destroyed, and that the siege being before the town of Orléans should be raised, and the town of Orléans should escape delivered from the same English; yet she should first summon them. She said secondly that the king should be consecrated at Reims. Thirdly that the town of Paris should be rendered into the king’s obedience; and that the duke of Orléans should return from England. All which things he who speaks saw accomplished. And all these things they reported to the king’s Council, and they were of opinion that, the eminent necessity and the peril in which the town of Orléans was being considered, the king could help himself by her, and send her to Orléans.\nThe speaker and the other commissioners inquired also of the life and manners of the same Joan, and found that she was a good christian, and lived catholicly, and that she was never found idle. And to know better of her conversation, women were delivered to her, who reported her gestures and ways to the Council. And he who speaks believes that the same Joan was deservedly sent by God, seeing that the king and the dwellers of his obedience had no hope, nay all believed they should depart. And he well remembers that the same Joan was interrogated why she bore a banner: who answered that she willed not to use her sword, nor willed to slay anyone.\nHe who speaks says also that the same Joan was much wroth when she heard the name of the Lord sworn in vain, and abhorred those so swearing; for the same Joan said to La Hire, who was wont and accustomed to make many oaths and deny God, that he should swear no more, but when he willed to deny God, should deny his staff (109). And afterwards the same La Hire, in the presence of the same Joan, was wont to deny his staff.\nNor else does he who speaks know.\nV. # Deposition of the lord Jean d’Aulon received at Lyon # There follows consequently the deposition of the noble man the lord Jean d’Aulon (110), knight, examined by the authority of the most reverend father in Christ the lord archbishop of Reims, by the religious man Brother Jean de Pratis, master in the sacred page, of the order of the Preaching Friars of Lyon and vice-inquisitor general of heretical pravity in the realm of France.\nTo the most reverend fathers in Christ and lords, the lords archbishop of Reims and bishop of Paris, commissioners in this part deputed by apostolic authority, your humble Brother Jean de Pratis, master in sacred theology, of the order of the Preachers of Lyon, and vice-inquisitor general of heretical pravity in the realm of France, reverence due with honour. Know ye, my most reverend lords, and let all know that, in the year of the Lord 1456, the fourth indiction taken with the same year, on the twenty-eighth day of the month of May, in my presence and in that of the two public notaries subscribed and signing below: the noble and mighty man the lord Jean d’Aulon, knight, councillor and master of the Household of our lord the king of the French, and his seneschal of Beaucaire, coming into my presence, in the house of our convent of Lyon (111), declared to me by word of mouth that you, most reverend father in Christ, lord archbishop of Reims, had by your missive letters commanded him that, because, as you had known, the same lord seneschal had at some time conversed with Joan, formerly named in this realm of France by the vulgar designation la Pucelle, he should say, depose and testify before me and in the presence of two public notaries those things which he knew and had seen of the life, manners, conversation and deeds of the same Joan, to inform your most reverend paternities of the same, as is more fully contained in the same aforesaid missive letters of you, most reverend lord my archbishop of Reims, exhibited to me by the lord seneschal; of which the tenor is such:\nTo my right dear lord and brother, messire Jehan d’Aulon, knight, councillor of the king and seneschal of Beaucaire.\nRight dear lord and brother, I commend me to you as much as I may. And it is true that from the time I was at Saint-Pourçain toward the king, I wrote you of the process made against Jehanne la Pucelle by the English, by which they will to maintain that she was a sorceress and heretic and invoker of devils, and that, by this means, the king had recovered his realm (112); and so they held the king and those who had served him heretic. And because of her life and conversation and also governance you know well and largely, I pray you that what you know of it you will send in writing, signed by two apostolic notaries and an inquisitor of the faith; for I have certain bulls here, to revoke all that the enemies have done touching the said process. Written at Paris, the twentieth day of April.\nSo signed: the archbishop and duke of Reims.\nAnd straightway the lord seneschal, oath first made by him in my hands to speak and attest the truth upon the things written below, by the same his oath, said, deposed and testified in the presence of me, the vice-inquisitor, and of the said lords notaries, the things which are described below in the vulgar tongue, and as follows:\nAnd first, he says that twenty-eight years ago, or thereabout, the king our sire being then in the town of Poitiers, it was told him that the said Maid, who was of the parts of Lorraine, had been brought to the said lord by two gentlemen, saying that they were of messire Robert de Baudricourt, knight, the one named Bertrand and the other Jehan de Metz, and she presented; to see whom, he who speaks went to the said place of Poitiers.\nHe says that after the said presentation, the said Maid spoke to the king our sire secretly, and told him certain secret things: which, he knows not; save so far that, a little time after, the same lord sent to seek certain of the men of his council, among whom was the said deponent. Then to whom he said that the said Maid had told him that she was sent to him by God to help him to recover his realm, which for the time was for the greatest part occupied by the English, his ancient enemies.\nHe says that after these words declared by the said lord to the men of his said council, it was advised to interrogate the said Maid, who for the time was of the age of sixteen years or thereabout, upon certain points touching the faith.\nHe says that, to do this, the said lord caused to come certain masters in theology, jurists and other expert men, who examined and interrogated her upon the same points well and diligently.\nHe says that he was present at the said council when the same masters made\n(106) Manuscript 5970, deprecando.\n(107) Manuscript 5970, Lemarie.\n(108) A Dominican, who died bishop of Digne in 1466. (Quétif and Echard, Script. ord. prœd., t. I, p. 688.)\n(109) On the miniatures of the fifteenth century, the chiefs of companies are ordinarily represented with a staff in the hand.\n(110) He was a gentleman of Languedoc, an esquire in the king’s house, who, on account of his great reputation for wisdom, had been chosen by Charles VII to watch over the Maid and to serve her as steward. He left her not an instant so long as she was under arms, and the conduct he kept beside her drew to him many praises and favours. In 1433 he is found employed in divers missions toward the States of Languedoc. On the 11th of September of the same year he was invested with the captaincy of the castle of Cabaret, by the count of Foix, then lieutenant-general in Languedoc and in Guyenne. In 1437, at the entry of Charles VII into Paris, he figured in the cortège, leading the king’s horse all afoot. Little after he became seneschal of Beaucaire, councillor and master of the household of the king, man-at-arms of the great ordinance under the conduct of Jean de Breuil. He was made knight on the 23rd of July 1449, during the conquest of Normandy, at the moment when the French gathered near the castle of Harcourt ranged themselves in battle to fight Talbot. Finally, in an act of 1454 he figures as captain of the castle of Pierre-Scize, at Lyon. A Philippe d’Aulon, whom Louis XI pensioned as man-at-arms and master of his household, was doubtless the son of Jean d’Aulon. (Manuscripts of the Bibl. du roi, Cabinet des titres; Monstrelet, t. II, ch. 210; chron. of Berry, ed. Godefroi, p. 435; Hist. gén. de la maison de France, t. VIII, p. 140; Manuscript Gaignières, no. 772-2, f. 452.)\n(111) All that is contained from this place to the deposition of the witness is omitted in the manuscript 5970. We supply it after the manuscripts ND. and d’Urfé.\n(112) This lesson is furnished by the manuscript of d’Urfé. The manuscript ND. reads maistre.\ntheir report of what they had found of the said Maid; by which it was publicly said by one of them that they saw, knew nor understood in the same Maid anything, save only all that can be in a good christian woman and a true catholic; and that as such they held her; and it was their opinion that she was a very good person.\nHe says also that, the said report made to the said lord by the said masters, the same Maid was since delivered to the queen of Sicily, mother of the queen our sovereign lady, and to certain ladies being with her; by whom the same Maid was seen, visited and secretly regarded and examined in the secret parts of her body; but, after they had seen and regarded all that was to be regarded in this case, the said lady said and related to the king that she and the said ladies found certainly that she was a true and entire maid, in whom no corruption or violence appeared.\nHe says that he was present when the said lady made her said report.\nHe says moreover that after these things heard, the king, considering the great goodness which was in the same Maid and that she had told him that she was sent him on God’s part, it was concluded by the said lord in his council that thenceforward he would help himself with her in the doing of his wars, seeing that, to do this, she was sent to him.\nHe says that then it was determined that she should be sent into the city of Orléans, which was then besieged by the said enemies.\nHe says that for this there were delivered to her people for the service of her person, and others for her conduct.\nHe says that for the keeping and conduct of the same, the said deponent was ordained by the king our said lord.\nHe says also that for the safety of her body, the said lord caused to be made for the said Maid a harness all proper for her said body, and that done, ordained for her a certain quantity of men-at-arms to lead and conduct her and those of her said company safely to the said place of Orléans.\nHe says that straightway after she set out on the way with her said people to go that way.\nHe says that as soon as it came to the knowledge of my lord of Dunois, who for the time was called my lord the bastard of Orléans, who was in the said city to preserve and keep it from the said enemies, that the said Maid was coming that way, straightway he caused to assemble a certain quantity of men of war to go toward her, as La Hire and others. And to do this and more safely to bring and conduct her into the said city, the same lord and his said people set themselves in a boat, and by the river of Loire went toward her about a quarter of a league, and there found her.\nHe says that straightway the said Maid and he who speaks entered into the said boat, and the rest of her (113) men of war returned toward Blois. And with my said lord of Dunois and his people she entered into the said city safely and surely; in which my said lord of Dunois caused her to be lodged well and honestly in the hostelry of one of the notable burgesses of the same city, who had espoused one of the notable women of the same.\nHe says that after my said lord of Dunois, La Hire and certain other captains of the party of the king our said lord had conferred with the said Maid what was expedient to do for the tuition, keeping and defence of the said city, and also by what means the said enemies could best be aggrieved: it was among them advised and concluded that it was needful to cause to come a certain number of men-at-arms of their said party, who were then in the parts of Blois, and they must go to seek them. To put which thing in execution and to bring them into the said city, my said lord of Dunois, he who speaks and certain other captains were commissioned with their people; who went to the said country of Blois to bring them and cause them to come.\nHe says that as they were ready to depart to go to seek those who were in the said country of Blois, and it came to the notice of the said Maid, straightway she mounted a-horseback, and La Hire with her, and with a certain quantity of her people issued forth into the fields to keep that the said enemies should bear them no damage. And to do this, the said Maid set herself with her said people between the host of her said enemies and the said city of Orléans, and did there suchwise that, notwithstanding the great puissance and number of men of war being in the host of the said enemies, nevertheless, by God’s mercy, the said lords of Dunois and he who speaks passed with all their people, and went their way safely; and likewise the said Maid and her said people returned into the said city.\nHe says also that as soon as she knew the coming of the aforesaid, and that they brought the others whom they had gone to seek for the reinforcement of the said city, straightway the same Maid mounted a-horseback, and with a part of her people went toward them, to succour and relieve them, had there been need.\nHe says that at the sight and knowledge of the said enemies, the said Maid, Dunois, the marshal, La Hire, he who speaks and their said people entered into the same city, without any contradiction.\nHe says further that the selfsame day, after dinner, my said lord of Dunois came to the lodging of the said Maid; in which he who speaks and she had dined together. And in speaking to her the same lord of Dunois told her that he had known for truth by worthy men that one named Fastolf, captain of the said enemies, was shortly to come toward the same enemies being in the said siege, as much to give them succour and reinforce their host as also to victual them; and that he was already at Janville. At which words the said Maid was all rejoiced, as it seemed to him who speaks; and said to my said lord of Dunois such words or the like: Bastard, Bastard, in God’s name I command thee that as soon as thou knowest the coming of the said Fastolf, thou cause me to know it; for, if he pass without my knowing it, I promise thee I shall have thy head stricken off. To which the said lord of Dunois answered that of that she should not doubt, for he would well cause her to know it.\nHe says that after these words, he who speaks, who was weary and travelled, set himself upon a couch in the chamber of the said Maid, to rest himself a little, and she likewise set herself with her said hostess upon another bed to sleep and rest herself likewise; but as the said deponent began to take his rest, suddenly the same Maid rose from the said bed, and making great noise awoke him. And then he who speaks asked her what she willed; who answered him: En nom Dé, my counsel hath told me that I go against the English; but I know not whether I should go to their bastilles or against Fastolf, who is to victual them. Whereupon the said deponent rose straightway, and as quickly as he could armed the said Maid.\nHe says that as he armed her, they heard a great noise and a great cry which they of the said city made, saying that the enemies did great damage to the French. And then he who speaks likewise caused himself to be armed; in doing which, without his knowing it, the said Maid departed from the chamber, and issued into the street, where she found a page mounted upon a horse, whom she at once caused to descend from the said horse, and straightway mounted thereon; and as straightly and as diligently as she could, drew her way straight to the gate of Burgundy, where the greatest noise was.\nHe says that straightway he who speaks followed the said Maid; but so soon he could not go that she was not already at the same gate.\nHe says that as they arrived at the same gate, they saw that one of the men of the same city was being brought, who was very sorely wounded; and then the said Maid asked those who bore him who the man was; who answered her that it was a Frenchman. And then she said that never had she seen the blood of a Frenchman that her hair did not rise upon her.\nHe says that at that hour, the said Maid, he who speaks, and many other men of war in their company, issued out of the said city to give succour to the said French and to aggrieve the said enemies to their power; but as they were out of the same city, it appeared to him who speaks that never had he seen so many men-at-arms of their party as he did then.\nHe says that forthwith they drew their way toward a very strong bastille of the said enemies, called the bastille of Saint-Loup; which straightway by the said French was assailed, and with very little loss of them taken by assault; and all the enemies being in it dead or taken, and the said bastille remained in the hands of the said French.\nHe says that, this done, the said Maid and those of her said company withdrew into the said city of Orléans, in which they refreshed and rested themselves for that day.\nHe says that on the morrow the said Maid and her said people, seeing the great victory obtained by them the day before upon their said enemies, issued out of the said city in good order, to go to assail a certain other bastille being before the said city, called the bastille of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc; to do which thing, for that they saw that they could not well go by land to the same (114) bastille, because the said enemies had made another very strong one at the foot of the bridge of the said city, suchwise that it was impossible for them to pass, it was concluded among them to pass into a certain isle being in the river of Loire, and there they would make their assembly to go to take the said bastille of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc; and to pass the other arm of the said river of Loire, they caused to be brought two boats, of which they made a bridge, to go to the said bastille.\nHe says that, this done, they went toward the said bastille, which they found all abandoned, for that the English who were in it, as soon as they perceived the coming of the said French, went away and withdrew into another stronger and greater bastille, called the bastille of the Augustins.\nHe says that, the said French seeing they were not mighty enough to take the said bastille, it was concluded that so they should return without doing aught.\nHe says that, the more safely to return and pass, it was ordained to remain behind some of the most notable and valiant men of war of the party of the said French, so as to keep that the said enemies should not be able to aggrieve them in their returning; and to do this were ordained my lords of Gaucourt, of Villars, then seneschal of Beaucaire, and he who speaks.\nHe says that as the said French returned from the said bastille of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc to enter into the said isle, then the said Maid and La Hire each passed a horse in a boat to the other side of the same isle, upon which horses they mounted as soon as they had passed, each his lance in his hand. And then when they perceived that the said enemies issued out of the said bastille to run upon their people, straightway the said Maid and La Hire, who were ever before them to keep them, couched their lances and first of all began to strike upon the said enemies; and then each followed them and began to strike upon the same enemies in such manner that by force they constrained them to withdraw and enter into the said bastille of the Augustins. And in doing this, he who speaks being at the keeping of a pass with certain others for this established and ordained, among whom was a right valiant man-at-arms of the country of Spain, named Alphonse de Partada, they saw pass before them another man-at-arms of their company, a fair man, great and well armed, to whom, for that he passed on, he who speaks said that he should remain there a little with the others, to make resistance to the said enemies, in case need should be; by whom it was straightway answered him that he would do naught of it. And then the said Alphonse said to him that so might he remain as the others, and that there were some as valiant as he who remained well. Who answered to the same Alphonse that he did not. Whereupon they had between them certain arrogant words, and so far that they concluded to go the two of them, one with the other, upon the said enemies, and then it should be seen who should be the most valiant, and who best of the two of them would do his duty. And they holding by the hands, the greatest course they could, went toward the said bastille of the said enemies, and went even to the foot of the palisade.\nHe says that as they were at the said palisade of the same bastille, he who speaks saw within the said palisade a great, strong and puissant Englishman, well in point and armed, who so resisted them that they could not enter the said palisade. And then he who speaks showed the said Englishman to one named Master Jean the Cannonier, saying to him that he should shoot at the same Englishman; for he did too great grief, and wrought much damage to those who willed to approach the said bastille: which the said Master Jean did; for as soon as he perceived him, he addressed his shot toward him, so that he cast him dead to the ground; and then the said two men-at-arms gained the passage, by which all the others of their company passed and entered into the said bastille; which very bitterly and with great diligence they assailed on all sides, in such wise that within little time they gained it and took it by assault. And there were slain and taken the most part of the said enemies; and those who could save themselves withdrew into the said bastille of the Tourelles, being at the said foot of the bridge. And thereby, the said Maid and those being with her obtained victory over the said enemies for that day. And the said great bastille was gained, and the said lords and their people, with the said Maid, remained before it all that night.\nHe says further that on the morrow at morning, the said Maid sent to seek all the lords and captains being before the said bastille taken, to advise what was most to be done: by whose advice it was concluded and deliberated to assail that day a great boulevard which the said English had made before the said bastille of the Tourelles, and that it was expedient to have and gain it before doing aught else. To do and execute which thing, the said Maid, the captains and their people went on the one side and the other that day, early in the morning, before the said boulevard, to which they gave the assault on all sides, and made all their effort to take it, and so far that they were before the same boulevard from the morning until sun-setting, without being able to take or gain it. And the said lords and captains being with her seeing that for that day they could not well gain it, the hour considered which was very late, and also that all were very weary and travelled, it was concluded among them to cause to sound the retreat of the said host; which was done and at the sound of trumpet sounded that each should withdraw for that day. In making which retreat, for that he who bore the standard of the said Maid and held it still standing before the said boulevard was weary and travelled, he delivered the said standard to one named the Basque, who was of the said lord of Villars; and because he who speaks knew the said Basque to be a valiant man, and he doubted that at the occasion of the said retreat ill should not ensue therefrom, and that the said bastille and boulevard should remain in the hands of the said enemies, he had thought that, if the said standard were pushed forward, for the great affection which he knew to be in the men of war being there, they might by this means gain the same boulevard. And then he who speaks asked the said Basque, if he entered and went to the foot of the said boulevard, whether he would follow him: who told him and promised so to do. And then he who speaks entered into the said ditch and went even to the foot of the dove of the said boulevard, covering himself with his targe for doubt of the stones, and left his said companion on the other side, whom he believed should follow him foot by foot; but for that, when the said Maid saw her said standard in the hands of the said Basque, and she believed she had lost it, inasmuch as he who bore it had entered into the said ditch, the said Maid came, who took the said standard by the end, in such wise that he could not have it, crying: Haa! my standard! my standard! and shook the said standard, in manner that the imagination of the said deponent was that in so doing the others might believe she made them some sign; and then he who speaks cried: Ha, Basque! is this what thou hast promised me? And then the said Basque so pulled the said standard that he wrenched it from the hands of the said Maid, and that done, went to him who speaks, and bore the said standard. At the occasion of which thing all they of the host of the said Maid assembled, and again rallied, and with such great asperity assailed the said boulevard that, within little time after, the same boulevard and the said bastille were by them taken, and abandoned of the said enemies; and the said French entered into the said city of Orléans over the bridge.\nAnd he who speaks says [that] the selfsame day he had heard the said Maid say: In the name of God, they shall enter to-night into the town by the bridge. And that done, the same Maid and her said people withdrew into the said town of Orléans, in which he who speaks caused her to be dressed; for she had been wounded by a shot in the said assault.\nHe says also that on the morrow all the said English, who still remained before the said town, on the other side of the same bastille of the Tourelles, raised their siege, and went away, as all confounded and discomfited. And thereby, by the help of our Lord and of the said Maid, the said city was delivered from the hands of the said enemies.\nHe says further that, a certain time after the return from the king’s anointing, it was advised by his council then being at Mehun-sur-Yèvre, that it was very needful to recover the town of La Charité, which the said enemies held; but that the town of Saint-Pierre-le-Moustier, which the same enemies likewise held, must be taken first.\nHe says that, to do this and to assemble people, the said Maid went into the town of Bourges, in which she made her assembly, and thence with a certain quantity of men-at-arms, of whom my lord d’Albret was the chief, they went to besiege the said town of Saint-Pierre-le-Moustier.\nAnd he says that, after the said Maid and her said people had held the siege before the said town for some time, it was ordained to give the assault to the same town; and so it was done, and to take it they who were there did their duty; but, because of the great number of men-at-arms being in the said town, the great strength of it, and also the great resistance which they within made, the said French were constrained and forced to withdraw, for the causes aforesaid. And at that hour, he who speaks, who was wounded by a shot through the heel, so that without crutches (115) he could not sustain himself nor go, saw that the said Maid had remained very slightly accompanied of her people or of others, and he who speaks doubting that ill should not ensue therefrom, mounted upon a horse and straightway drew toward her, and asked her what she did there thus alone, and why she did not withdraw as the others did. Who, after she had taken her salade from her head, answered him that she was not alone, and that she had still in her company fifty thousand of her people, and that thence she would not depart until she had taken the said town. And he who speaks says that at that hour, whatsoever she said, she had not with her more than four or five men, and this he knows certainly, and many others who likewise saw her: for which cause he again told her that she should go thence, and withdraw as the others did. And then she told him that he should cause to be brought her faggots and hurdles to make a bridge over the ditches of the said town, so that they might the better approach it. And in saying these words to him she cried with a high voice and said: To the faggots and the hurdles every man, to make the bridge! Which straightway after was made and set up. At which thing the same deponent was all marvelling; for straightway the said town was taken by assault, without then finding too great resistance.\nAnd he who speaks says that all the deeds of the said Maid seemed to him more divine and miraculous deeds than otherwise, and that it was impossible for so young a maid to do such works, without the will and guidance of our Lord.\nHe who speaks says also, who for the space of a whole year, by the commandment of the king our said lord, dwelt in the company of the said Maid, that, during that time, he has not seen nor known in her aught which should not be in a good christian woman; and whom he has ever seen and known to be of very good life and honest conversation, in all and each of her deeds.\nHe says also that he has known the same Maid to be a very devout creature, and that very devoutly she maintained herself in hearing the divine service of our Lord, which she continually willed to hear, to wit on the solemn days, the great mass of the place where she was, with the subsequent hours, and on the other days a low mass; and that she was accustomed every day to hear mass, if it were possible for her.\nHe says further that many times he has seen and known that she confessed herself and received our Lord, and did all that belongs to a good christian man or woman to do, and without that ever, during the time he has conversed with her, he has heard her swear, blaspheme or forswear the name of our Lord, nor of his Saints, for any cause or occasion whatever.\nHe says moreover that, notwithstanding she was a young girl, fair and well formed, and that many times, as well in helping to arm her as otherwise, he had seen her breasts, and sometimes her legs all bare, in causing her to be tended of her wounds, and that he approached her oftentimes, and also that he was strong, young and in his good strength: nevertheless never, for any sight or touch he had of the said Maid, did his body stir to any carnal desire toward her, nor likewise did that of any other of her people and esquires, as he who speaks has heard them say and relate many times.\nAnd he says that, in his belief, she was a very good christian woman, and that she must have been inspired; for she loved all that a good christian ought to love, and especially she much loved a good and worthy man whom she knew to be of chaste life.\nHe says further still that he has heard say by many women, who have seen the said Maid many times bare, and knew of her secrets, that she had never had the secret sickness of women, and that never could anyone know or perceive aught of it by her garments, nor otherwise.\nHe says also that, when the said Maid had aught to do for the doing of her war, she said to him who speaks that her counsel had told her what she must do.\nHe says that he interrogated her who was her said counsel; who answered him that her counsellors were three, of whom the one was ever resident with her, the other went and came oftentimes toward her, and visited her; and the third was he with whom the two others deliberated. And it befell that one time among others, he who speaks prayed and asked her that she would once show him the same counsel: who answered him that he was not worthy or virtuous enough to see them. And then the said deponent ceased to speak to her further of it nor to inquire.\nAnd the said deponent firmly believes, as he has said above, that, the deeds, conduct and great guidings of the same Maid seen, she was filled with all the good things which can and ought to be in a good christian woman.\nAnd so he has said and deposed as is written above, without love, favour, hatred or subornation whatsoever; but only for the sole truth of the deed, and as he has seen and known to be in the said Maid.\nAnd that the premises were so deposed and testified by the abovesaid lord Seneschal, before me, the aforesaid vice-inquisitor, and in the presence of the two notaries subscribed below, I, the same vice-inquisitor, attest and certify to you, my most reverend lords, by the instrument of this kind, taken of the premises by the own hands of the said two notaries subscribed below, and signed with their manual signs, with the appension of my own seal which I use in my office of vice-inquisitor, in witness of the same; the day, year, indiction and pontificate abovesaid.\nAs is contained above the aforenamed lord Jean d’Aulon deposed and attested, before the aforesaid lord vice-inquisitor, in my presence, Hugues Belièvre, clerk, citizen of Lyon, public notary by apostolic authority, and sworn of the court of the officiality of Lyon, witness my manual sign here appended, which is such. So signed, H. Belièvre.\nAlso, as is described above, the above-named lord Jean d’Aulon deposed and attested, before the aforenamed lord vice-inquisitor, in my presence, Bartholomé Belièvre, citizen of Lyon, public notary by apostolic authority, and sworn of the court of the officiality of Lyon, and also of the aforenamed Hugues Belièvre, notary and sworn by the same authority. Witness my manual sign, which I use in such precedent things. So signed: B. Belièvre.\nCollation made. Comitis. Ferrebouc.\n(113) Manuscript ND., des dictes.\n(114) Manuscript ND., prendre ladicte.\n(115) That is to say, without crutches.\nChapter VI # [The taking up of the cause by the lords Jean Fabri and Hector de Coquerel, subdelegated judges.]\nItem, in the year of the Lord 1456, on the first day of the month of June, before the reverend father in Christ and lord, the lord Jean Fabri, of the order of the Hermit Friars of Saint Augustine, professor of sacred theology, bishop of Demetrias; and the venerable and learned man Master Hector de Coquerel, doctor of decrees, dean of Lisieux and official of Rouen; judges and commissioners of the cause, delegated by apostolic authority by the aforesaid Jean, archbishop of Reims, and Guillaume, bishop of Paris, and given and deputed for the observance of certain terms to the parties written below, and commissioned and subdelegated by the same judges (1) as regards the observance of those terms, as by their letters made hereupon, inserted below, it could and did appear; and Jean Bréhal, aforesaid:\nThere appeared the aforesaid Masters Guillaume Prévosteau, procurators, by the aforesaid names, of the said Isabelle, the mother, Pierre and Jean, the brothers, and other kindred and friends of the same late Joan la Pucelle, and Jean Veteris, procurator of the aforesaid Master Simon Chapitault, promoter in this cause; asserting that this day had been assigned to them, and at which the aforesaid reverend father, the lord bishop of Beauvais, his promoter of criminal causes, and the subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, and all and each other who believed it to concern them, had been cited, to say and propose all that and whatsoever they would say or propose against the persons, sayings, attestations or depositions of the witnesses produced for the part of the same Prévosteau and Veteris, by the names for which they proceed, as well before the same lords judges as before their commissioners (2), to prove their intention, produced, and by them or their commissioners received, sworn and examined, and at length by the same Guillaume, the bishop, and Brother Jean Bréhal, the inquisitor, published; and to proceed further (3), as should be of reason.\nFor this cause, because in the absence of the said reverend fathers the bishop of Paris and Brother Jean Bréhal, the aforesaid reverend father and Master Hector had been deputed by them, they presented their commissory letters to them, beseeching them that they would deign to receive the charge of the cause of this kind in the force of the same commissory letters. Which letters seen, and with reverence received, they assumed the charge of the cause of this kind, and caused the same their commissory letters to be read plainly and publicly by the other of us, the notaries in the cause of this kind. Which read, they continued the cause of this kind until the morrow, as well ex officio as by reason of the day of presentation.\nPresent at these things the venerable men Masters Jean Martin otherwise Barneville, Pierre Lotte, curate of Chailly, Guillaume Colles otherwise Boisguillaume, and Symphorian Auber, priests, witnesses called and asked to the premises.\nNow the tenor of the said commissory letters follows and is such:\nJean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume, by the same mercy bishop of Paris, judges and commissioners in this part together with the reverend father in Christ and lord the bishop of Coutances, having taken to us Brother Jean Bréhal, of the order of Preaching Friars, professor of sacred theology, another inquisitor of heretical pravity in the realm of France, specially deputed by the most holy father in Christ and our lord the lord Calixtus by divine providence pope the third, etc., etc.: to the reverend father in Christ and lord, the lord Jean, by the same divine mercy bishop of Demetrias, and to Hector de Coquerel, doctor of decrees, dean of Lisieux, vicar-general and official of Rouen, salvation in the Lord, and undoubted faith in the presents, and prompt diligence in the things committed. Whereas in a certain cause of late moved and pending before us, between the honest woman Isabelle d’Arc, Pierre d’Arc, knight, and Jean d’Arc, actors on the one part; and the reverend father in Christ the lord Guillaume, by the same divine mercy bishop of Beauvais, and the promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, the subinquisitor of heretical pravity appointed in the diocese of Beauvais, and all others who believe it to concern them in common or severally, defendants, on the other part; of and upon the nullity or nullities of certain pretended processes and sentence, of old made and given in such wise by the said late Pierre, the bishop, and his accomplices against the said Joan, called la Pucelle; and also of the purgation of the same, and other things designated in the acts of the said cause, and by occasion of the same, to many judicial acts, to wit to say against the articles, the publication of the witnesses, as well by us as by our commissioners produced, received, sworn and examined; to say against the persons and the sayings of the same, we have of old proceeded and assigned a term to produce and to see produced all and each the rights, processes and muniments on either side: to the observance of which and of the other remaining terms, we, hindered by certain causes, cannot commodiously attend:\nHence it is that we, fully confident of your sufficiency, industry and probity, commit and command to you and to each of you in solidum, by the tenor of the presents, that, resuming the cause of this kind in the state in which it is, so far as is needful, and in the same cause and causes of this kind, to the observance of all the further terms necessary and incumbent until the conclusion of the cause exclusively, and otherwise as shall be of right, you proceed with the aforesaid Brother Jean Bréhal. Now the witnesses who shall be named, if they withdraw themselves by grace, hatred, love or favour, you shall compel by ecclesiastical censures to the truth\n(1) Manuscript 5970, per eos commissis.\n(2) Manuscript ND., suis.\n(3) ND., processumque. It would need at least sequi processuros, or atque processum iri.\nto bear witness. In faith and witness of all and each of the premises, we have caused and commanded the present letters to be made firm by the appension of our seals.\nGiven and done at Paris, in the year of the Lord 1456, the fourth indiction, on the penultimate day of the month of May, in the second year of the pontificate of the aforesaid most holy father in Christ and our lord, the lord Calixtus, by divine providence pope the third.\nSo signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nAssignation to produce, the way of speaking against the witnesses being foreclosed to the defendants # Now the said morrow coming, which was the second of the month of June, assigned, as is aforesaid, to the same cited, to say and propose, on the part of the same cited, all that and whatsoever they would say or propose against the depositions of the witnesses of this kind, and to proceed further as should be of reason; before the same bishop of Demetrias and Master Hector de Coquerel, deputed, as is aforesaid, by the aforesaid lords judges, and Brother Jean Bréhal aforesaid; in the great hall of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, the aforesaid Masters Guillaume Prévosteau and Jean Veteris appearing by the names for which they proceeded and proceed; and the said cited being summoned before the aforesaid lords judges (4) and not appearing: the same Prévosteau and Veteris, to ground the jurisdiction and judgment of the said lords subdelegates, reproduced the above-written commissory letters.\nThey produced moreover the citatory letters, by virtue of which the same bishop of Beauvais, the promoter and the subinquisitor, and the others whom it concerned and concerns, had been cited and summoned, with the relation of their execution; asking and requiring of the said commissioners and by them, that the said so cited and not appearing nor sending anyone for themselves, should be reputed contumacious of this day, and, in their contumacy, that the way should by the same commissioners be foreclosed to them of saying and opposing henceforth against the said witnesses, their sayings or attestations; and that it should be declared that it behoved to proceed further in the cause of this kind, their contumacy or absence notwithstanding.\nWherefore the aforesaid commissioners, assenting to the petition and requisition of the same procurators, by the names aforesaid, as consonant to right, reputed the same so cited and summoned, not appearing nor sending anyone for themselves, contumacious of this day, and in their contumacy foreclosed the way henceforth of saying or opposing aught against the witnesses of this kind, their sayings or depositions, and held them for foreclosed (5); the said commissioners decreeing that they should proceed to the further acts, and, from abundance, assigning to the same parties the Friday already assigned to them, to produce all on either side; and commanding that they be cited to do this, as also they commanded.\nPresent Masters Guillaume Auber, Guillaume Colles, Thomas de Farioulières, Brother Raymond, a converse of the order of Preaching Friars, witnesses called and asked to the premises.\nThe tenor of the said citatory letters or public edict follows and is such:\nJean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, and Guillaume, by the same mercy bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, etc., to all priests, vicars, curates and not curates, and the other rectors of churches, and to public tabellions and other notaries wheresoever established, to whom or to which our present letters shall come, salvation in the Lord, and firmly to obey our mandates, nay rather the apostolic mandates. To you all and each abovesaid, in virtue of holy obedience, and under the pains of suspension and excommunication which we shall bear into you and each of you, unless you do what we command; by straitly commanding, we command that to execute this our mandate, the one of you shall not wait for the other, nor one excuse himself by another. You shall peremptorily cite before us or one of us or our subdelegate or subdelegates, at Rouen, in the archiepiscopal hall of Rouen, on the first day of the instant month of June, the reverend father in Christ the lord Guillaume, bishop of Beauvais; Master Reginald Bredoulle, promoter of the criminal causes of the diocese of Beauvais; the subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais; and all and each other who believe it to concern them in this part, whom we also cite by the tenor of the presents, to say and propose all that and whatsoever they shall will to say or propose against the persons, sayings, attestations or depositions of the witnesses produced for the part of the honest persons Isabelle, the mother, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, brothers of the said deceased Joan d’Arc, actors in this part, as well before us as our commissioners, to prove their intention, the said witnesses received, sworn and examined, and by us of late published; and to proceed further in the cause of this kind, as shall be of reason; demanding the execution of these our letters by the affixion of our present letters on the doors of the Church of Rouen, as otherwise has been decreed by us. And what you shall do therein, you shall faithfully write back to us. Given at Rouen, under our seals, in the year of the Lord 1456, on Wednesday the tenth day of the month of May.\nSo signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nContinuation of the assignation made to produce # Item, in the aforesaid year of the Lord 1456, on the fourth day of the month of June, a day assigned by the same masters commissioners to the aforesaid actors, and to the reverend father in Christ the lord of Beauvais, and the promoter of criminal causes, and the subinquisitor, and the others who believe it to concern them, defendants; and at which day they had already long since caused the same defendants and others who believe it to concern them to be cited, by citatory letters containing in themselves the form of compulsory letters, to produce and to see produced for the part of the same actors, in this part, all and each the acts, actings, rights, processes, letters, instruments, documents and whatsoever others touching the cause of this kind, and of which the same parties in the cause of this kind would will to help themselves, and the same to be received and admitted by the said commissioners; and to proceed further, as should be of reason. On which day the aforesaid procurators, by the names aforesaid, appeared before the aforesaid bishop of Demetrias and Hector de Coquerel, commissioners, and accused the contumacy of the said defendants not appearing, presenting themselves before the same commissioners, as is the wont. Which done, the same commissioners continued this fourth day until the morrow.\nGiven and done in the year and on the day aforesaid.\nProductions made by the procurators of the actors # Now the said morrow coming, and assigned to the parties, as is aforesaid, to produce and to see produced each the acts, actings, rights, processes, letters, instruments and whatsoever touching the cause of this kind, and to see all things to be produced received; on the aforesaid day, as has already been said, assigned, which was the twenty-fifth (6) day of the month of June, of the year of the Lord 1456, continued from the preceding day: the aforesaid procurators of the aforesaid actors appeared, and manifoldly accused the contumacy of the said defendants, awaited from yesterday until this day; producing in the first place and before all, to teach of the summons, the citatory letters emanated from the aforesaid lords Delegates, containing in themselves the form of compulsory letters, above (7) described and inserted, together with the relations of their execution.\nAnd further satisfying the aforesaid assignation to produce made to the parties and continued, in the first place they produced specially and expressly, as they reproduced, certain particular acts of this present process, and certain bulls and letters, inserted above and designated immediately under the following articles; and generally all and each the acts and actings, produced and exhibited in this process or cause, so far as they make for them, reproducing and willing them to be had for produced.\nAnd further they produced anew a certain leaf received among the acts of the first process from the hands of the notaries, and written by Master Guillaume Manchon, as he acknowledged, and shown to him and the other notaries in making the inquests; and that with the articles of the same first process transmitted to seek opinions (8), and recited and set in the said process and in the same opinions also. In which leaf indeed are contained many corrections and additions in the same articles, to be made before they were transmitted; otherwise the said articles could not agree with the confessions of the said Joan, nay seemed in many things to contradict. Which corrections nevertheless, albeit so concluded by the counsellors, were not made, as appears, as well from inspection of the same articles as from the confession of the aforesaid Joan, and also from the confession of the same notaries; the said notaries not knowing, as they say, why and by whom the said articles were so transmitted without correction, as appears in the inquests inserted above, in the deposition of the said notaries above examined and recollected upon this, which the procurators of the said actors reproduce in this part. Now the tenor of the said leaf with the said corrections is inserted immediately.\nFurther, to show the falsification of the said articles, they produced five paper leaves, written in the hand of Master Jacques de Touraine, as it is said, where are set the articles to be transmitted to seek opinions, under another and in many things contrary form, with many additions and corrections. Which five leaves indeed, because they could not be truly transcribed or engrossed, the said additions made as well in the margin of the leaves as otherwise, the same widow asks to be seen with ocular faith, and in the register, if need be, to be alleged and inserted likewise.\nNow about the original acts and instruments of the same first process of whose nullity it is now treated, and to which nullity or annulment it is concluded by the said procurators, and which originals were received by the office of the said Delegates from the hand of the notaries, and acknowledged under many and various volumes in French and in Latin, in minutes and in gross: they will and protest that they be had for produced only and so far as need is, so far as they can avail to the nullity or annulment or annihilation, according to the conclusions of the aforesaid procurators taken in their writings; and not otherwise, nor asking beyond; and requiring moreover that, the erasures of lines and the many additions of words, transmutations of terms, disagreements and contrarieties in the same books and acts of the said first process being considered, which could not conveniently be transcribed, engrossed or copied, all the aforesaid original acts and actings be seen at full, together and integrally conferred; and if it befall that aught of them be inserted in the present process, that the same originals be formally inserted without (9) transcription; and so the erasures, transpositions, disagreements and contrarieties be seen to the eye and fully.\nItem, and albeit it sufficiently appear by the acts of the said process carried on against the said Joan, that the said process was in favour and at the prosecution of the English adversaries of the same Joan and of the realm, and of inordinate favour toward the party of the English: the aforesaid actors further produce a letter of guarantee, arreison (10), re-promise of expenses and damages, and of total defence to the said judges and officers of the process; the tenor of which letter is inserted below.\nAssignation to say against the products, the way of producing aught further being foreclosed to the defendants # After which products so made, as they are inserted above and immediately designated and described; the same defendants being longer awaited and not appearing; the said procurators of the actors [required] the said defendants, as above cited, to be reputed contumacious, and that the way of producing aught henceforth be foreclosed, and that they be had for foreclosed, and the day assigned to them (11) to say against the products.\nAfter all which things also so said and required, the aforesaid commissioners received the things said, required and produced by the same procurators, and reputed the said defendants not appearing nor sending anyone for themselves, of this day, contumacious, and in their contumacy foreclosed to the same cited the way of producing aught henceforth, and held them foreclosed; decreeing that the same cited should be summoned for the instant Wednesday, to say against the products, assigning the same Wednesday to the same procurators.\nPresent at these things Masters Geoffroy du Crotay, Jean Roussel, Guillaume le Conte, Pierre Roque, Laurent Lureux, Nicolas de Houppeville, with many others, witnesses specially called and asked to the premises.\nNow the tenor of the said citation or compulsory citatory letters to produce, of which mention was made above in the beginning of the productions, follows, and is such:\nJean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, and Guillaume by the same mercy bishop of Paris, and Brother Jean Bréhal, of sacred\n(4) The manuscript 5970 gives only coram eisdem evocatis.\n(5) Manuscript 5970, praeclusa.\n(6) So. It should be v, since the eve was the iv.\n(7) Read inferius; they are reported only hereafter, p. 234.\n(8) Manuscript 5970, transmutatas.\n(9) The manuscripts, atque.\n(10) This word, which is not in Du Cange, is derived in all appearance from the verb arraire, which signified to adjudge.\n(11) Assignari or assignandam esse.\ntheology professor, etc., to all priests, vicars, curates and not curates, etc. By the apostolic authority wherewith we are furnished in this part, at the instance and request of the honest persons Isabelle, the mother, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, brothers of the said Joan, actors, or their procurators, and of the venerable and discreet man Master Simon Chapitault, master in arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter in this part instituted by us: to you all and each abovesaid, in virtue of holy obedience, and under the pains of suspension and excommunication which we shall bear into you and each of you, unless you do what we command: by straitly commanding, we command that to execute this our mandate, the one of you shall not wait for the other, nor one excuse himself by another. You shall peremptorily cite before us or one of us, or our subdelegate or subdelegates, at Rouen, in the archiepiscopal hall of Rouen, for the second juridical day immediately following the execution of the presents: the reverend father in Christ the lord Guillaume, bishop of Beauvais; Master Reginald Bredoulle, promoter of the criminal causes of the diocese of Beauvais; the subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais; and all and each other who believe it to concern them, defendants in this part; whom we also cite by the tenor of the presents: to produce on the part of the said defendants, and to see produced on the part of the same actors and promoter, all and each the acts, actings, rights, processes, letters, instruments, documents, and whatsoever others making to the cause of this kind, and of which the same parties on either side shall will to help themselves for their ends; and to proceed further in the cause of this kind, as shall be of law and reason; warning, as also by the tenor of the presents we warn, in these writings, first, second, third, and by one canonical monition for all, and under the pains of suspension and excommunication, all and each persons, of whatsoever degree, estate, sex, condition and pre-eminence they be, and each of them, having and knowing any rights, acts, actings, letters, instruments, documents, and whatsoever others: that within the said second juridical day, they deliver and deposit them in the hands of the notaries for this deputed by us, or that one of them deliver and deposit, or that they have or he has to intimate and signify to the same notaries. Otherwise, if they fail in this or be otherwise negligent in the premises, or one of them fail or be negligent: we suspend all and each of them failing or negligent in the premises, if they be established in sacred orders, in these writings, the said monition premised, from the divine offices; the others not established in sacred things we excommunicate, suspend, in these writings, and, the said day elapsed, denounce as excommunicated by us, by the aforesaid authority, plainly and publicly; demanding the execution of these our letters by the affixion of our present letters on the doors of the church of Rouen, as otherwise has been decreed by us. And what you shall do therein, you shall faithfully write back to us. Given at Rouen, under our seals, in the year of the Lord 1456, on the tenth day of the month of May.\nSo signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nThen follows the relation in the fold:\nThis was affixed and executed on the first day of the month of June, in the year contained in the white, by me, Pierre Ogier, clerk, public notary by apostolic authority, witness my manual sign here appended, in the year and on the day aforesaid.\nSo signed: P. Ogier.\nThere follow the designations of the letters and acts which specially and expressly are reproduced by the said procurators from the preceding acts of this present process and inserted above.\nAnd first, the aforesaid procurators reproduce, so far as is needful, the letters or bulls of the most holy our lord pope Calixtus, etc.; by virtue of which they proceeded to the citations, commissions and subdelegations, with the other acts of the present process of this kind; with the general and special citatory letters decreed in the beginning of the process of this kind, and the relations of the execution of the same, and the particular citatory letters decreed and ordained in the prosecution of the process of this kind upon the particular acts of this process.\nItem, they reproduce the informations, letters and commissions and all others made by the most reverend father the lord Guillaume, cardinal of the title of San Martin-in-Montibus, and legate of the apostolic see, and under his authority.\nItem, they specially reproduce the inquests or informations made by the authority of the aforesaid lords Delegates at the instance of the promoter in the place of origin of the aforesaid Joan.\nItem, they reproduce the inquests made by the said lords delegates and their commissaries, as well in the city of Rouen as also in Orléans, Paris and many other places and cities of this realm, as well upon the quality and conversation of the said Joan as upon the aforesaid process carried on against the said Joan in the said city of Rouen, as they are above reduced in writing and in their places.\nThere follow the things produced anew by the said procurators, which were not inserted above among the acts of this process # And first, they produce a certain leaf written in the hand of Master Guillaume Manchon, the other of the notaries of the said first process, and shown as well to him as to the other notaries; in which are expressly contained many corrections to be made in the articles to be sent for having opinions. Which corrections, albeit concluded by the counsellors, were nevertheless not made; nay the articles themselves, much discrepant from the confession of Joan and contrary to her, were transmitted.\nThe tenor of the said leaf follows:\nUpon the first article, in that point: By means of aid and labours there ought to be set with God’s aid.\nUpon the same: That she would rather die than leave the habit, etc., there ought to be added: unless she shall have it by God’s command.\nUpon the same, Facientes, etc. does not seem well set.\nUpon the same, Noctu, etc. does not seem well set.\nUpon the same, That Saints Catherine and Margaret in the contentions (12), etc.; does not seem well set; but there ought to be set: That she knew by the revelation of Saints Catherine and Margaret that the adversaries of the said prince shall be expelled, and that God shall give victory to the said prince and his, and against his adversaries.\nUpon the second, where it is set of the angels that they walked by a long journey, etc., it suffices to say that the angels accompanied, etc.\nAnd in the margin was set: Many things must be added of the long journey, of the steps, doors, etc.\nItem, the second article is divided into two articles.\nItem, upon the third, let that be noted in which is had In her company, and therefore let the letters written to the king be seen.\nUpon the fourth, when of the habit for the use of a man, to wit the tunic, there ought to be set: And with this she said that, after she had by God’s mandate to bear the man’s habit, it behoved her to bear a short tunic, a hood, etc.\nUpon the same, to leave the male habit, etc. let there be added also another thing which (13) she said, that she would not leave it, unless it were by God’s mandate.\nUpon the fifth, before And then she willed not, etc., there ought to be added: And sometimes she set a cross, and such (14) was the sign that they of her party to whom she wrote should not do or accomplish the things she wrote.\nUpon the sixth, where it is said: The parents were well-nigh witless, etc., let it be corrected and set that they were ill content at her departing.\nUpon the ninth, where it is had: Non dilexit, there ought to be set: And after she had known by revelation that they were vows, etc. And let the last part of the article be erased, to wit And all these things, etc.\nUpon the tenth, at the end there ought to be added And at the end she said, unless where it had been revealed to her on God’s part.\nUpon the eleventh, where is set Denoting, etc., there ought to be set Denoting that she is subject to the Church militant, our Lord first served, and provided that the Church militant command her not aught contrary to her revelations made and to be made.\nItem, on the fourth day of the month of April, in the year of the Lord 1431, the aforesaid judges willed and ordained the premises to be transmitted to the lords doctors and masters, that they might deliberate upon the same, as is intituled above.\nAnd on the back and end of the same leaf reversed were contained these: Note, that it is expedient for the good of the cause to transmit this codex to Paris, to wit to the lord Inquisitor, to those who are with the lord of Burgundy, and to the other solemn doctors and masters, where a convenient access may be had.\nItem follows the tenor of the letters of the king of England (15).\nHenry by the grace of God king of France and of England, to all who shall see these present letters, greeting. Whereas for some time past we have been required and exhorted by our right dear and well-beloved daughter the University of Paris that a woman, who caused herself to be called Jehanne la Pucelle, who had been taken in arms by certain of our subjects in the diocese of Beauvais, within the metes of the spiritual jurisdiction of the said diocese, that the same woman should be surrendered, delivered and given up to the Church, as vehemently suspected, convicted and notoriously defamed of having sown, said and published in many and divers places and countries of our said realm of France many great errors, exercised, committed and perpetrated crimes, excesses and delicts most enormous against our holy catholic faith, and to the great scandal of all the christian people; we have been also required and summoned most instantly, and by many and divers times, by our beloved and faithful councillor the bishop of Beauvais, ordinary judge of the same woman, that we would surrender, deliver and give up the same to him, to be by him, as her judge, corrected and purged (16); and in case that by process duly made and juridical, she should be found charged and convicted of the said errors, crimes, excesses and delicts, or of any of them; and we, as a true catholic and son of the Church, following our predecessors, kings of France and of England, not willing to do aught which were or might be prejudicial in any manner to the holy Inquisition of our said holy faith, nor to the retardment of it; but desiring the same holy Inquisition to be preferred to all other ways of secular and temporal justice, and to render to each that which belongs to him, we have caused the said woman to be delivered and given up to our said councillor, ordinary judge, as is said, to inquire of the said errors, crimes, excesses and delicts, and to do justice of them, as should belong by reason; which our said councillor, joined with him the vicar of the inquisitor of the faith, the same inquisitor absent, have together made their inquisition and process upon the same (17) errors, crimes, excesses and delicts, and suchwise that by their definitive sentence they have finally declared the same woman, as having fallen back into the said errors, crimes, excesses and delicts, after a certain abjuration by her publicly made, relapsed and heretic, put out of their hands, and left to our court and secular justice, as all these things may more fully appear by the said process; by which our court and secular justice the said woman has been condemned to be burned and burnt, and so executed; forasmuch as peradventure certain who may have held the errors and misdeeds of the said Jehanne agreeable, and others who unduly would strive or would will to strive, by hatred, vengeance or otherwise, to trouble the true judgments of our mother holy Church, might draw into cause before our holy Father the pope, the holy general Council or elsewhere, the said reverend father in God, the vicar, the doctors, masters, clerks, promoters, advocates, councillors, notaries, and others who have meddled with the said process: WE, who, as protector and defender of our holy catholic faith, will to bear, sustain and defend the said judges, doctors, masters, clerks, promoter, advocates, councillors, notaries, and all others who have meddled with the said process in any manner, or all that they have said and pronounced, in all the things and each of them touching and concerning the said process, its circumstances and dependences: so that henceforth all other judges, doctors, masters and others be more attentive, inclined and encouraged to attend and intend, without fear or constraint, to the extirpations of the errors and false dogmatisings which in divers parts of christendom spring up and pullulate in these present times, which we grievously recount; especially as we are duly informed that the said process was made and conducted maturely and canonically, justly and holily, had upon this and upon the matter of the same process the deliberation of our right dear and well-beloved daughter, the University of Paris, of the doctors and masters of the Faculties of theology and of decree of the same University, and of many others, as well bishops, abbots and other prelates, as doctors, masters and clerks most expert in the divine and canonical laws, and other men of the Church, in very great number; who or the greatest part of whom have continually assisted and been present with the said judges, in examining the said woman and making the said process: we promise in word of a King that, if it befall that any person of whatsoever estate, dignity, degree, pre-eminence or authority they be, the said judges, doctors, masters, clerks, promoter, advocates, councillors, notaries and others who have laboured, attended and intended upon the said process, be drawn into cause for the said process or its dependences before our said holy Father the pope, the said holy general Council, or the commissaries and deputies of the same our holy Father, of the said holy Council, or otherwise: we shall aid and defend, shall cause to aid and defend in judgment and without, all the said judges, doctors, masters, clerks, promoter, advocates, councillors, notaries and others, and each of them, at our own costs and expenses, and\n(12) The manuscript ND., in contemptionibus. This word, whatever it be, is no longer found in the redaction of the twelve articles. See t. I, p. 328.\n(13) The manuscripts, atque quam.\n(14) Manuscript 5970, tamen.\n(15) The manuscript ND. places the transcription of these letters after the assignations emanated from the subdelegated judges.\n(16) Manuscript ND., purgatae.\n(17) Manuscript ND., telz.\non the occasion (18) of their cause in this part, we, for the honour and reverence of God, of our mother holy Church, and the defence of our said holy faith, shall adjoin to the process which any persons, of whatsoever estate they be, in whatsoever manner it be, shall will to intent against them, and shall cause the cause to be pursued in all cases and terms of right and reason at our expense. So we give in mandement to all our ambassadors and messengers, as well of our blood and lineage as others, who may be in the court of Rome, or in the said holy general Council; to all bishops, prelates, doctors and masters, our subjects and lieges of our said realms of France and England, and to our procurators in the court of Rome for our said realms, and to each of them, that, so often as they shall know, shall have knowledge, or are required therein, that, on the occasion of the aforesaid, the said judges, doctors, masters, clerks, promoter, advocates, councillors, notaries and others or any of them shall be put or drawn into cause before our said holy Father, the said holy Council, or elsewhere: they adjoin themselves straightway, for and in our name, to the cause and defence of the aforesaid, by all canonical and juridical ways and manners; and they require our subjects of our said realms then being there, and also those of the kings, princes and lords allied (19) and confederated to us, to give in this matter counsel, favour, aid and assistance, by all ways and manners possible to them, without delay or difficulty whatsoever. In witness whereof we have caused our ordained seal, in the absence of the great, to be set to these presents. Given at Rouen the tenth day of June, the year of grace 1431, and the ninth of our reign.\nAnd in the fold: By the King, at the relation of the Great Council being toward him, in which were my lord the Cardinal of England, you (20), the bishops of Béarnais, of Noyon and of Norwich; the earls of Warwick and of Stafford; the abbots of Fécamp and of Mont Saint-Michel; the lords of Cromwell and of Tiptoft, of Fines-Père (21); and many others. So signed Calot.\nItem, to show more abundantly that not only the said bishop of Beauvais asked for himself and others a promise and assurance of expenses for the future from the same king of England and the English, but also exercised and conducted the whole process of the said king and of the said English, as well in seeking and salarising or satisfying the councillors as the officers: the said procurator produced, in the name of the said widow and of her sons, the depositions of the said councillors and officers examined in the abovesaid inquests, deposing specially and expressly upon this, as is contained in the inquests published above.\nItem, the more to manifest the zeal which (22) was applied against the aforesaid Joan on the part of the same English: the procurator of the said widow produced, from the same inquests published as is said above, specially the deposition of certain physicians and others, expressly deposing that, when the same Joan during the same process was detained of a most grave infirmity, the earl of Warwick and certain others enjoined the same physicians visiting the said Joan the cure of her, saying that by no means would they that she should die a natural death, but that by all means she should be burned at length, at the end of the same process; as may appear from the depositions above in the inquests published.\nItem, to show the same further, the procurator of the aforesaid widow produced a certain schedule, of the twenty-first day of the month of December, produced by the heirs or in the name of the heirs and executors of the deceased Master Pierre Cauchon, bishop of Beauvais, among the acts of this process on the abovesaid day of the month of December, of the year of the Lord 1455 (23), in which is contained that the said Joan was delivered in the matter of faith by the envy and suggestion of the adversaries of the realm, because she had inflicted many damages upon them, albeit she was reputed among her elders of a catholic life; and that it was not the intention of the said heirs and executors to maintain or defend the said process so conducted, as is described above among the acts of the said day.\nItem, the aforesaid procurator required, on the said day assigned to produce, that it might please the aforesaid lords Delegates to note among the acts of this process and to see certain considerations and opinions of the most approved doctors, and of others who at the first coming of the said oft-said Joan la Pucelle wrote certain things (24) upon her reception and also upon the deliverance of the city of Orléans, and gave their considerations; likewise also the opinions and considerations of certain who, before the beginning of this process, are said to have written many things upon the nullity of the process of old carried on against the said Joan and in justification of the said Joan. All which things the said procurator submitted to the discretion and prudence of the lords Delegates.\nInjunction that the originals be communicated, if the defendants should ask it # Therefore the productions aforesaid being received, on the said day assigned to produce, on the part of the aforesaid procurator of the aforesaid widow and her sons, and the adverse parties not appearing and reputed contumacious, and foreclosed from producing: the aforesaid lords commissioners of the lords Delegates, to wit Jean, bishop of Demetrias, and the venerable man Master Hector de Coquerel, doctor of decrees, dean of Lisieux and official of Rouen, together with the venerable man Master Jean Bréhal, the other inquisitor of the faith, deputed by the said lords Delegates from the holy apostolic See; assigning the day [of the instant Wednesday] (25) to say against the products aforesaid (26), as is more largely contained in the letters of citation described below; enjoining us, the abovesaid notaries, that, the said delay pending, if the aforesaid adverse parties, foreclosed from producing, should will to see the productions of the aforesaid widow and her sons, we should show (27) them and all the acts of this present process, and also whatsoever originals of the first process carried on against the said Joan and received in the beginning of this process in various books; offering also an ampler term, if, appearing on that day, they should ask it.\nDeclaration of contumacy against the defendants, the way of saying against the products being foreclosed to them # Now on the said day assigned to the parties to say against the products, as is premised, according to the form of the citation immediately described, the procurator of the aforesaid widow and her sons appeared, and accused the contumacy of the parties not appearing; requiring that the aforesaid adverse parties be excluded and had for excluded from saying or alleging aught against the productions, and that it be proceeded to the further things, according to the order of law, in concluding or ordering to conclude in the cause; which he asked many times, and most instantly required.\nThe same parties then awaited on the said day and not appearing, the aforesaid lords commissioners, together with the said venerable Master Jean Bréhal, the aforesaid procurator instancing, reputed the aforesaid parties and all others or whomsoever, as well specially as generally summoned to say against the aforesaid, contumacious, and excluded them from saying aught further against the aforesaid, and willed them to be had for excluded, leaving the further ordering about all other things, and especially about the conclusion in the cause required, to the aforesaid lords Delegates; the allegations of law, without allegation of new facts, being specially reserved to all the parties, until and so long as conclusion shall be made by the lords Delegates in the same cause; specially reserving the conclusion of the same cause and the assignation of the term to the said conclusion and all other things to the aforesaid lords Delegates.\nNow on the part of the aforesaid procurator of the aforesaid widow and her sons, appearing as is premised, and accusing the contumacy of the adverse parties, as is premised, because nothing has been produced by the adverse parties against which aught comes (28) to be alleged: nothing was also alleged in the same term. Yet the same procurator declared expressly that the books and originals of the first process, for that in very many parts they were impugned or also impugned by the same, as is expressly contained in the propositions, petitions, articles and writings of the same procurator, so far as they are produced on the part of the promoter or otherwise ex officio, must be visited for their impugnation. So far as they make against him, without new allegation, he alleges and proposes all things which are more fully contained in the said sayings, petitions, writings and articles of his, and also in the informations and inquests made as well by the reverend father the lord Guillaume, cardinal of the title of Saint Martin, as by the aforesaid lords Delegates.\nThe tenor of the said citatory letters of the aforesaid Jean, bishop of Demetrias, follows and is such:\nJean, by divine mercy bishop of Demetrias, Hector de Coquerel, doctor of decrees, dean of Lisieux and official of Rouen, judges subdelegated or commissioners in this part by the most reverend and reverend fathers in Christ, the lords Jean, archbishop and duke of Reims, and Guillaume, bishop of Paris, judges together with the reverend father in Christ the lord bishop of Coutances, specially deputed by the most holy father in Christ and our lord, the lord Calixtus by divine providence Pope the third, with that clause: That you, or two, or one of you, etc.; of certain causes of the nullity of the asserted processes and sentences of old made by the deceased Master Pierre Cauchon, then bishop of Beauvais, and the subinquisitor of heretical pravity established in the diocese of Beauvais, at the instance of a certain Jean d’Estivet, asserted promoter of criminal causes, against the late Joan, called la Pucelle, and of the purgation of the things falsely, as is asserted, imputed to the same Joan; commissioned and deputed, as by the commissory letters directed to us and each of us it may appear, containing the form which follows:\nJean, by divine mercy, archbishop and duke of Reims, etc., etc. (29).\nAnd Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, the other inquisitor of heretical pravity in the realm of France, assumed in the cognition of the same causes with the said most reverend and reverend fathers in Christ: to all priests, vicars, curates and not curates, and the other rectors of churches and public tabellions, and other notaries wheresoever established, to whom or to which our present letters shall come, salvation in the Lord, and firmly to obey our mandates, nay rather the apostolic mandates. Whereas of old in the same causes of nullity and purgation moved and pending between Isabelle d’Arc, the mother, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, brothers of the said late Joan la Pucelle, or their procurators, actors, on the one part, and the reverend father in Christ the lord bishop of Beauvais, the subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, and the promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and others who believe it to concern them in the cause of this kind, defendants, on the other part; it has been proceeded by the same most reverend and reverend fathers and by us, Jean Bréhal, so far that the witnesses produced, received, sworn and examined in the same cause, and their attestations, were published by the same most reverend and reverend fathers; and days were assigned to say on the part of the said defendants against the same witnesses and their attestations whatsoever they would say, and also to produce on either side on the part of the same parties all and each the rights, acts, actings, processes, letters, instruments, documents and whatsoever others making to the cause or causes of this kind, and of which the same parties on either side intended to help themselves, and to proceed further as should be of reason; which coming, we, the cause and causes of this kind in the state in which it or they had remained, resumed by us and through us, proceeded in the same in a certain manner to certain acts, and received certain processes, letters, acts, actings, rights, instruments and documents produced for the part of the said actors before us on the day of the date of the presents; in the contumacy of the same defendants and of the others who believe it to concern them, foreclosing to the same defendants and others who believe it to concern them the way of producing aught henceforth, their contumacy considered; decreeing by us, as also we decree, that it shall be proceeded in the cause of this kind, according to the form and tenor of the commissory letters directed to us, and assigning to the same parties the instant Wednesday, which shall be the second juridical day to be counted from the date of the presents, to say, except and propose, by word or in writing, on their part, all that and whatsoever they shall will to say or propose in and against the said actors, or their process and letters, processes, acts, actings, instruments and other documents produced before us on the day of the date of the presents, for the part of the same actors, as well of law as of fact, peremptorily or otherwise; and to proceed further in the cause of this kind, as should be of reason:\nHence it is that we, by the apostolic authority wherewith we are furnished in this part, to you all and each abovesaid, in virtue of holy obedience, and under the pains of suspension and excommunication which we shall bear into you and each of you, unless you do what we command; by straitly commanding\n(18) Supply à l’occasion.\n(19) The manuscripts, à noz.\n(20) The chancellor, Louis de Luxembourg.\n(21) These three last names are only in the Notre-Dame manuscript.\n(22) So: better qui adhibitus fuit, or better still suppress quod.\n(23) See above, t. II, p. 194.\n(24) Supply opiniones. The memoirs in question here form the object of the eighth chapter of the procedure. Yet after the terms of the procès-verbal, it would seem that the defence rested upon several consultations written in the time of the Maid, and the clerks have transcribed into the process only one of that epoch, that of Gerson.\n(25) The date remained blank in the manuscripts. We supply it after the instrument of the assignation reported hereafter. All this, moreover, in a useless repetition. See the last paragraph of page 233.\n(26) It should be assignaverunt.\n(27) The manuscripts, ostenderent.\n(28) More regularity in the redaction would have brought the past tenses in place of the present; quia nihil ab adversis partibus erat productum contra quod aliquid veniret, etc.\n(29) See above, p. 224, the commission.\nwe command that to execute this mandate the one of you shall not wait for the other, nor one excuse himself by another. You shall peremptorily cite, in the archiepiscopal hall or palace of Rouen, for the said Wednesday, the second juridical day to be counted from the day of the date of the presents, the reverend father the lord bishop of Beauvais, the subinquisitor and the promoter, and all and each other who believe it to concern them, defendants, to do the premises and see them done, with the intimations wont to be made in such cases; demanding the execution of these our letters by the affixion of our present letters on the doors of the church of Rouen. And what you shall do therein, you shall faithfully write back to us.\nGiven at Rouen, after the despatch of the cause and causes of this kind, under our seals, in the year of the Lord 1456, the fourth indiction, on the fifth day of the month of June, in the second year of the pontificate of the aforesaid most holy father in Christ and our lord, the lord Calixtus, by divine providence pope the third.\nSo signed: D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nThen follows the relation in the fold:\nExecuted and affixed by me, Pierre Ogier, clerk, public notary by apostolic authority. Witness my manual sign here appended, in the year and on the day described in the white. So signed: P. Ogier.\nContinuation of the assignation to say against the products (30) # On Wednesday the ninth of the abovesaid month of June, there appeared before the reverend father in Christ Jean, by divine mercy bishop of Demetrias, and Hector de Coquerel, doctor of decrees, dean of Lisieux, vicar-general and official of Rouen, subdelegated judges, commissioners in this part specially commissioned and deputed; the venerable and discreet men Masters Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the said actors, and Jean Veteris, procurator of the said promoter, and by the names as above; and they repeated, and each of them repeated, the citation of old decreed to them against the reverend father in Christ the lord Guillaume, bishop of Beauvais, [promoter of criminal causes], and the subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, to say and except whatsoever they would have willed to say and exhibit against the rights and exhibits in the cause of this kind; and reproduced and exhibited its execution by word only and so far, and each of them reproduced and exhibited; and accused the contumacy of those cited in the same not appearing, and least caring to satisfy the term of this kind, and each accused, asking and requiring that they be deservedly [reputed] contumacious by the said commissioners, as they were.\nThe aforesaid commissioners then prolonged and continued the assignation of the day of this kind to the morrow immediately following, as well of their office as otherwise.\nDeclaration of contumacy against the cited not appearing # Now the morrow coming, which was the tenth of the abovesaid month of June, there appeared in judgment at the palace or great hall of the most reverend father in Christ and lord the lord archbishop of Rouen, before the abovesaid commissioners, [and] Brother Jean Bréhal; the abovesaid Masters Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the honourable persons Isabelle, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, and Jean Veteris, procurator of the venerable man Master Simon Chapitault, promoter deputed in the cause of this kind, and by the names as above, in fact and really produced and exhibited in writing, and each of them produced and exhibited, the citation of old decreed against the reverend father in Christ the lord bishop of Beauvais, Reginald Bredoulle, promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, the subinquisitor of heretical pravity established in the diocese of Beauvais, and all others who believe it to concern them in common or severally, to except and say whatsoever they would have willed to say and except against the things exhibited and produced in the cause of this kind; and accused the contumacy of those cited in the same not appearing, nor caring to satisfy the term of this day, and each accused, and asked, and each asked, that they be [reputed] contumacious by the said judges commissioners, as regards the act and term of this kind, and also that the way be [foreclosed] henceforth of saying and excepting against the things produced and exhibited in the cause of this kind to the same cited; and also that, in their contumacy, a certain and competent term be assigned to them and the adverse parties to conclude and to see concluded in the cause of this kind.\nThe said lords commissioners then reputed the said cited not appearing, nor caring to satisfy the term of this day, nor sending anyone for themselves, contumacious, as they deservedly were, justice persuading; and, in their contumacy, foreclosed to the said cited the way henceforth of saying and excepting against the things produced and exhibited; and specially reserved to the same Jean, archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume of Paris, and Richard of Coutances, bishops, and the abovesaid Brother Jean Bréhal, judges deputed by apostolic authority, the assignation to be made for concluding and seeing concluded.\nPresent at this the venerable and religious man Brother Pierre Migier, professor of sacred theology, prior of the conventual priory of Longueville-Giffard; Master Pierre Roque; Jean Barneville, Guillaume Quesnevet, with many others.\nAssignation of the parties to see conclusion in the cause # In the year of the Lord 1456, on the eighteenth day of the month of June, before the lords Jean, archbishop of Reims, Guillaume of Paris, and Richard of Coutances, bishops, and Brother Jean Bréhal, aforesaid; at Paris, in the hall of the episcopal house of Paris, Jean d’Arc appearing and personally established, in his own name and of the others his consorts in this part, and Master Simon Chapitault, the promoter already said, asserting that in the present cause it had so far been proceeded that it remained to conclude in the cause: they humbly besought them that they would will to hasten the cause of this kind, seeing that they were present in this city of Paris, and that they could commodiously minister them justice, and to prefix them a day to conclude in the cause of this kind.\nWhose supplication heard, willing that to each one justice be ministered according to power, [the said judges] assigned to the same suppliants the instant first day of the month of July, to conclude by them and to see concluded by them in the cause or process of this kind; ordaining to the same suppliants that they should cause to be cited and summoned by edict, as had already been decreed by them, the adverse parties and those believing it to concern them in this part, on the doors of the church of Rouen, to do the premises and see them done; and they decreed (31) that the opportune letters on this account be made to them by us, the notaries subscribed below.\nPresent at these things the lord Jean Hugonis, priest, and Guillaume Eschart, clerk, witnesses called and asked to these things.\nContinuation of the aforesaid assignation (32) # Now on the first day of July, before the lords Jean, archbishop of Reims, Richard, bishop of Coutances, and Brother Jean Bréhal, aforesaid; in the great hall of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, appeared the aforesaid Jean d’Arc, and Master Jean Prévosteau, in the procuratory name of the other actors, and Master Simon Chapitault, promoter in this cause. Which day indeed had been assigned to the same, as is premised, and at which day the aforesaid bishop of Beauvais had been cited,\nIn the year as above 1456, on Thursday the first of the month of July, there appeared in judgment before the aforesaid lords commissioners or judges, Jean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume of Paris, Richard of Coutances, by the same mercy bishops, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, the other inquisitor of heretical pravity in the realm of France, delegated judges in this part, etc., etc.; at the palace or greater hall of the most reverend father in Christ the lord archbishop of Rouen, in which they are wont to sit for tribunal: the venerable men Master Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the venerable persons Isabelle, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, and by the procuratory name as above, and the venerable and circumspect man Master Simon Chapitault, licentiate in canon law, promoter given and deputed in the cause of this kind; and they reproduced, and each reproduced, the citation decreed to them by the same lords judges and commissioners, against the reverend father the lord bishop of Beauvais, the subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, and also the promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and all others who believe it to concern them in common or severally, to conclude and see concluded in the cause of this kind, or to allege cause or sufficient causes wherefore it should least be concluded in the cause of this kind, by word only and so far, with its execution, they reproduced, and each reproduced; and accused the contumacy of those cited contained in the same, and each accused, and asked, and each asked, that they be reputed contumacious by the same lords judges, and, in their contumacy, that it be concluded in the cause of this kind and had for concluded.\nNow the said judges and commissioners, certain causes moving them to this, then prorogued and continued the assignation of the day of this kind to the morrow.\nthe promoter of criminal causes and subinquisitor of heretical pravity of the diocese of Beauvais, and all and each who believe it to concern them, to see and hear it concluded and had for concluded by them and through them in the cause of this kind, and to proceed further as should be of reason.\nWhich day, the same cited least appearing nor sending anyone for themselves, the lords continued until the morrow, for the presentation, as is the wont.\nGiven and done in the year and on the day aforesaid.\nChapter VII # [Production of the motives of law by the actors, the defendants not appearing.]\nNow the morrow following, which was the second day of the month of July, in the year of the Lord 1456, the same parties being assigned by the lords to do that which on the yesterday ought to be done among the parties of this kind, before the same Jean, archbishop of Reims, Guillaume of Paris and Richard of Coutances, bishops, sitting for tribunal in the great hall of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen; the aforesaid Jean d’Arc, the other of the actors for himself, without revocation of his procurators hitherto established, and Masters Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the other actors, in their procuratory name and for them, and\nRedaction of the Notre-Dame manuscript.\nNow Friday coming, which was the second of the abovesaid month of July, there appeared in judgment before the aforesaid lords, Jean, archbishop of Reims, Guillaume of Paris, Richard of Coutances, bishops, and Brother Jean Bréhal, the abovesaid judges and commissioners, at the said palace, and in their wonted place in which they are accustomed to sit for tribunal, the venerable man Jean d’Arc, for himself, yet without revocation of his procurators of old established by him, whereof Master Guillaume Prévosteau was protesting; procurator of Isabelle d’Arc and Pierre d’Arc, and by the procuratory name as above; and the venerable man Master Simon Chapitault, promoter given and deputed in the cause of this kind. Who in fact, really and in writing reproduced, and each of them reproduced, the citation, with its execution, of old decreed by the same abovesaid judges and commissioners, to conclude and see concluded in the cause of this kind, against and toward the reverend father in Christ the bishop of Beauvais, the subinquisitor of heretical pravity established in the diocese of Beauvais, and the promoter of the criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and all and each others who believe it to concern them in common or severally; and accused the contumacy of those cited contained in the same, not appearing nor in aught caring to satisfy the term of this day, and each accused; and asked, and each asked, that they be reputed contumacious by the said lords judges and commissioners; and, in their contumacy, they repeated, and each repeated, all and each the acts, actings, products, depositions of witnesses made in the cause of this kind, and other rights, so far as they make for the same and their parties, and against the adverse parties, and not otherwise, other, or in other wise. Moreover the aforesaid Master Simon, promoter, by the name as above, in fact, really and in writing produced certain motives of law, containing in effect the whole disposition and deduction of the whole process, as well before the late lord Pierre bishop of Beauvais as before the aforesaid lords judges and\nSimon Chapitault, also without revocation of his procurators, promoter in the cause of this kind; the said cited summoned before the same [judges] by the other of us, the notaries, least appearing: the said actors and promoter, to teach of the summons in law, really and in fact produced the citatory letters emanated from them, by which and by their execution it appeared that the same bishop of Beauvais, the promoter and the subinquisitor, and all and each other who believe it to concern them, had been cited and summoned by public edict for this day, to see and hear it concluded and had for concluded by them and through them in the cause of this kind. They reproduced also by word all and each the witnesses, acts, actings, instruments, processes and other things exhibited in the cause of this kind, so far as they made for them and not otherwise. And to move the mind of the lords, the same promoter and actors and each of them exhibited and produced certain motives of law of theirs by way of certain articles, which they required to be reposed among the acts of the cause of this kind. They produced also certain treatises and opinions of certain doctors as well of theology as of both laws and other jurisperites made upon the matter of this kind, in which the matter of this kind seemed to be deduced at full; all and each of which they required to be reposed among the acts of the cause of this kind. Which so exhibited, the same actors and promoter accused the contumacy of the said cited summoned, not appearing nor sending anyone for themselves, and asked and\n(30) The procès-verbal of this day and of the following is wanting in the manuscript 5970.\n(31) The manuscripts, decrevimus.\n(32) The procès-verbals of this day and of the following resemble each other so little in the two manuscripts 5970 and Notre-Dame, that we have judged it needful to set the one and the other redaction face to face. The italic text is that of the Notre-Dame manuscript.\nrequired that the said cited and not appearing nor sending anyone for themselves be reputed contumacious of this day, and, in their contumacy, that it be concluded in the cause of this kind and had for concluded.\ncommissioners and knowers conducted, and also certain treatises in the matter of this kind made as well by doctors of theology as of both laws, he produced and exhibited, asking and requiring the motives of this kind to be received and admitted to treat the minds of those judging; and also that a certain and competent term be assigned to him and the parties written below, to hear right and the definitive sentence borne and pronounced in the cause of this kind; which each of the abovesaid Jean d’Arc, the other of the principals, and Master Guillaume Prévosteau, the procurator, and by the procuratory name as above, asked, and he asked, of the same judges and commissioners.\nNow the said lords judges and commissioners oft-named reputed the said cited not appearing, nor caring to satisfy the term of this day, deservedly contumacious, as they were, justice persuading; and, in their contumacy, admitted and received the said motives of law and the treatises as well of professors of theology as of law; and in Christ’s name concluded in the cause of this kind, and had it for concluded, prefixing and assigning to the said Jean d’Arc, Guillaume Prévosteau, and Master Simon Chapitault, promoter, and to the said cited, the instant Wednesday, to hear right and the definitive sentence said, borne and pronounced in the cause of this kind; and prefixed, established and ordained that the said cited be further cited and summoned by public edict, and by the affixion of their citatory letters on the doors of the church of Rouen.\nPresent at these things the reverend father in Christ and lord the lord Jean, bishop of Demetrias; Hector de Coquerel, doctor of decrees, vicar-general and official of Rouen; Alain Olivier; Nicolas Lambert, professors of sacred theology; Masters Gilles de Campis, Pierre Roque, advocates sworn in the court of Rouen, witnesses, etc.\nNow the same archbishop and bishops reputed the said cited and not appearing nor sending anyone for themselves contumacious of this day, and, in their contumacy, concluded in the cause of this kind, and had it for concluded; decreeing that it behoved to proceed to the further things, the contumacy of the same cited notwithstanding, assigning to the same actors the instant Wednesday to hear right or their definitive sentence said, borne and pronounced in the cause of this kind: enjoining the same actors that they cause the same cited to be cited for the said day by public edict, to hear right or their definitive sentence, and to say and do in the cause of this kind as law and reason should persuade.\nGiven and done in the year and on the day aforesaid, present at these things the reverend father in Christ and lord the lord Jean Fabri, professor of sacred theology, bishop of Demetrias; Masters Hector de Coquerel, doctor of decrees, vicar and official of Rouen; Alain Olivier; Nicolas Lambert, professors of sacred theology; Gilles de Campis and Pierre Roque, licentiates in the other law, with many other witnesses called and asked to the premises.\nNow the tenor of the said citatory letters or public edict follows and is such:\nJean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume by the same mercy bishop of Paris, and Richard bishop of Coutances, and Brother Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, the other inquisitor of heretical pravity in the realm of France; delegated judges and commissioners in this part of certain causes of nullity, of the processes and sentences of old made and conducted against the late Joan d’Arc, vulgarly called la Pucelle, by the deceased Master Pierre Cauchon, late bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Magistri, subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, at the instance and request of the late Master d’Estivet, asserted promoter of the same deceased bishop and subinquisitor, and of the purgation of the things falsely imputed to the same Joan, specially deputed by the most holy our lord, the lord Calixtus by divine providence Pope the third: to all priests, vicars, curates and not curates, and the other rectors of churches and public tabellions, and other notaries wheresoever established, to whom or to which our present letters shall come, salvation in the Lord, and firmly to obey our mandates, nay rather the apostolic mandates.\nWhereas of old, at the instance and request of Isabelle, the mother, and Pierre and Jean, brothers of the said deceased, actors, we, the archbishop, Guillaume the bishop, and Brother Jean Bréhal, receiving the mandate of the holy apostolic See, decreed certain citatory letters of ours against the reverend father in Christ the lord bishop of Beauvais, and the subinquisitor of heretical pravity, and the promoter of criminal causes in the bishopric of Beauvais now being, and all others who believe it to concern them; and caused the same to be committed to execution, as well in the town of Rouen as in the town of Beauvais; and it has so far been proceeded in the causes of this kind, as well by us jointly as severally, and by our subdelegates in this part, that, the terms in the causes of this kind by law to be kept being kept, the way has been foreclosed to the same cited henceforth of saying and proposing, by word or in writing, whatsoever they would will to say or propose, as well against our process, the persons of the actors, the depositions of the witnesses and the things produced by the same actors, as well of law as of fact, peremptorily or otherwise, by the reverend father in Christ and lord the lord bishop of Demetrias, and the venerable and learned man Hector de Coquerel, doctor of both laws, dean of Lisieux, vicar and official of Rouen, subdelegated by us, Jean the archbishop and Guillaume the bishop, as regards these things, and by us, Jean Bréhal; reserving to us the rest to be done in the cause of this kind, since they were deputed by us, Jean the archbishop and Guillaume the bishop, only for the exercise of all the acts short of the conclusion of the cause; and whereas in the cause of this kind, the observance of the terms of this kind being considered, it remains in the cause of this kind for the parties to renounce the production to be made henceforth, and for us to conclude in the cause of this kind:\nTo you all and each abovesaid, in virtue of holy obedience, and under the pains of suspension and excommunication which we shall bear into you and each of you, unless you do what we command, by straitly commanding we command that to execute this our mandate the one of you shall not wait for the other, nor one excuse himself by another. You shall peremptorily cite at Rouen, before us or one of us, at the archiepiscopal palace of Rouen, in the place in which we are wont to sit for tribunal for the cause of this kind, for the first day of the instant month of July, if not, etc., otherwise, etc., the said bishop, subinquisitor and promoter, and all and each other who believe it to concern them in this part in common or severally; to see it concluded by us and through us in the cause of this kind and had for concluded, and to proceed in the cause of this kind as shall be of reason, with the intimations accustomed in such cases; demanding the execution of these our letters by the affixion of our present letters on the doors of the church of Rouen, as otherwise has been decreed by us. And what you shall do therein, you shall faithfully write back to us.\nGiven at Paris, under our seals, in the year of the Lord 1456, on Friday the eighteenth of the month of June.\nSo signed D. Comitis and F. Ferrebouc.\nThen follows the relation, set on the back:\nThe present letters were affixed on the doors of the church of Rouen, in the year of the Lord 1456, on Thursday the twenty-third of the month of June, present the lords Jean Lespaillart, priest, and Jean Roque, clerk, with other witnesses called to the premises, and me, Jean Pestremol, clerk of the diocese of Rouen, by imperial authority, and sworn of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen. So it is. J. Pestremol.\nItem, the tenor of the motives of law exhibited by the said promoter.\nThe zeal of justice stirs me, the love of truth spurs me, the office enjoined me by your most reverend and reverend paternities persuades me, and the solemn oath made by me compels me, most reverend and reverend fathers and most worshipful preceptors, judges in this part deputed by the holy apostolic See and most worthy commissioners; especially as the cause of this kind committed to your providences stands in the state in which, all things produced, the truth issues into the light, and the intention of the things proposed, strengthened by lucid proofs, is published, and the conclusion of the cause and the term of its definition are known (33) to be at hand: humbly to approach your paternities, and by word alike and writing, by the form of an exhortation and of the bare reasons of law in arduous matters, to render the same most worthy paternities, beyond the other things required and written, more specially admonished and besought; briefly bringing back to the memory of your paternities the things consonant to justice and truth and fit for the despatch of the cause committed to you, and reducing under a brief compendium the things which seem diffused and scattered in the most ample width of the books, treatises and instruments produced, of the informations and inquests and attestations published. And if hitherto, and for the information of the truth and the summoning of those whom it concerned, I have given my presence and assent; yet I have not by a pious plenary adhesion to the party slackened my mind, at any time presuming for the process and sentences of the first judges, and requiring many things for your process, frequently presenting interrogatories alone without determination of articles: nevertheless, the books seen, afterwards the protocols and instruments produced, the most valid informations and inquests made and published as well by the most reverend father the lord Guillaume, legate of the holy apostolic See, as by your most reverend paternities; the treatises also seen composed by various of the solemn prelates, the auditors of the sacred palace, and other most learned professors of both laws, divine alike and human, canonical and civil, and other most approved men, who have deemed that the same process, made under the authority of the same legate and of you, was to be visited, eliciting the doubts and inferring opinions upon the same doubts: from the debt of the said office and the oath made, I am compelled [to show] the nullity, iniquity, errors and defects of the iniquitous sentence of old pronounced against her, to give plenary adhesion to the party, and to the articles delivered by the same party, to which also I adhere, briefly to add something, by the form of exhortation or recollection, specially, yet proposing nothing in fact. And the things which seem chiefly to be attended in this matter, from the counsel of approved and most approved doctors and experts, whom ever with me, obeying your mandates, I have deemed to be consulted in all things to be expounded and required before your most reverend paternities, I shall designate under brief articles and little notes; abstaining from the allegations of law which I know are not unknown to you most learned, and in which I perceive that both the party itself and its patrons in their articles, and the councillors (34) and those who have of old composed the various treatises for clarifying this matter, have abounded; humbly submitting all things to be said in this part to the holy apostolic See and to your collections and supportations.\nFirst, most reverend fathers and most renowned judges, that your zeal of rectitude may come forth into the midst, and the sacred honour of truth and justice shine, and on the contrary the guileful intention of the judging Pierre Cauchon, late bishop of Beauvais, Guillaume d’Estivet the promoter, Jean Magistri the subinquisitor of the faith in the diocese of Beauvais, and their colleagues or accomplices (speaking all this ever without injury), be uncovered, and their manifest iniquity laid open, after the example of the most pure Daniel, judge raised by divine grace for the salvation of the innocent Susanna, condemned by iniquitous guile, to convict the conspiracy of the inverterate: I beseech that it please you to attend the hidden guile of the same judging, the perverse zeal, the conspired malice, and the too great damnable audacity of the presumptuous judicature. To what end, I ask, did this so guilefully sought rashness of judging prevail with those judging, when the evidence taught that the same judges had fostered capital enmities toward the same innocent daughter, so that, not to speak of those cohabiting with the same enemies, the adherents, the table-companions, the familiars, the favourers, the officers and the counsellors are plainly, publicly and manifestly shown, as the sayings, deeds, iniquitous process and pernicious sentences of the same judges, together with the proofs produced before you, manifest and express?\nItem, and their so great presumption comes to be marvelled at, since they themselves know that the laws divine alike and human declare not only capital enemies but those cohabiting with them wholly strangers from the office of judging, testifying and accusing. Thence shines their too corrupted and stained intention, and the officious, guileful alike and iniquitous conspiracy to exterminate the same daughter; whom, bound and inscribed to a hard prison, oft vexed by subtle interrogatories in arduous matters sought out, by the false articulated exceptions of her so violent confession, sinister additions and deceivings of the opiners, an abjuration extorted by force and fear (35), a feigned relapse, and at length a public burning, they dared with polluted consciences and hands iniquitously to suffocate. For these things are patent from the sight of their iniquitous process; they stand from the truest informations and produced proofs. From which, this infected process manifestly leaves the sentences and sequels stained with the vice of guile, of nullity and of iniquity. Attend to these things, most renowned judges; before the throne of the Lord the immaculate blood of the innocent oppressed (36) cries. To your providences is sent from above the elucidation of this iniquitous condemnation. By the ministry of justice render the consciences of the faithful serene, and decree a reparation fitting and seasoned honestly with the odoriferous myrrhs of truth and equity.\nItem, and there is to be attended the purity of the said daughter and her sincere mind, her youthful conversation lacking all stain, her greatest humility, her sincerity in the faith, and her fervent devotion to the ecclesiastical offices: which things the infamy of faith\n(33) Rather noscuntur.\n(34) The manuscripts, consiliariis.\n(35) The manuscripts, vi metuque extorta abjuratione. All this passage is in a deplorable state of corruption.\n(36) Oppressae.\nnever struck or (37) brought upon her the stain or suspicion of heresy; nor in the whole deduction of that process will it be found that she was convicted or confessed those crimes which the most iniquitous sentence of the first judges pronounced against her falsely utters. Yet if she (38) was caused by the bearing of the male habit or of arms, she gave catholic answers, competently excusing; so that she was held free of every stain imputed to her, especially for which she merited the process of faith, as your process manifests in most open proofs. Which may it please you to imprint upon your minds, that it be made manifest to all that every suspicion in the same innocent, and the way of the cause of faith, or the notes of whatsoever stain imputed to her, have ceased.\nItem, and that the conspiring judges themselves, to induce the process of faith against this daughter from the beginning, that they might seem to hold the form laid down by right, made informations upon her fame in the parts of her origin; but the same they did not join to their process, nay willed them to lie hid: filled with guile, since an immaculate innocence, the frequency of the divine (39) offices, the perception of the sacraments, and the embrace of all good disposition, purity, devotion and catholic truth, and the public fame of good name and honest conversation, had given authentic relation by those informations. But, because this relation was adverse to the conspiracy of the judges, they turned the same informations away from the process, and guilefully willed them to be hidden under a bushel. Now these things, most learned judges, import the nullity of their process and of all the sequels; for, according also to the doctors of law, every sentence is deemed infected with the vice of nullity which guile stains adjoined to the process, most of all if the judge has consented to the same guile in any wise, as your circumspect reverences will weigh these things.\nItem, and these things supposed and well proved, and to avail for the purgation of the same innocent daughter, there is need meanwhile to advert of the rest contained in the process with how great perseverance she affirmed she had revelations from God and the Saints, and had proceeded by their aids, and how many attestations of famous (40) men and books produced follow her in the same; so that neither did she in these things err from the truth of the faith and of the Church, nor was she in any wise separated from the Church.\nItem, and by special animadversion, since a criminal sentence cannot be borne save upon one spontaneously confessed juridically before his judge, or convicted by law (41), may it please you to attend the minor age of the said daughter, who, without a curator, could not be compelled to stand in judgment; who, made over to a hard prison, was afflicted by fear and terror of the keepers, by the assiduous opprobria of her capital enemies, and by the immense vexations of the judges; who refused the judge, and appealed from him, and cried out upon the Pope. And so consider the violence of the processes made against her. From which it is patent that nullity is caused in all; all which, since they are severally (42) deduced and articulated in your process, and from the beginning in the principal process or articles of the actors in this cause, I do not repeat (43) here, for cause of brevity.\nItem, and may your worthy paternities likewise will to attend that the same daughter ever asserted with constant mind the visions revealed to her, which (44) she solidly maintained were produced by a good spirit under the name of God, and which the most learned and lettered men assert to be verisimilarly such; not refusing the judgments of the Church, but most humbly embracing them; and that of the same visions no mortal ought to judge save to good, since such things rather, even where they were uncertain, are to be left to the divine arbitrament. Thence neither could she be called an idolatress or a diviner, or a soothsayer of this kind (45) in any wise, save nullly and in fact; nor a seductress, who was caused to will to reduce the subject peoples to the faithful obedience of her natural king and supreme lord on earth; and who believed God alone, and adored the demons in nowise, nor invoked them in any manner.\nItem, since the said iniquitous judges in their sentences infected with the vice of guile, iniquity, nullity, blushed not to utter many reproaches of the same innocent daughter, falsely inscribing her as confessed and convicted upon various crimes (46), and erring in the faith, relapsed and heretic falsely, mendaciously and iniquitously; which daughter nevertheless, if the series of the said iniquitous process be revolved, is found in nowise confessed or convicted (47) upon the qualifications and crimes imputed to her: so may it please you to advert and utter plainly that she was catholic and not infected with the said crimes, that every scandal be abolished, and the truth edify the hearers.\nItem, and that false process of the adversaries contains that by many opiners, expert in sacred and human law, this daughter was condemned; yet when to the same opiners no process of her confessions was ever delivered, nor seen by them. But subdolous articles indeed were given to opine upon, beginning Quaedam foemina, etc., dissimilar from her confessions; subtracting the things which availed for her justification, superadding iniquitous, false and surreptitious aggravations in every wise; in which nevertheless the perverse sentence of the judges seems wholly founded, thence infected with nullity. Which I ask to be held (48) in memory by your providences, and the said articles to be compared with the same false process for the evident dissimilitude, if need be.\nItem, and the same pretended abjuration by the iniquitous judges is to be weighed; since that also which is inserted in the process was fabricated anew after the adverse process completed, and is very prolix, made by a valid artifice, which the innocent and ignorant daughter could not even have conceived; nay another was presented to her, dissimilar and comprised in a brief schedule, which if she uttered terrified, she will seem to have done nothing; since both the presence of the executioner waiting, and the burning of the prepared fire, and the instant menace of cruel destruction, seemed to compel her to it by valid fear.\nItem, that by the same judges, even after the death of the said daughter, persevering in their wickedness, there were adjoined to the said adverse process, after her burning, certain false and unsigned informations, inscribed to certain notaries plainly confessing they never made them; on which also certain missive letters transmitted to princes and prelates of divers regions are founded. The falsity of all which informations and letters so sent may it please you to uncover and damn with effect.\nItem, nor will it weary you to advert that the said daughter said oftentimes to the adverse judges that she submitted her sayings to our lord the Pope at Rome, to the Church and to the general Council, and that she be led to them. In which it stands that she was not schismatical, but catholic; not heretical, but obedient and faithful. Nay also the said words sound the truest appeal interjected to the Pope, as is otherwise sufficiently declared in the articles of the parties or of the actors. And so there is need to infer that her sentence is null, after the accepted appeal, and false, which falsely asserts the same daughter to be schismatical and erring.\nItem, and it will please you to insert into this your process and to advert the treatises and opinions of the experts, and the depositions of the witnesses here produced, prelates, princes and lettered men, greater than all exception, with the other attestations and productions made and to be made, as well at the instance of the parties and of me, the promoter, as of your mere office; and to collect from the same the nullities, guiles, subtleties of the processes and sentences of the said adversaries against the same innocent daughter, to the due ends of the declaration of the nullity or cassation and annulment of the same, with all the things thence ensuing; and, as your most worthy dominations and excellent and most reverend paternities shall see, to be done and executed canonically and conformably, so far as need shall be, to the clementine Multorum De haereticis, 1. VI, which in the matter of faith most gravely corrects and mulcts those presuming calumny.\nItem, and since in the said principal writings of the actors all the premises are most fully deduced, and are proved by proofs clearer than light, inquests, witnesses, writings, and authentic documents of the doctors, instruments, letters, and of these things it is established to me: so far as need is I have given the fullest adhesion to the same actors, and embrace, laud and approve all things written by them with their conclusions, and exhibited and produced, and by the promotory name, one and equally with the same actors, I ask that it be concluded in the instant cause, and right be said, or a day assigned for sentencing, and the absent called and cited be reputed contumacious; with the protestations made by the same actors and by me, to-day and otherwise, and reduced in writing by the notaries, with the supplications, implorations and requests otherwise made.\nI, the promoter, by the name aforesaid, have concluded, as I conclude, together with the said actors, in the manner and form contained in their said writings, so far as it touches me and your office or can touch, the articles or interrogatories otherwise reached to you by me in this cause being joined, to the due and canonical ends, and as your most renowned dominations (49) shall canonically deem fit to be done.\nThen follow the motives of law exhibited and produced by the said Isabelle, Pierre and Jean d’Arc.\nTruth conquers above all things. Most worshipful fathers and most discreet judges, exercising the vice and authority of the supreme holy apostolic See, you know that simplicity is the friend of truth, and that the faith of truth requires not the stays of words (cap. Veritatis De jurejurando, and Cod. Si minor ab haereditate abstineat, 1. I). And the shining beam of your light holds of old approved by what paths truth is reached; so that, oftentimes scrutinising not only the works, but the circumstances of things and the things emerging, the cause, the time, the will, the difference of persons, and whatsoever varieties most diligently searched out (whereof in the canon Occidit, caus. xxiii, q. 8; and in the canon Judicantem, caus. xxx, q. 5; and cap. Judices quum sunt De judiciis); your judgments have come far forth, and have frequently produced a solid justice of public salvation, and an inflexible truth. Thence your most lucid rectitude of wisdom diffused through the world, congruous to the embraces of the holy apostolic See, is known to have been preferred (50) before others by the supreme minister of justice, our lord pope Nicholas V (51), to treat the ministry of justice and truth in this cause expressly of old of the deceased Joan d’Arc of precious fame, called la Pucelle, adjudged by many rash and iniquitous and presumed processes and sentences against the order of law to the last supplice, and falsely in the matter feigned of faith. The mother, brothers and kinsmen of the same deceased then instancing in this part, together with your promoter, actors, against the late bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon, Jean d’Estivet called Bénédicte, fiscal procurator or promoter of the affairs and criminal causes in the spiritual court of Beauvais, and Jean Magistri, pretended vicar of the inquisitor of heretical pravity in the same place, defendants, and the other adverse parties expressed in this process: the same actors intend, and humbly ask and beseech, after the solemn agitations of the process of this kind, the order of law and the terms duly observed, that an end be imposed on the cause, the truth elucidated, and that by your definitive sentence what is just be decreed, and their conclusions described in their principal articles be most fully adjudged to the same actors. Now to accomplish these things, that your discreet renown may the more easily be inclined, justice persuading, the aforesaid actors reach forth, persisting in their oft-written protestations, under the brief form of reasons of law, and an epilogue of the things deduced in this part, the causes and reasons which follow.\nFirst then, that this apostolic process of yours be known to have taken its rise from the right order of law, and it stand that your judgment was founded from the beginning rite and canonically, and that you were and are competent judges, there is need to attend the apostolic mandate, emanated from the conscience of the same supreme pontiff in the form of justice, directed not undeservedly to your famous providences; presented with a certain magnificent solemnity, in the public assistance of clergy and people, openly, at Paris, in the greater episcopal hall, on the seventh day of the month of December, in the year of the Lord 1455, and received with great reverence and honour, in contemplation of the supreme same holy apostolic See; where, the most pious supplication of the actors opened, by the organ of your council, most equitable for the consideration of so great a thing, with grave deliberation premised, the judicial burden taken up by you, the citatory was decreed in the form of law by your ordination, notaries were instituted, your promoter was cited, as the judicial act manifests.\nItem, and in the presentation and reception of this kind, and the decreeting of the citatory, the form of law is deemed duly observed. For the apostolic mandate was presented by the actors impetrating solemnly, notaries present, with a numerous company of men, at a congruous hour ordained for it, as in cap. Consaluit De officio delegati; in a notable place, and you the delegates sitting for tribunal, as in caus.\n(37) The manuscripts, percutimus or inducunt.\n(38) The manuscripts read quam autem.\n(39) The manuscripts, dictorum.\n(40) The manuscripts, in signum.\n(41) The manuscript no. 5970, vel inibi commerctum; that of ND., vel juri convinctum.\n(42) The manuscripts, sigilla.\n(43) Manuscripts, reperto.\n(44) Manuscript, que.\n(45) The manuscripts, hujusmodi iniquum dicenda.\n(46) Manuscript 5970, confessari.\n(47) The manuscripts, commota.\n(48) Manuscript, ND., provideri.\n(49) Manuscript of ND., terminationes.\n(50) The manuscripts, praeëlecto.\n(51) Read: Calixto papa III.\niii, q. 5, canon Biduum, and as the Speculator teaches in the Speculum, tit. De competentis judicis aditione, § Visa cujus judicium; and in your sight, the deed narrated in the apostolic mandate or the most pious complaint the same actors set forth by their council reverently. From which narrations it was not to be feigned that no right arose, as ff. ad leg. Aquiliam Si ex plagis, § In clivo; and in cap. De muliere desponsata impube, and in the laws alleged in the same place by the Speculator; but from that time, by your paternities, the actors heard, the oft-said mandate was reverently received, found greater than all exception, notaries present, in the form cap. Quoniam contra De probatione, and the yoke of the mandate of judgment, albeit difficult, yet meritorious and favourable in charity, was accepted. It was also decreed here that the citatory against the adverse parties be executed in writing, as in the canon Vocato, caus. v, q. 2, and with the preceding pronunciation, since the arduous business of this cause was pressing, as in cap. Romana De foro competenti § Contrahentes, and as Innocent notes, in cap. Licet De accusationibus.\nItem, nor is it to be omitted that in the process of faith or suspicion of heresy falsely presumed by the adverse parties against the said Joan d’Arc, deceased, the infamy ought of right to have preceded, and the inquisition of the infamy to be made then against her in the beginning of their process: albeit it was not made, at least a valid one; but knowingly and guilefully pretermitted. Yet because every thing which is born by whatsoever causes, is dissolved by the same (in cap. Omnis res De regulis juris), you willed not nevertheless, renowned and illustrious judges, to omit the valid informations forewalking of this your process, nay most lucid proofs; but embraced the same from the beginning, reduced into authentic writings by apostolic authority by the reverend lord cardinal of Estouteville, by the gentle authority of the royal majesty, and otherwise solemnly, in this matter, in the place of her proper origin and elsewhere in notable places, and made from the depositions of high princes and excellent persons, upon the life, fame, manners, virtues, most right faith and honest conversation, and the coming of the said Joan; which you yourselves, venerable judges, willed to collect and set before this your work, with grave providence.\nItem, and since the beginning of whatsoever thing is the mightiest part, as in cap. Sedes De rescriptis, by Bernard; and ff. De origine juris, in leg. I, there is to be commemorated the valid execution of your citatory against the adverse parties, deduced openly to divers places, cities, and the notable churches of Rouen and Beauvais, to the persons and domiciles of the same, nay and iterated many times, and the citatories multiplied according to the exigence of the judicial order, and committed to execution by public affixion, and most openly notified by patent edicts; so that, from the same, every honest person could have notorious and manifest knowledge; nor did any remain who could pretend just ignorance of this your process in any wise, save a crass and supine alike, as openly stands by the faithful instruments of the same citatories and edicts and the public documents; to which faith is to be shown, in cap. Scripturam De fide instrumentorum, with its gloss.\nItem, and by the public acts of this your process it is manifested clearer than light that, in the city of Rouen, a most notable place, in which the other iniquitous process against the same deceased was guilefully and iniquitously conducted, at iterated times; you or some of you, or one of you, appeared personally, sitting for tribunal, and duly observed all the terms which the order of law demands; and the guiles, contumacies of the adverse parties, and the rash presumption, falsity, iniquity and nullity of their process of old being accused, plainly infected, in each term ordained the things which were of law; the said actors and also your promoter heard. For from the beginning you decreed sententially that your judgment was opportunely founded, and declared that you were competent judges of the cause and the parties; and that you would deservedly proceed further. Then you adjudged the petition of the actors to be reached to you in the form of a public act, and the parties to be again called to contest the suit. Which so done, the same petition in the form of concluding articles you received, by your other ordination. After these things, to the examination of the witnesses, to the reception of the proofs and the production of that false pretended process, and the legitimate comparison of the confessions of the said deceased against the twelve articles which the adverse parties falsely pretended to be duly elicited from the things confessed by the deceased, you took care to proceed; the veridical depositions of the renowned witnesses produced, greater than all exception, and the informations reproduced by the apostolic and royal authorities, and the treatises, deliberations, writings, books, codices of prelates, renowned doctors of divine alike and human law, and lettered men, of marvellous light and wisdom, which are of law in the present cause, especially upon the catholic confessions of the said deceased, upon the visions of good spirits, and upon the iniquity of the judges in the former process, you admitted by just and holy consideration.\nItem, and the adhesion of your promoter being admitted by your judicial sentence or ordination, you thence prefixed manifold days and terms to say against the things exhibited and produced, and gave the preclusion of speaking, as the laws decree; and at length deservedly, all and each things being observed which by common law and your commanding apostolic rescript ought to have been observed, having concluded in the cause juridically by you, you decreed a day to be assigned to hear right and to pronounce your definitive sentence judicially; provided nevertheless that the same actors, if they willed, might offer to your minds, for the greater elucidation of the truth, reasons or motives of law to your most reverend paternities, to be joined to their process. Which, acquiescing to your commands, the said actors humbly offer in these writings, with due reverence and correction, more humbly imploring your judicial office upon the same final pronunciation to be made, under the oft-said protestations.\nItem, and since this order of law in the premises is undoubted by each of its terms, as well from the laws enucleated best known to you, canonical and civil, also according to the writings by Tancred in his treatise De ordine judiciorum, by the Speculator in his second book in the Speculum juris, nay and by the texts and doctors of canon and civil law, titled in their places and opportune and notorious rubrics, as from the observance or experience, the mistress of things, notoriously visited and approved in every especially ecclesiastical court on every side: therefore neither the allegations of laws nor the singular quotations, which would be prolix, in a term in any wise observed, are here expressed or repeated. And nevertheless at length in the concluding articles of the same actors, apart and in series, there are inserted and alleged at full to this your process the laws which seemed fittingly to suffice to the verification of the things proposed, and to the condemnation of the adverse parties and of their false and iniquitous process.\nItem, and nevertheless, that the iniquity of the said first process may come back to the reader memory, and the so ineptly rash presumption of those who judged be discussed and corrected, there is need to attend how excogitated a malice, how damned and abhorrent an enmity those malevolent judges, all pity secluded, all womanly fragility unattended, and all pondering of circumstances despised (whereof in the said can. Occidit caus. xxiii, quaest. 8, and the Summa), proceeded against the same deceased iniquitously, unjustly and nullly and in fact.\nItem, and first, there is to be attended the presumed daring of those pretended judges, who presumed with such rashness to accept such a judgment, since they could not become, nor ought, judges of the same deceased by the order of law, especially in the matter of faith; and so their process, with the sentence and the things thence ensuing, were deemed infected with nullity (Cod. Si a non competenti judice, throughout; in cap. Ad nostram De consuetudine). For the same Joan was not born of the diocese of Beauvais, nor dwelt there, nor had there committed heresy; and so she drew no forum by reason of domicile or delict (caus. iii, quaest. 1; caus. vi, quaest. 3; cap. Placuit and cap. ult. De foro competenti). Again, the bishop of Beauvais had chosen to proceed with the vicar of the inquisitor, and yet of the power of the said vicar, who was said to be a delegate, it did not appear by the acts, nor of it does it appear in the process, against cap. Per hoc De haereticis, book VI; against cap. Quum in jure De officio delegati. Nay also the said bishop without that vicar proceeded to many substantial acts, against cap. Quum plures De officio delegati aut commissarii, book VI. Also to the examination of the said Joan they oft proceeded by others; which they could not do in so grave a cause (De officio delegati, cap. i, in Clem.). It stands moreover by witnesses that threats were inflicted and terrors inducing just fear to the said vicar and others counselling, according to the gloss can. Injustum and can. Quatuor caus. xi, quaest. 3. For the same Joan refused the said bishop, as suspect and a capital enemy, as the witnesses say, according to cap. Suspicionis De officio delegati. Item, the said Joan submitted herself to the judgment of the Pope, in effect appealing; and so it was not lawful for an inferior to cognise (caus. ii, quaest. 6, can. Si quis nostrum). Also, since this matter of revelations was of the greater causes, the cognition belonged to the Pope alone, to whom she asked to be remitted. Therefore they proceeded nullly, as in cap. Majores De baptismo. Moreover to the same Joan enclosed in a hard prison defence and counsel were denied: a denial (52), to wit that the articles should not be seen by the Church then assembled at Basle; and the notaries were prohibited by the judge to write her excuses in the process. Item, the false extraction of the articles from the confessions of Joan given to the opiners, and the vexation, the intricacy in difficult questions, and the guileful submissions of those deceitfully counselling her. For these and the many other things touched above, and more largely declared in the said concluding articles, render that process against the said Joan, with the things thence ensuing, infected with nullity, at least to be quashed and retracted.\nItem, nor could it belong to the said judges, save nullly and in fact, to utter a certain judgment of the inspirations and hidden revelations and the apparitions of spirits concerning the said Joan. For these hidden apparitions and inspirations, whether they proceed from God or not, belong to God alone and are known to him, who alone judges the secrets and the hidden things (in can. Erubescant, xxxii dist.; in can. Christiana caus. xxx, quaest. 5); nor do they belong to the judgment of the Church (in cap. Tua nos De simonia). Yet we can say, from every valid conjecture, that the apparitions of this kind proceeded from a good spirit; first, since the same Joan was a virgin, and so constantly asserted herself, and exhibited herself to be inspected and visited, thence it is the more like to be said that she had the apparitions from the Holy Spirit, according to the saying of Ambrose, in can. Tolerabilius caus. xxxiii, quaest. 5. Secondly, for the same Joan was very humble, as appears in her answers, nor sought human (53) honour, but the salvation of her soul; nor ever uttered a word arrogantly. Now humility conjoined to virginity is marvellously lauded (can. Haec autem scripsimus, xxx dist.); and so she could worthily receive revelations and apparitions from the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, since her life was openly commended for honesty and conversation; for she devoutly frequented mass and church, oft confessed, fasting; loving the poor and [other] such things. Fourthly, because the apparitions bade her good mandates, saying that she should guide herself well, that she should confess often, that she should frequent church, that she should keep the virginity of mind and body, and they should lead her to beatitude. Fifthly, because the angel appearing to her at first struck in fear, and in the end made her glad, as did the angel appearing to Mary and to Zachary. Sixthly, while the angels appeared to her, she signed herself with the sign of the cross; and they did not depart; which malignant spirits do, as in can. Postea De consecratione, dist. iv. Seventhly, she understood the voice of the spirits in a clear voice; the contrary whereof the malignant spirits do (in can. Sciendum caus. xxvi, quaest. 4). Eighthly, because her end was catholic and most devout. For the same, by the sufferance of the judges, most devoutly received the sacraments of Penitence and the Eucharist; and, at her end, amid the flames, cried aloud the name of the Lord Jesus, and ended her life religiously; since malignant spirits cause their followers to end ill, and induce them into eternal damnation, as in can. Nec mirum caus. xxvi, quaest. 5. Ninthly, since she seemed miraculously to foretell things to come, for example, at the time of the greatest affliction of the realm and oppression of the king, she promised and said that she would cause him to be crowned at Reims shortly, as she did. She foretold also the dissolution of the siege of Orléans, and the expulsion of the English from the realm; which was verified, after that It is not yours, etc. And these are the signs of good spirits; whom, if Joan adored, she erred not, led by the divine spirit; nor did she err adoring the likeness of Saint Catherine, Saint Margaret and Saint Michael. Nay, even if they were evil angels transfigured into angels of light, she is not said to have erred in adoring, believing them to be Saints male and female under such form; nor is such an error perilous or to be damned (caus. xxix, quaest. 1, § i), especially since she was not pertinacious in her opinion; but submitted herself to the judgment of the Church. And if aught of arguments might be made on the contrary, the answer is plainly in the abovesaid concluding articles.\nItem, nor for the male habit is this faithful Joan to be rebuked; for if, as she asserts and is verisimilarly presumed, she took it by divine inspiration, she sinned not. For where the spirit is, there is liberty (in cap. Licet De regularibus; in can. Duae sunt leges caus. xix, quaest. 2). Item, the canon Si qua mulier xxx dist., prohibiting it, is to be understood where it were done for cause of luxury, according to the gloss and the doctors. Now this she did not for cause of luxury; nay for cause of keeping virginity; for a change of habit would be permitted to clerks where a just cause of fear intervenes (in cap. Clerici ult. De vita et honestate clericorum). And this she did from just fear of violation by the English, who were certain to attempt her, as is proved by witnesses. Nor is it true that she ceased to hear mass lest she should leave it; nay she always asked to hear mass; she offered to leave the garment (54), if she were kept in the prison of the Church, or in a company of honest women, and out of the hands of the English; nay rather, if the judges should say, she offered at their pleasure\n(52) Better: denegatio.\n(53) The manuscripts, hominem.\n(54) Manuscript ND., habitum virilem.\nto leave it. Item, she will not be called relapsed if she resumed it, for the assumption was lawful, nor does it touch the matter of heresy, most of all since she resumed it the better to meet the violence inflicted, and to cover her nakedness; for the English had taken away her female garments, and she resumed them compelled by necessity. Now necessity is in nowise subject to the law (De juris, cap. ii). And these things are openly proved in your process and the depositions of the witnesses.\nItem, and your most discreet goodnesses may attend that the said Joan departed not in mind or intention from the rectitude of truth, nor offended God. For she strongly excuses her departing without her father’s leave; since she did it by God’s inspiring, and God is to be obeyed more than men. Secondly, she did it of piety, lest father and mother be troubled with ampler affliction; and thirdly, since she obtained pardon of them for this. She excuses herself also from the apposition of this name Jesus in the letters which she sent for the wars; since she both fostered a just war by the divine command, and since she believed it lawful, because all things ought to be done in the name of the Lord (xxiii dist., can. In nomine Domini). Likewise, upon the feigned desperation in leaping from the tower, she excuses herself strongly; for she confesses she did it not for cause of desperation, but for the salvation of her own body, and in hope of succouring many other good persons, and of charity and piety for the menaced destruction of the town of Compiègne. Conformably she is to be excused upon the feigned lie of her saying asserting that the Angel had borne the sign to our lord the king, with genuflexion before the king, etc. It is answered that it is not lawful to lie; yet it is lawful in answering cautiously to feign by concealing the truth, as Abraham did before Pharaoh, as in can. Quaeritur § Ecce, caus. xxii, quaest. 2. Now it is so that Angel is a name of office; for it is the same as God’s messenger, after that: I send mine Angel, who shall go before, etc., and it is spoken of John the Baptist. Now Joan said that she was God’s messenger to the king; therefore she could deservedly say that the Angel, that is she the messenger of God, bore the king the crown, that is the palm of victory by which he came to the crown. And, if it be said that she spoke expressly of Saint Michael, she is excusable; for so it is said that the Seraphim cleansed the tongue of Isaiah, not by himself, but by another. For that which is done by inferiors, in the things concerning the properties and offices of the superiors, is said to be done by the superiors; so in the proposition Michael is called prince of the host; and so, Joan asserting she did these things by Michael’s revelation, said that Saint Michael did these things — and that she was that Angel, her words clearly intimate. In these things therefore she lied not, but spoke cautiously.\nItem, nor is she to be blamed if she said she was to be saved, and firmly to hold and believe it; for she superadded that this should come true if she kept what she promised God, to wit virginity as well of mind as of body. For he who so does sins in nothing; but is saved. And if the same Joan likewise said she was to be delivered from the prisons, she committed no lie; for so she asserted the voices of the spirits at length uttered to her that she should suffer martyrdom patiently, for in the end she should be saved; and this is to be deemed no small deliverance; and so she uttered no lie. There were also those having the prophetic spirit, sometimes speaking not in spirit, who uttered not the truth; of whom there is text in can. De poenitentia, dist. ii, Quaerendum, and can. Potest. Nor could she be reproved if she said those blessed Saints Catherine and Margaret loved the French and hated the English; for so she set herself forth that they love whom God loves, and hate whom God hates, after that: Jacob I loved, Esau I held in hatred. Nor is it truth that she said she had no mortal sin; but she said that she knows not whether she sinned mortally, and that God wills not that she has done or shall do aught whereby her soul is burdened: which would be when she had sinned and had not done worthy penance. Which words contain naught of ill. And by the premises the words of the said Joan are lawfully excused.\nItem, and it will be needful to bring back to memory that the same Joan is falsely feigned to have erred, when it is said that she willed not to submit herself to the judgment of the Church militant, the difference between the militant Church and the triumphant being even declared to her, or because she revoked the submission which she had made in the final things (to which nevertheless every catholic is held, as in can. Haec est fides caus. xxiv, quaest. 1; can. Ego Berengarius, De consecratione, dist. iv); whence she deserves rather to be excused in these things: first, since what she did by revelation she did from a good spirit, as is said above, and so, following a private law, she is exempted from the common law, as in the laws alleged before. Nay, supposed that it were doubtful whether the revelation of this kind proceeded from a good or an evil spirit, since this is hidden and known to God alone, the Church judges nothing upon this (in can. Erubescant xxxii dist.; can. Christiana caus. xxxii, quaest. 5; and in cap. Tua nos De simonia). Again in the things which concern the articles of faith we are held to follow the judgment of the Church; otherwise we should be heretics (cap. i De summa Trinitate, book VI). Likewise we ought to hold the judgment of the Church in the things which the Church holds and teaches (in can. Noble xi dist. and in can. Novit xii dist., with the note there); in others liberty is given of holding what shall please. For in these secrets each can follow his own opinion; and so Johannes Andreae notes in cap. i De summa Trinitate, book VI alleged.\nItem, the same Joan is excused if from the beginning she submitted not herself, since from the beginning she knew not what the Church was. It appears because she made no difference between the Saints and the Church. Of this ignorance the witnesses depose in this your process. But straightway when she understood and it was declared to her, she ever submitted herself to the Church. The witnesses also of this your process depose that certain ones, guilefully feigning they came to her on the part of our lord the king, strongly counselled her, if she willed to escape, that she should not submit herself to the Church, so that perchance, deceived by guile, she delayed; and at length verily submitted herself to the Church manifoldly, as is most fully expressed in the concluding articles given you by the actors. Which submission nevertheless that judge, then bishop of Beauvais, forbade to be written by the notary; and the witnesses depose it; and nevertheless by her words, written in the process, it still stands that the said Joan submitted herself to the Church in act, word and deed and communion of the sacraments.\nItem, and the falsity and iniquity mixed into that unheard-of first process are most to be noted and held in memory, by which the adverse parties stained their process; which thence nevertheless they will wholly to colour and validate: to wit the expression of certain articles to the number of twelve, and mendaciously extracted from the pretended confessions of the said Joan. Upon which articles, so falsely extracted, notable men ecclesiastical and lettered gave opinions written or signed in their hand, some masters in the sacred page, others in canon and civil law, doctors, licentiates, formed bachelors and jurisperites, in great number; who verily are to be deemed immune from all stain of iniquity and to be excused, and deceived in the counselling, beyond the knowledge of that work, so opining, presuming that the truth of the things confessed judicially by the same Joan was delivered to them and expressed in the said articles; when nevertheless, on the contrary, from capital enmity and inordinate affection, truth pretermitted and falsity expressed vindicated to itself an open place in the said false articles. Nor is it void of iniquity that the said twelve false articles beginning Quaedam foemina were sent to the opiners so extracted.\nItem, and there is need to advert that that difference between the truth of the things confessed by the same Joan and the contents of the said articles falsely extracted (55) is sufficiently deduced at length, by the comparison of the same articles and the same things confessed judicially made, verified and approved by you; nay and most fully deduced by this your whole process, and by the depositions of the witnesses and notaries, and the original notes, and by the collation of the first processes, and most widely by the treatises of many prelates, doctors of divine and human law, explained clearer than light, and luculently expounded in the same concluding articles. Wherefore it has seemed expedient to supersede from ampler expression of the same differences, for cause of brevity.\nItem, and since that iniquitous process against the said deceased Joan was founded almost wholly upon those false articles, it will be needful to uncover sententially the iniquity of the said articles falsely, guilefully and mendaciously extracted, and plainly to burn and tear the same false and iniquitous articles, to the manifestation of the truth and the valid and opportune excusation of those opining upon them.\nItem, and from the preceding means, causes and reasons, written above and recollected in a brief compendium of words, this your process being joined together with the depositions of the witnesses greater than all exception, and the comparison or confrontation of the said former most iniquitous, guileful and violent process to this your catholic and truth-shining process of judgment, and also of the illustrious men, prelates, doctors and experts in either law, the said assertions, and the disputed and elicited truths, books, codices, treatises and determinations, here recollected and adjoined, which the same actors here reproduce: it stands and most openly appears that the said first process is infected, and is manifestly to be declared such sententially, with falsity, guile, iniquity, mendaciousness and the nullity of calumny; at least to be quashed, annulled, and burned plainly, publicly and manifestly.\nItem, and it stands likewise that the said deceased of good memory Joan d’Arc, called la Pucelle, lived all the time of her life laudably and honestly, declined not from the truth of faith and the ecclesiastical doctrine and determination, nor asserted or believed aught which should savour of heresy, or should be contrary to the catholic faith and the traditions of the holy Roman Church, but rather detested these horrors, nor perpetrated those crimes which they rashly dared to express and feign against the same woman in her process and iniquitous sentences; nor was she in any wise defamed of the same, by the fame publishing or other relation worthy of faith, or otherwise confessed in law or convicted, the Lord cooperating. Nay rather she is seen to have both sought and heard the judgment of the holy apostolic See and of the general Council, and the judgment of the faithful doctors oftentimes.\nItem, and from now the said defendants, the malignant spirit shining upon them, persevering in ampler iniquity, are rendered convicted of obstinate malice, falsity, guile and condemned fraud; and the suspected and iniquitous judges, who dared too mendaciously to inscribe the said innocent virgin, and to note her contrary to truth with those perverse qualifications and criminal excesses, in their false and iniquitous first and second sentences, guilefully commended, or rather condemned her in fact for the guileful and exquisite falsities expressed in the same place and falsely described, first to perpetual prisons, and secondly to be left to the hands of secular justice, as a relapsed, heretic and otherwise criminal; walking without grace and mercy, pursuing only their perverse hostile and guileful affection; unwilling to attend to innocence, fragility, ignorance and youth, nay rather caring to deny the excusations, submissions and protestations of the same innocent, and utterly the ways of justice to the same by perverse conspiracy; thirsting, alas! for her death and blood on every side.\nItem, and from all the things inquired, produced, recollected in your instant process and duly reduced in writing, the order of law kept, it stood and stands that against the same deceased, deprived of every defence of her innocence, and the order of law pretermitted, for the sole pleasure of their unbridled will, the adverse parties persevered in their iniquitous process nullly and in fact, and proceeded at length to iniquitous sentences, by one of which they condemned the same innocent Joan, as a heretic and entangled in other crimes, to perpetual prisons, in bread and water, perpetually; and by the other iniquitously uttered her relapsed, so that left to the secular court, and delivered to the last supplice, after the public, ignominious and scandalous preachings, they blushed not to behold with their eyes the innocent virgin perished by fire and burned, to the peril of the souls of those so iniquitously judging, and to the opprobrium and ignominy, injury and offence of her mother, brothers and kinsmen, now complaining and actors.\nItem, and the nullity of those iniquitous sentences, the manifest error, the evident contradiction, the calumny, uncertainty, obscurity, cruelty, its pain against all the order of law and the sacred sanctions, in a fragile sex, a youthful age, after so many afflictions of the prisons, perturbations of the examinations, are most openly manifested by the juridical deduction of this your process: as well from the series of the first process, and the depositions worthy of faith in this process of those who were present at the said first process, in which it stands that the same Joan was in nowise convicted of the qualities of crimes attributed to her, perchance the wearing of male garments alone excepted; of which nevertheless she is to be deemed excusable, as well stands from the premises. As secondly, since all things considered, she sinned not in the matter of faith from the said crimes, nor could she be deemed heretic or relapsed: who made no valid abjuration, nay understood it not at all; and what she understood not, she could not validly abjure. As thirdly, since she deserved not to be called relapsed into heresy who had not lapsed; since she gave catholic answers, and is not found infected in mind, nor pertinacious against the faith and the ecclesiastical doctrine, sowed or asserted or sustained any dogmas or errors with indurate mind. As fourthly, since she could not be noted sententially under the general name of the criminal qualities imputed to her, as is noted in the sentences themselves, unless the particular defects with the circumstances be there designated and subadded; for such a vague feigning is reprobated, and is not admitted of right in libels or sentences, especially criminally intented, and with another’s peril, also according to the laws and canons. A moderation of the due pain is deemed by the judge, for the tenderness of age and the fragility of sex; as all these things are deduced and inscribed in the written concluding articles.\nItem, and, if from the so great opprobria, vexations, injuries, molestations and calumnies brought upon her parent by\n(55) Manuscript ND., deductorum.\nthose iniquitous judges filled with iniquity and guile, the mother, brothers, kinsmen hardly bore the scandalous matter of so great and pernicious an execution; if they decreed to procure the reparation of their honour, and the expurgation of the innocence of so great a kinswoman, and the reparation of their own fame: they are deservedly to be commended, so that, led by valid counsel and constant in courageous virtue, they sought the justice of the holy supreme apostolic See, and instantly cried out to be provided with the remedies of law; whose just cries at length the holy apostolic See, inclined, trusting in the rectitude, wisdom and most profound abundance of letters and wisdom of your most renowned celebrity known through all the catholic world, directed the mandate of apostolic authority to you, in the force whereof, led by the right path of reason, this your process is disposed or believed, the Lord directing, to assume its desired consummation, by your work, providence and labour, in the intervals of the coming days.\nIt remains then, most reverend fathers, most renowned judges and most eloquent doctors, that the splendour of your light of truth shine forth; that the nebulous darkness of the former iniquitous process flee away and be revoked; and that the abominable iniquity, error and perdition of the same process, its sentences and sequels be declared; and that the stain of faith imputed to the same Joan and hers be utterly wiped away; and that her redolent fame and innocence be restored and declared; that the reparations and memories required above be declared by that supreme and unshaken authority of the sacrosanct apostolic See committed to your most renowned and worshipful paternities, whom may the giver of eternal gifts deign to reward in glory. Amen.\nRedaction of the Notre-Dame manuscript.\nBut let the same Joan rise again, purged of the stain of error or of heretical pravity and of all the stain of the faith adverse to the Church of old imputed to her; and the redolent fame and innocence of the said virgin Joan, of her mother, brothers and all her kin; so that at length, by your patent judgment, judicial and perpetual sentence, the juridical ends, conclusions, reparations, solemn preachings, signs, images, crosses, foundations, and other public signs of perpetual reparation and memory, and the other conclusions in the petition of the actors and in their concluding articles expressed at full, be most fully decreed to the same actors for the future, and be commanded to be irrefragably observed as ordained by you; that supreme and unshaken authority of the apostolic See commanding, committed in this part to your most renowned and most worshipful dominations and most worthy paternities, to be perennially rewarded in glory by the giver of eternal gifts.\nChapter VIII # [Presentation of the consultations written by the doctors.]\nThe reasons, allegations and motives of law aforesaid having then been presented before the aforesaid lords Delegates, on the part of the aforesaid promoter and the aforesaid parties, by their procurator, without allegation of new facts, as had been reserved by the said lords; on the part of the aforesaid promoter it was specially required that it might please the aforesaid lords Delegates, in this final examination and scanning of the process, to visit and specially to note certain considerations, opinions and treatises of certain most approved and solemn prelates, who upon the deeds of the aforesaid Maid, and also upon the process itself made against the same, gave their opinions and considerations, and reduced them also in writing, and whose writings were duly and faithfully presented to the same lords (56), and received by them.\nThere follow the considerations and treatises of the prelates alike and doctors designated below, who gave their considerations upon the deeds and sayings of the aforesaid Joan the Maid, and upon the process conducted against the said Joan, as they are described below immediately in the opinions and treatises.\nI. # And first, begins the little work of Master Jean de Gerson (57), chancellor of Paris, upon the deed of the aforesaid Maid, made at Lyon in the year of the Lord 1429, on the fourteenth day of May, which was the vigil of Pentecost, after the sign had at Orléans in the expulsion of the English siege.\nUpon the deed of the Maid and the credence to be given to her, it is first to be presupposed that many false things are probable; nay, according to the Philosopher, it happens that certain false things are more probable than certain true ones, even so far that two contradictories stand together in probability, albeit not in truth.\nIt is further to be adverted that if that probability is rightly founded and duly understood, it is not to be called error or erroneous, unless the assertion be pertinaciously extended beyond the terms of probability. The reason of this is because he who speaks probably founds himself in this, that he has reasons and appearances for his part. And this at least is true, unless it be wholly improbable. It is likewise true of the opposite part, that for it are its reasons and appearances or verisimilar conjectures. And this likewise can be and often is true. Nor do these things contradict so expounded.\nIt is thirdly to be attended that certain things concerning the faith and good manners are in a twofold difference (58), as far as belongs to the present. For certain things are called of necessity of faith, and in these it is not lawful to doubt or probably to opine, after that current saying He who is doubtful in the faith is an infidel; and of such things a complaint would be just; nor would that civil law (Barbarius Philippus (59)) have place, nor in such things would a common error make right; nay the worse as the commoner, would at length be exterminated by fire and flame after the ecclesiastical and civil censures borne against heretics. That metrical [wholesome] saying also has place:\nFame, faith, the eye suffer not a jest.\nNay and for such a jest in the things which are of faith, he so jesting could be summoned to the judgment of faith, as suspected in faith of error.\nIt is to be considered for the other difference of the things which are in faith or of faith, that those are called of the piety or devotion of faith, and in no wise of necessity, of which it is wont to be said vulgarly: He who believes it not, is not damned for it. Now there belong to the piety of faith three conditions in special.\nThe first, that those things make to the excitation of devotion and pious affection about God and divine things; because to wit they resound to the praise of the divine power or clemency in miracles, and the veneration of the Saints.\nThe second condition is that there be had about such things some probable conjecture either from common relation, or from the attestation of the faithful, who say they saw or heard.\nA third condition is superadded, to be weighed with discretion by men erudite in theology and good manners, that in the relations of this kind of the things which are said of the piety of faith, there be not included or mixed aught false or erroneous, which manifestly is to the detriment of the faith or of good manners, directly or indirectly, openly or secretly. Upon which thing to be known or determined it is not lawful for anyone openly and everywhere to bear sentences and reprobations nay nor contentious approbations, most of all when they are tolerated by the Church or the prelates of the Church in one province or in many; but the judgment and determination ought to be deferred to the same Church or the prelates and doctors.\nMany things could here be noted in particulars, as of the matter of the conception of the Blessed Virgin; as of the probable opinions among the doctors; as of indulgences, as to their manifold circumstances; as of the veneration of relics in one place and another, nay in many divers at once: as of old was the contention in the Parliament of Paris upon the veneration of the head of Saint Denis in the church of Paris and in the abbey of Saint Denis near Paris (60).\nIt is to be concluded at length from the premises that the deed of that Maid can piously and wholesomely be sustained of the piety of faith and devotion, the circumstances being attended with the effect (61) competent, especially from the final cause which is most just, to wit the restitution of the king to his realm and the most just repulse or vanquishing of the most pertinacious enemies.\nAdded besides that in her observances this Maid is not found to use sortileges prohibited by the Church, nor superstitions openly reprobated, nor fraudulent cauteries of men, nor to her own gain or aught such subdolous thing, since, in attestation of her faith, she exposes her body to extreme peril.\nLastly if many speak and relate many things for their garrulity and lightness, or guile, or other sinister favour or hatred, that of Cato suffices:\nOf our arbitrament it is not what each may speak.\nYet it is of our arbitrament what is believed or held, modesty being kept and contention or sedition driven far off; for, as the Apostle says, it behoves not the servant of God to litigate. We, he says, have no such custom as to wit to litigate; but either it behoves to tolerate, or to refer to the superiors to be determined, as is premised. For so it was in the primary canonisation of the Saints, whose canonisations, as in the many which are read, are not of the necessity of faith strictly speaking; but of pious devotion, which is not to be reprobated, irritaded or repudiated everywhere by whomsoever, and less, other things being equal, than another divulged without canonisation.\nLet these circumstances be joined to our case.\nOne, that the king’s council and the men of arms could be induced at the voice of that Maid so to believe and obey, that under her they exposed themselves with conspiring mind to the perils of war, all dishonour driven far off: which could have befallen, if, warring under a little woman, they had been vanquished by the most shameless enemies and mocked among all who had heard it.\nAnother, that the popular exultation is seen to follow with so great a pious credulity, to the praise of God and the confusion of the enemies.\nAnother, that the hidden enemies, even the great, are related to have fallen into various fears, nay and into languors as of a woman in travail, after the imprecation of that canticle tympanised by Mary, sister of Moses, with the choir of them that play and sing Let us sing to the Lord, for gloriously is he magnified, etc. It follows: Fear and dread falls upon them, etc. Let it be seen, and with devotion consonant to our deed be recollected and sung.\nIt is to be pondered at the last that this Maid and the men of war adhering to her do not forsake the ways of human prudence, to wit doing what is in them, that God may appear not to be tempted beyond what is needful. Whence it stands that this Maid is not pertinacious in the adhesion of her own head and beyond what she accounts herself to have monitions or instincts from God.\nMoreover many circumstances could be superadded of her life from a child, which have been inquired and known diligently and much and by many: of which naught is here inserted.\nExamples can be induced of Deborah and of Saint Catherine in the no less miraculous conversion of fifty doctors or rhetoricians, and of many others, as of Judith and of Judas Machabeus, in whom (as commonly) there is ever mixed something natural. Nor does it ever follow after the first miracle whatsoever is expected by men. Wherefore, even if the aforesaid Maid should be frustrated of all her and our expectation (which God forbid), it would not behove to conclude that the things which were done were done by a malignant spirit or not by God; but either for our ingratitude and blasphemies or from elsewhere by the just judgment of God, albeit hidden, a frustration of our expectation could befall in the wrath of God, which may he avert from us, and turn all things to good.\nThere are superadded four civil and theological documents. One concerns the king and the kinsmen of the royal house; the second the soldiery of the king and the realm; the third the ecclesiastics with the people; the fourth the Maid herself. Of which documents this is the single end: to live well, piously toward God, justly toward the neighbour and soberly, that is virtuously and temperately, toward oneself. And in special for the fourth document, that the grace of God shown in this Maid be not received and traduced by herself or others to curious vanities, not to worldly gains, not to partial hatreds, not to contentious seditions, not to vengeances for the past, not to inept glorifyings; but in meekness and prayers with thanksgiving, and with liberal subvention besides of temporal things, let each labour in the selfsame; so that peace may come in its bedchamber, that, delivered from the hand of our enemies, God propitious, we may serve him in holiness and justice before him all our days, amen. This is done by the Lord.\nThere follows a triple truth for the justification of the elect Maid, received of late-bearing, using the male garment (62).\nI. The old law, prohibiting a woman to use the male garment and a man the female garment, forasmuch as it is purely judicial, binds not in the new law, because, according to the truth to be held of necessity of salvation, the judicials of the ancient law are taken away nor bind in the new, as such they are, unless it befall that they be newly instituted or confirmed by superiors.\n(56) The manuscripts: vestris paternitatibus; and further: et a vobis recepta.\n(57) It is very probable that this is the last writing to come from Gerson’s pen; he died on the 12th of July of the same year. It has already been printed several times and notably in the complete edition of the Works of Gerson published by Ellies du Pin, Paris, 1706, in-folio, t. IV, p. 864. It is also found in the collection of Melchior Goldast intituled Sibylla francica. We shall set in brackets the words given by these editions which are wanting in our manuscripts.\n(58) The editions: considerantur in duplici doctrina.\n(59) Dig., lib. I, tit. ii, l. 3. The edition of Du Pin gives: Lex illa civilis barbaris habet locum.\n(60) This process took place in 1406. It began upon the pretension of the monks of Saint-Denis that the relics of their patron, conserved at Notre-Dame, were false. (Gallia christiana, t. VII, col. 452.)\n(61) Wanting in the edition of Du Pin.\n(62) This rubric is otherwise conceived in the edition of Goldast: The elect Maid, received of late-bearing, using the male garment, can be justified by triple truth, which are to be explained severally and briefly against the objectors.\nII. The law of this kind contained something moral, which is stable in every law (and this we may express as the prohibition of an indecorous habit as well in a man as in a woman), against the mean of virtue, which ought to observe all the due circumstances, as when it behoves, why it behoves, in what wise it behoves, and so of the rest, as the wise man shall judge; of which there is not here to speak severally.\nIII. The law of this kind neither as judicial nor as moral damns the use of the male and military garment in our virile and military Maid, whom by certain signs the King of heaven chose as a standard-bearer to grind down the enemies of justice and raise up his friends; that in the hand of a girlish and virgin woman the proud arms of iniquity may be confounded, the angels aiding, to whom virginity is friendly and cognate, according to Jerome; and in the sacred histories it frequently appeared, as in Cecilia visibly with crowns of roses and lilies. Again by this is saved the shearing of the hair which the Apostle seems to prohibit in a woman.\nLet then the mouth of them that speak iniquity be stopped and cease, because, where the divine power works, the means are disposed according to the exigence of the end; so that it is no longer safe to detract from or blame with rash daring the things which are ordained by God, according to the Apostle.\nFinally, many particulars and examples could be added from the sacred and gentile histories; as of Camilla and the Amazons; as moreover in cases either of necessity, or of evident utility, or of approved custom, or by the authority or dispensation of superiors. But thus for brevity they suffice and for truth. Only let the party having the just cause beware lest by incredulity and ingratitude or other injustices it make void the divine aid so openly and marvellously begun, as we read it befell in Moses and the sons of Israel, after so many promises divinely conferred. For God, if not counsel, yet changes sentence for the change of merits.\nHere ends the consideration of Master Jean de Gerson, chancellor of Paris, made in the year as above.\nII. # There follows the consideration of the reverend father the lord Élie (63), bishop of Périgueux, upon the process and sentence pronounced against the said Joan; in which consideration it is shown that the qualities attributed to the same Joan in the sentence least accord with her confession and sayings; nay rather they ought to be applied to them (64).\nIt is written, If thou perceive a difficult and ambiguous judgment with thee, and see the words of the judges within thy gates vary, thou shalt come to the priests of the levitical kind and shalt ask of them, who shall judge thee the truth of the judgment. Deuteron. xvii, 8. Following the sentence of this oracle, our most christian prince and lord Charles king of the French, when he had perceived a most difficult and ambiguous judgment with him of a certain late maid, Joan by name, who is believed to have been directed to him by the sempiternal King of the heavens, in the immense multitude of his mercies which are from everlasting, for the consolation of the same king of the French and the deliverance of the realm; but of old is known to have been taken by the people of the English and gravely inculpated and also delivered to death; whence he beheld the words of many to vary whether she had come led by a good or a wicked spirit, and whether she could have sustained such a judgment as she sustained, and so be truly incriminated by such a sentence and condemned by the equal balance of judgment: coming, I say, the same our lord the king, called the priests of the levitical kind, that is the pontiffs and priests of the Church whom he deemed fit to choose for this, asking of them the truth of the judgment. Among whom, by the pious deignation of his royal majesty, me, Brother Élie, of the sacred order of Minors, least of the priests, called bishop of Périgueux, albeit hindered by the most frequent darkness of ignorance, he commanded to be numbered, and by his patent letters bade me, his little one, inquire the truth of this thing. Whose behests, after the little portion of my littleness, I have earnestly cared to obey, and I have seriously run through the summary of the process conducted against the same Joan and noted the sentence borne against her; and the things which I have less ill discerned about these, as they are denoted below, I have discussed.\nWhence that sentence borne against the same Joan contains twenty articles, in which she is reputed:\nFirst, a mendacious contriver of divine revelations and apparitions. Secondly, a pernicious seductress. Thirdly, presumptuous. Fourthly, lightly believing. Fifthly, superstitious. Sixthly, a diviner. Seventhly, a blasphemer of God and his Saints male and female in his sacraments. Eighthly, a contemner of the divine law. Ninthly, a prevaricator of the sacred doctrine and the ecclesiastical sanctions. Tenthly, seditious. Eleventhly, cruel. Twelfthly, an apostate. Thirteenthly, a schismatic. Fourteenthly, manifoldly erring in our faith. Fifteenthly, delinquent in many modes against God and the holy Church. Sixteenthly, expressly, obstinately and pertinaciously refusing with indurate mind to submit herself to the same Church, the lord Pope and the general Council. Seventeenthly, pertinacious. Eighteenthly, obstinate. Nineteenthly, excommunicate. Twentiethly, a heretic.\nOf which it is to be seen in order whether the same Joan, from the whole tenor of the process conducted against her, as is asserted, is to be deemed such.\nAnd first, as to the first article in which she is inculpated as a mendacious contriver of divine revelations and apparitions, the cause wherefore she ought to be so deemed, the whole summary of the process run through, I find not sufficient to condemn, etc., etc. (65)\nThe conclusion of the same consideration (66).\nAnd all and each these things said above, which I have run through not determining or simply asserting, but only piously suggesting and excusing the Maid, submitting each to the judgment and determination of the holy apostolic See and the sacrosanct Church and to the correction of all better discerning, with all honour and reverence and the benign sufferance of the aforesaid our lord the king, suffice for the present.\nIII. # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, begins the opinion or counsel of Thomas Basin (67), bishop of Lisieux, upon the process and condemnation uttered against the said Maid (68).\nCounselling in the matter of the condemnation of Joan the Maid, condemned by the lord Pierre Cauchon, then bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Magistri, asserted subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the city of Rouen, of heresy, schism, false assertion of divine revelations and apparitions of the holy angels and of Saints Catherine and Margaret, and many other crimes more largely expressed in the sentence borne against her; under all correction and reverence and emendation of the most holy our lord the supreme Pontiff and of all catholics better discerning and judging: it seems that the process had before the said asserted judges and the sentence borne upon her can manifoldly, rationally, juridically and veridically be impugned. To demonstrate which particularly and orderly, I shall divide the present little work into two parts.\nIn the first part I shall show the said process and sentence had against Joan to be, by many reasons of law, as well null and void as to be annulled and irritated; not that I will to say the said process and sentence are at once null and to be annulled in the same respect, referring both to the law, because this cannot be at once. For what is null cannot be annulled (ff. De injusto rupto et irrito facto testam., § I Nam et si sub conditione; De despon. Impiis ad dissolvendum, with the like); but I shall induce many reasons which conclude to the nullity of the process, to wit that the process and the sentence are null by law itself; I shall induce also certain to prove that they are at least to be annulled.\nIn the second principal part I shall show, the Lord giving and favouring, that, even if the process and the sentence subsisted in all order and solemnity of law, yet from the confessions of Joan which are in the acts of the cause it cannot rightly and justly be judged that Joan was schismatical, heretical, an idolatress, a blasphemer, etc., entangled in the other crimes which she was compelled to abjure; and was afterwards condemned in fact as relapsed into the same.\nDivision of the first part.\nThe first principal part will be divided into twelve points or articles. In the first, the said process and sentence will be impugned, in that they were had against a person not subject by any reason of drawing a forum. Secondly, they will be impugned from the fear and impression which are said to have been inflicted by the English upon the subinquisitor, the other of the asserted judges, and the others having to counsel in the matter. Thirdly, from the recusation of the judges for legitimate causes of suspicion proposed by Joan. Fourthly, for the legitimate appeal interjected from the grievances of the asserted judges by Joan, as she could. Fifthly, from the arduousness and difficulty of the cause, for which it was to be referred to the examination of the apostolic See. Sixthly, from the unjust assignation of the prison of the keepers. Seventhly, from the denial of the counsellors and directors who were denied to the same Joan asking. Eighthly, from the minority of the years of Joan, who, without a curator, had no legitimate person of standing in judgment. Ninthly, from the too great severity of the judges, whom the compassion of her age ought to have bent to a remisser pain, even where it had lawfully stood to them that Joan had delinquished in mind. Tenthly, from this that the bishop of Beauvais, pretending himself judge, forbade the excusations of Joan and the determinations of her confessions to be referred by the notaries in the acts. Eleventhly, from this that the articles transmitted to the counsellors to have counsel were mendaciously, imperfectly and calumniously formed. Twelfthly, from the evil guile of certain feigned and false counsellors who, feigning themselves to be of the obedience of our lord the king, dissuaded Joan from submitting herself to the Church.\nProsecuting then the aforesaid twelve points conformably to the series of the doubts elicited by the lord Paul Pontanus and transmitted for the requiring of counsel; ever presupposing in fact the things which as true are presupposed in the doubts of this kind, I say first that the process and sentence had against Joan the Maid before the aforesaid judges are null, etc., etc., etc.\nDivision of the second part (69).\nAfter the promise made in the exordium of the present consultation, the points being examined from which the process and the sentence had against Joan, for defect of the judiciary order or by law itself, fall and fail in validity, or at least as iniquitous and unjust come by law to be retracted and annulled: it remains to see and discuss of the sayings and deeds of the same Joan confessed by her, as it can appear from the acts of the cause, whether to wit they are such for which she ought to have been condemned guilty of the crimes which she was compelled to abjure, if in the process all the judiciary order had been duly observed. And this second principal part will be divided into seven points or articles. First, it will be discussed of the revelations and apparitions which Joan asserted she had; whether she was a mendacious contriver of the apparitions and revelations of this kind, or had them from malignant or good spirits. Secondly, whether from the reverence which Joan exhibited to the spirits who appeared to her, and the vow of virginity which she vowed to them, she could be judged an idolatress. Thirdly, it will be discussed of this that she said she was so certain she would go into paradise, as if she were already in the glory of the Blessed. Fourthly, of this that she said she was so certain that he who appeared to her was Saint Michael, and that she believed this so firmly as she believed our Lord Jesus Christ to have suffered and died for our redemption; and of the others’ certainty which she said had been revealed to her. Fifthly, it will be treated of the bearing of the male habit and arms, and the cutting of her hair or locks. Sixthly, of the leaving of her parents. Seventhly, whether for this that she refused to submit herself to the Church upon the sayings and deeds confessed by her, she could justly be judged lapsed into schism, heresy, idolatry and all the other crimes contained in the schedule of abjuration; upon which justly and canonically a judgment of relapse could afterwards be founded.\nFirst then and chiefly of the revelations of the same Joan, etc., etc., etc.\nConclusion of the whole work (70).\nAnd these are, the correction and emendation being saved in all\n(63) Élie de Bourdeille, a Cordelier, called at twenty-four years of age to the bishopric of Périgueux by the unanimous suffrages of the chapter of that church (1447). Louis XI transferred him, twenty years later, to the archbishopric of Tours. It is of him that Brantôme writes: My great-uncle the cardinal de Bourdeilles… rich even to 60,000 livres of rent of that time, never gave aught of it to our house; and so far from giving us aught, he took of the house to build two churches and chapels which are still entire, thanks be to God; and for his memory he left us only his cardinal’s hat which we keep as a great special thing. (Brantôme, Hommes illustres, Disc. sur les provisions aux bén.)\n(64) Manuscript 5970, fol. 111, r°.\n(65) See what is said in the Preface on the mode of publication adopted for this memoir and the following.\n(66) Manuscript 5970, fol. 132, recto.\n(67) Thomas Basin, master of arts, doctor in civil and canon law, pupil of the universities of Paris, Louvain and Pavia. He was born at Caudebec in 1412, and raised to the see of Lisieux in 1446. He rendered great services at the reduction of Normandy, and was councillor of Charles VII and of Louis XI. Since the war of the Bien Public, in which he took part for the leagued princes, his life was a tissue of misfortunes and persecutions which led him to renounce his bishopric in 1474. He died in exile at Utrecht in 1491, with the title of archbishop of Caesarea. His life and his writings furnished me the subject of a memoir printed in the third volume of the Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes. I have shown in that work that Thomas Basin is the author of the Latin chronicle hitherto known under the name of Amelgard, and that so a famous passage where the pretended Amelgard says he composed a justificatory memoir of the Maid must be applied to Thomas Basin and to the work of which an extract is here given. It was then in vain that M. de l’Averdy caused the libraries of Europe to be searched for a treatise of Amelgard, which [did not exist].\n(68) Fol. 133.\n(69) Fol. 137, v°.\n(70) Fol. 144, r°.\nof the most holy our lord the supreme Pontiff and of all more perspicaciously understanding, which of the revelations, sayings and deeds of Joan, and the process and sentence had against her, seem to me, so far as it could stand and appear to me of the process and acts of the cause by the quaternion transmitted to me by the venerable and circumspect man the lord dean of Noyon, egregious professor of sacred theology; in which quaternion are contained the twelve articles elicited by the English and consequently the additions and determinations excerpted from the process to the truth by the most expert doctor of either law the lord Paul Pontanus, together with the schedule after which the judges made Joan abjure, and also certain doubts conceived and elicited by the aforesaid lord Paul for the inquiring of the counsel of experts thereupon. Many other things could be supplied and added to these which are said of the additions and excerpts of this kind of the lord Paul; but the things which are said seemed to me to suffice for the giving of counsel. Nor did I deem it necessary to make special mention, either of the leap from the tower, or of the signs of the letters of Joan, or of the cruelties which were falsely imputed to her, and suchlike things, which I esteemed of no or moderate dubitation. Also by the said excerpts or additions of the lord Paul a clear purgation of all such objects is sufficiently gathered. But if anyone shall have esteemed aught in this counsel either superfluous or diminished, let him pardon, I pray, and indulge the inexpertness of the writer.\nSubscribed and signed by me, Thomas, unworthy bishop of Lisieux, least among the doctors of either law.\nIV. # Opinion of the reverend in Christ father and lord, the lord Martin Berruyer (71), bishop of Le Mans (72).\nTO THE GLORY OF GOD.\nJustly shalt thou pursue that which is just. Deuteron. xvi, 20. These words are directed chiefly to judges, of whom, a few things interposed, it is premised: Thou shalt appoint judges that they may judge the people with just judgment. Now to this that the judgment be just, it is required that that be judged which is just, as to the matter of the judgment, as to wit the innocent be absolved and the noxious punished, and for the measure of the sin be also the mode of the pains. It is required also that it be justly judged as to the form and mode of the judgment, because, according to the expositors, the mode of proceeding ought to be just and right. Now in both the process made against the young woman who was vulgarly called Joan the Maid was vicious, because neither was judged what is just as to the matter, nor justly as to the form. As to the form indeed the process fell, because the lord Pierre Cauchon, bishop of Beauvais, was not the competent [judge] of the same Joan; because he and those assisting him, as capital enemies of the same Joan, were recused by her; because she submitted herself, her sayings and deeds to our lord the Pope; because she asked that herself, her sayings and deeds be remitted to the Pope and the general Council, which had the force of an appeal, albeit she expressed not the word of appeal from simplicity, and legitimately indeed appealed for the premises; also for the denial of the directors and for the many grievances inflicted upon her, and for the arduousness of the matter of which it was treated, and for the many other things which the most expert jurists who have written in this matter most eruditely expressed, proving most efficaciously the process made against the said Maid and the following sentence, as to the form, to be null, or at least to be annulled and irritated. Now it seems principally to be insisted about the matter of the process, that is, granted that the process had been otherwise juridical, if the same Joan ought to have been judged such as is expressed in the sentence borne against her, and delivered to the supplice of fire. For to this end those pretended judges and those assisting them condemned that Maid as entangled in those most grave crimes expressed in their sentence, that they might put this great stain upon the glory of our most christian lord the king and his faithful subjects, that in his wars, in his coronation, in the recovery of his realm, he used the mystery of this woman who was superstitious, a diviner, an invoker of demons, an idolatress, a blasphemer, schismatical, heretical and infected with the other worst crimes expressed in the sentence borne against her. For also a certain one at Rouen, in a public sermon, in the presence of the aforesaid judges and those assisting them, is said to have exclaimed thus: O realm of France of old reputed most christian, and thy kings and princes most christian! Now verily by thee, O Joan! thy king, who calls himself king of France, adhering to thee and believing thy sayings, is made heretical and schismatical. To whom Joan constantly said: Saving your reverence, it is not true as you say, for I will you to know that there is not among the living christians a better catholic than he.\nInsisting then about the matter of the process, five chapters will be set.\nChapter I. That in the things to which Joan said she was sent, she was moved not humanly but by a certain superior spirit.\nChapter II. That the same Joan in the things to which she said she was sent, seemed to be moved not by a malignant spirit but by the spirit of God.\nChapter III. That Joan was not such as is expressed in the sentence borne against her.\nChapter IV. Answer to the things which are objected or can be objected against Joan and which seem to bring difficulty into her sayings and deeds.\nChapter V. The conclusion following from the premises: that the same Joan was rashly and unjustly judged and impiously burned by fire.\nSubscription of the work (73).\nNow these things are written not to the disparagement of anyone, but in zeal of truth and justice without rash assertion, submitting all things to the determination and judgment of holy mother Church and of our lord the supreme Pontiff, and to the correction and emendation of the wise.\nWritten and signed by me, Martin, unworthy minister of the church of Le Mans, the seventh of the month of April, in the year of the Lord 1456.\nSo signed: M. Berruyer.\nV. # Opinion of the lord Jean (74), bishop of Avranches.\nWhen, within a few days, for certain things to be done of my church of Avranches, I had come to this city of Paris; on the part of the most reverend and reverend in Christ fathers and lords the archbishop of Reims and the bishop of Paris, together also of the honourable and religious man Master Bréhal, of the order of the Friars Preachers, professor of sacred theology and inquisitor of heretical pravity through the realm of France, commissaries of the holy apostolic See and, as to those things whereof speech is here to be had, specially deputed; it was enjoined upon me that, upon a certain process made and concluded of old, near twenty-five years ago, at Rouen, by the reverend in Christ father and lord the then bishop of Beauvais, in the matter of a certain singular and admirable woman, who by common naming was called Joan the Maid; as to the confirmation or infirmation of the same process, and equally of the things contained in the same objected to the same Maid, I should will to write what I discerned in that thing by mode of opinion. In which matter at least, which appeared to me great, exceeding difficult and most arduous at first face, I should in no wise presume, most of all in so brief a course, to opine in any wise, unless the authority of the aforesaid lords commissaries intervened to me for a singular precept. A certain protestation then being premised of asserting naught which may seem or can be contrary to sane doctrine, it seems to me that the whole weight of this affair turns principally upon two things. Whereof the first, which is as material, concerns the things which were objected to the aforesaid Maid by her adversaries and judges; the second verily considers the form or order of the process even unto the definitive sentence and the condemnation of the same Maid. And about these two, not by mode of a codicil, as I have heard certain solemn prelates and doctors wrote solemnly and arduously and very pertinently to the matter; but what in a briefer course summarily only and by a certain light opinion, so far as from a certain summary extracted, written upon this matter, of the lord Paul Pontanus, most solemn consistorial advocate in the Roman curia, I could consider this matter and the process, my opinion, such as it is, under the premised protestation together and the correction of whomsoever more securely discerning, will turn.\nAbout the first then, very many things seem imputed to the aforesaid Maid, among which seem to be the greater, that she said she had many and frequent visions and revelations and consolations of spirits, to wit of Saint Michael and the blessed Catherine and Margaret, etc., etc.\nSubscription of the work (75).\nAnd these are the things which, under the premised correction and protestation and submission, of the present matter by mode of opinion only and probably, seemed to me Jean, bishop of Avranches, to be conjectured. So written: J., bishop of Avranches.\nVI. # Opinion of the lord Jean de Montigny (76), doctor of decrees.\nThe excusation being premised, which I supremely need, as well by reason of the arduousness of the matter, the obtuseness of my intellect and the great inexperience in which I labour, as by reason of the highness and reverence of the fathers and lords in whose sight not undeservedly I dread to speak, I shall premise protestations approaching to the matter. The first will be of submitting to the determination of the holy mother Church and of whatsoever other to whom it belongs to reduce them that deviate to the way of truth, my present opinion and its several points, as also I submit; willing it to be had for not said, and revoking and retracting that as from now so from then, and as from then so from now, which shall be found deviant from the aforesaid determination. For I cannot deny, to use the words of Augerius, nor ought I, since I may say many things which by just judgment and no rashness shall be blamable (can. Negare ix dist.). The second, that by hatred or favour of anyone, or other whatsoever inordinate affection, I intend not to bring forward into the midst the things I am to say; but only for the elucidation of the truth, as the Lord shall deign to minister to me; adding that I intend to say naught by mode of assertion and absolutely; but only probably and by my first view to speak, since the present matter exceeds too much my faculty. For I intend not to assert the revelations, apparitions and the other things thence following on the part of the Maid, of whose process, whether it was just or unjust, it is asked, to have proceeded from God as pretended, or contrived by her, or sent in by a demon, since which of these was done stands not to me certitudinally or indubitably; but only, respect being had to the said process, to say whether the proceeding against her was lawful or not, as is required of me. And because it is not of my littleness to will credence to be accommodated to my sayings, save so far as they are fulcised by authorities or probable reasons, I shall allege, that credence be applied to them after the vigour of the foundation, studying brevity so far as shall be possible to me, as well for the brevity of the time enjoined me, as for the gravity of the matter which I cannot attain.\nIn the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, descending to the purpose, I shall divide the matter itself, that I may proceed orderly, into two parts: to wit into the foundation or matter of the process whereof it is asked, and its form; subdividing the matter into four articles after the order of the thing done, as it was most like to me: to wit into the revelations or apparitions said to have been made to her through the Saints Michael the archangel, Catherine and Margaret virgins sent by God; the change of the female habit into the male; the assumption of arms with the warlike motion; and the adorations with the services, and masses, and the rest, which she is said to have procured or held ratified; the recusation which she is said to have made of submitting herself to the judgment of the Church, because it seems rather to pertain to the form of the process, remitting it to the same; yet it is found by mixed consideration (77) that savours the matter of both, and\n(71) It is this name that M. De l’Averdy read Martin de Wesines. Martin Berruyer, of Tours, first professed philosophy and rhetoric in the university of Paris. Then devoting himself to theology, he was admitted to the number of the societaries of the college of Navarre. Elected bishop of Le Mans in 1449; died in the exercise of that dignity on the 24th April 1465, and not 1467 as certain authors pretend. (Du Boulay, Hist. univ. Paris., t. V, p. 905; Gallia christ., anc. ed. t. II, f. 518.)\n(72) Fol. 144, r°.\n(73) Fol. 151, r°.\n(74) Jean Bochard, called de Vaucelles, born at Saint-Lô, doctor in decretals of the university of Paris, confessor of Charles VII then of Louis XI. He was elected bishop of Avranches on the 28th April 1453, being archdeacon of the same church. It was at his request that the edict against the Nominalists was rendered in 1473. He wrote an abridged exposition of all the sacred books. Died the 23rd November 1484. (Gall. christ., t. XI, col. 594.)\n(75) Fol. 152, r°.\n(76) The rest of this name, written on the margin of the cropped manuscript, I have not found another doctor in decretals to whom it could be applied than Jean de Montigny, professor at Paris, canon and archdeacon of Sézanne in the chapter of Notre-Dame, and counsellor in the Parliament. He spoke in the assembly of the faculties, the 24th October 1453, against the suspension of exercises which the university had pronounced on occasion of a certain conflict arisen between the body and the justice of the Châtelet. Jean de Montigny was also one of the orators chosen by the university to form part of the embassy which the city of Paris deputed to the confederated princes during the war of the Bien Public. Died the 5th October 1471. (Du Boulay, Hist. univ. Paris., t. V, p. 583; Chron. scandaleuse, ad ann. 1465; Blanchard, Catal. des conseillers au Parl. de Paris, p. 53.)\n(77) Passage evidently corrupted. Perhaps: quid reperitur.\nas well of the matter as of the form of the process, relation being made to both, which I shall not care to prosecute indifferently in either point or part.\nComing then to the first part of the matter which is of the revelations, etc., etc. (78)\nVII. # Opinion of Master Guillaume Bouillé, dean of Noyon (79).\nTo the honour and glory of the King of kings who defends the causes of the innocent (80), this little note summarily, albeit in rude and indigested speech, I Guillaume Bouillé, dean of Noyon, least of all theologians, (81) have deemed worthy to exhibit, containing certain brief and general advisements recollected from the original process of old made at Rouen against Joan, vulgarly named the Maid, that from them some occasion be offered to the most expert doctors of either law divine and human alike, of inquiring more largely and more amply the truth upon the iniquitous judgment made in such wise by the deceased lord Pierre Cauchon, then bishop of Beauvais, against the aforesaid Joan the Maid, then warring (82) for the defence of the realm against the violently usurping. Now since, as blessed Jerome witnesses, Gaul alone has lacked monsters, to wit of heretical pravity, it seems, to the honour of the most christian king of the French, not to pass over in silence the iniquitous sentence, scandalous and derogating to the honour of the royal crown, thundered by the same bishop of Beauvais adverse to the king, and, as appears at first face, thirsting for the confusion of the same our lord the king. Now that (83) the silence of this iniquitous condemnation depress the royal honour is manifest enough from this, because, warring under the king, the said Maid was condemned as a heretic and invoker of demons. For what a stain would seem to be brought upon the royal throne, if, in future times, it were brought back to the memory of men by adversaries, that the king of the French cherished in his army a heretical woman and an invoker of demons? To the caution of this infamy the wise man invites when he says: Take care of a good name, and the common authority of Augustine oft versed in the mouth of men: Cruel is he who neglects his fame, chiefly when the denigration of such fame redounds to the infamy of the realm or of the whole nation.\nI believe indeed, piously and wholesomely, from the series of the process, that the innocence of the said Maid can be sustained luculently before all, her mode of living and the progress and end of her life being attended or well pondered. For she laboured to the restitution of this realm of France, which she frequently predicted. Did she not expel and terrify the most shameless enemies of the realm, and by her holy monitions excite the inert or sluggish to wars for the expelling of the ferocious enemies of the realm, in such wise that from that time the virtue or power of the adversaries growing old (84) ceased not to be weakened? Nor moreover through the whole process will it be found that in her observances the said Maid used sortileges prohibited by the Church, nor reprobated superstitions, nor fraudulent cauteries of men, nor to her own gain, but only to the wresting of the realm from the enemies and to the restitution of the most worthy royal throne. Wherefore the most serene royal majesty is deservedly held to magnify the innocence of the same Maid, and to cause the process confected less than justly against her to be examined by the most learned men theologians and jurists, so that, if the said process be found by them vicious or defective in form or in matter, all things be procured to be repaired, and at length the sentence borne against the said Maid be retracted as iniquitous, that the mouths of them that speak against be stopped for the future and the faith of the royal house persevere inviolate; which may the Lord ever deign to make firm in the person of our most victorious modern king, to the salvation and defence of his people.\nNow since in fewer words [is more arduous and difficult], therefore, studying and cursorily reading the said process of old made against the aforesaid Joan, I have thought it expedient to collect under a brief declaration only three principal points of their (85) assertions, upon which chiefly the forenamed Cauchon and his accomplices strove to convict her criminal, and to show, more clearly than light, the crimes falsely imputed to her, the judgment of the more expert being saved; touching naught of the form of the process, but remitting to the lords jurists whether all the judiciary order in the said process was duly observed or not. Then more particularly I have cared to subjoin the manifest falsity of the twelve articles which were transmitted by the same Cauchon to the lords prelates and doctors for the founding of the judgment, from this that they were collected less rightly and less sincerely, nay corruptly, from the answers of the forenamed Maid, passing over in silence very many justifying circumstances, but adding many others aggravating, as will clearly appear reading the said process more seriously. Whence it will liquidly stand that the same lords qualifying, following the example of the fact, were deceived, and by consequence the whole judgment and sentence borne against the same Maid by the pretended judges, and all things thence following, to be utterly of no strength or vigour, and the whole process deservedly to fall.\nFirst and chiefly the adversaries strove, from the process and acts had of her confessions, to convict the same Joan a mendacious contriver of the apparitions of the holy angels, etc., etc., etc.\nVIII. # There follows (86) the consideration or opinion of the venerable man Master Robert Ciboule (87), professor of sacred theology and chancellor of Paris, who, as well before the beginning of this process as also after its beginning, the lords Delegates requiring his counsel, wrote upon the fact of the aforesaid process conducted against the said Joan at Rouen; prosecuting that the fourteen qualities or qualifications attributed against the said Joan in the said process and the sentences contained in it could not have been attributed to the same Joan or gathered from the deeds, sayings or confession of the said Joan; prosecuting particularly and marking each one of the aforesaid fourteen qualifications, as it is described immediately in the same opinion.\nOf a certain Maid named Joan, who in our times, beyond the wonted use of women and girls, is said to have said many things and done marvellous things, it is not mine to write or say aught save with dread and in any wise opining. Therefore I intend or propose in this matter to write or assert naught, save under the protestation of following the judgment and determination of the greater, especially of those who are held more expert in right as well divine as human, and who were more fully informed from the sayings alike and deeds of the same Joan. But since an irrefragable authority, whose behests it is lawful for me to take up and unlawful not to obey the same, commands me to say something upon a certain process made of old at Rouen against the said Joan, in the year of the Lord 1431, by the lord Pierre Cauchon, then bishop of Beauvais, asserted judge in the matter of faith; from which process followed the sentence of condemnation of the said Joan as schismatical, infidel and heretical: I shall assert certain things in the purpose, naught save what is to be asserted and under the aforesaid protestations and the others which ought to be made in like cases.\nFor the matter then of the things to be said, it is asked if the process had and made against her in the matter of faith, and the sentence borne against her by the said lord bishop, are juridical, or are subject to nullity as well the process as the sentence itself, most of all in that part in which she was condemned as infidel, schismatical and heretical. For the deduction of which question, first the said sentence is to be set in its own terms; then collation is to be made, whether to wit the said sentence be conformable to the confession and conviction of the said Joan in all its articles and points; thirdly whether from the sayings or deeds of the same Joan she can or ought to be condemned of infidelity and heresy; fourthly whether the process was otherwise juridical, so that there was not error or defect in the judgment, neither on the part of the judges nor in the mode of judging.\nSo then the form of the sentence is this, etc., etc., etc.\nConclusion of the same work (88).\nWherefore it seems to me from the inspection of the process and the sentence, all things considered, and, so far as the littleness of my intelligence could attend to the aforesaid things and their circumstances, that, for the reasons alleged, the said process sins as well in matter as in form. My opinion is especially that she ought not to have been condemned as infidel, schismatical or heretical. Now all these things which above probably and for my opinion, most instantly required, I have said or written, I Robert Ciboule, humble professor of sacred theology, chancellor and canon of Paris and of Évreux, submit to the correction and emendation and determination of the sacrosanct apostolic See, adhering to the protestation made by me from the beginning of this treatise or schedule, written in my own hand, and signed with my sign in testimony of my whatsoever opinion.\nDone at Paris, in the cloister of blessed Mary and in my house of habitation, in the year of the Lord 1452 (89), on the second day of the month of January.\nSo signed: Robertus Cybole.\n[Visitation of all the instruments of either process made at Paris.]\nAfter the presentation then of the said allegations on the part of the aforesaid promoter and actors, presented in the term for concluding in the cause and proceeding in it, as is said above; and the reception of the treatises inserted above, and for the greater part made before the beginning of this process, in zeal of justice, upon the same first process, and received from the hands of them that treated them or by their messengers with recognition of the writing and subscriptions: the aforesaid lords Delegates, to wit the most reverend in Christ father the lord Jean, archbishop of Reims, the reverend fathers Guillaume bishop of Paris and Richard bishop of Coutances, and the venerable Master Brother Jean Bréhal, the inquisitor named above, through the said month of June, all coming together in one at Paris, all things being done which seemed to be done in this deduction of the process for the examination and discussion of the matter and of the things required by the parties; and (90), until the assignation of the term for concluding in the cause and that term for concluding pending, desiring as well from the acts of the same first process as from all the other legitimate documents, as was commanded them in the rescript presented to the same, to seek out the truth of the matter by full discussion, and from the verified series of the fact to elicit and deduce the questions of law: all the books and all the originals of the same first process, of whose justification or nullity or annulment it is treated, beyond the visitations of the same books and originals made, as well by the same lords Delegates as by each one of them, and also by many doctors and experts in law to whom they had enjoined the aforesaid books and originals to be communicated and to be communicating, after the reception of them from the hands of the notaries, they again visited and caused to be visited; duly conferring, severally and particularly, with the said books the acts of the present process, and especially the informations and inquests made and published above, as well about the state and quality of the aforesaid Maid as about the quality of them that judged against her, the series and mode of the process itself, and the whole matter and form of the same process; a special discussion being made upon the confession or confessions of the oft-said Joan and the articles which the judges pretended and pretend extracted from the said confessions; the diversities, disconveniences, differences and contrarieties and many transpositions of words and omissions being marked as well by the said lords Delegates as by many of the doctors and experts in law, in the things which seemed most to serve the excusation of the aforesaid Joan, and also the many additions which seem to augment her accusation; con-\n(78) This memoir, very voluminous, presents no general conclusions, nor bears a subscription, any more than the following.\n(79) Fol. 160, r°. This memoir was remitted to the judges from the first day of the trial, as is seen by the manuscript of Urfé (fol. 113, v°), where it is consigned after the procès-verbal of the 17th November 1455, under this rubric: But the tenor of a certain note exhibited and delivered among the same preparations of judgment by the said petitioners then follows in these words. This memoir escaped M. De l’Averdy. Destined to call the attention of the theologians and canonists upon the irregularities of the first trial, it was composed after the information of 1449, which we have printed at the head of the second volume, perhaps even after the information of 1452 which the cardinal d’Estouteville directed. This appears from several places of the discussion where Guillaume Bouillé refers to the depositions already gathered: It stands moreover by the process and informations made upon the life and conversation of the said Joan, that she obeyed the Saints, etc. — These things appear from the deposition of many witnesses worthy of faith, etc., etc.\n(80) The manuscript of Urfé adds: And also to the exaltation of the king of the French or of the house of France, which is never read to have shown favour to heretics or in any wise to have adhered to them.\n(81) The manuscript of Urfé adds: to the royal highness.\n(82) The manuscripts: nullitatem.\n(83) Manuscript 5970: aut.\n(84) So, manuscripts 5970 and of Urfé. Read senem or senescens.\n(85) Manuscript of Urfé: summaria. Of these three points, the first which begins the discussion is indicated at page 326; the two others announce themselves by the following propositions: Moreover they argue the said Joan to have been culpable, a prevaricatrix of the divine and canonical law, for the wearing of the male habit and arms, and for the amputation of her hair (Manuscript 5970, fol. 161, r°). — Finally they strive to render the said Joan culpable because, of the revelations which she related she had, and of the wearing of the male habit and arms, she refused to submit herself to the determination of the militant Church [and of man]. (Ibidem.)\n(86) Manuscript 5970, fol. 164, r°.\n(87) Author of the Livre de saincte méditation en congnoissance de soy, printed 1510 and 1556. He was born at Breteuil, and had made his studies at the college of Harcourt. He was rector of the University of Paris in 1437, chancellor of Notre-Dame, dean of the chapter of Évreux and chamberlain of Nicholas V. Died in 1458. (P. Paris, Les manuscrits françois de la Bibliothèque du Roi, t. IV, p. 162; Du Boulay, Hist. univ. Paris., t. V, p. 921; Gall. christ., t. XI, col. 623.)\n(88) Fol. 174, r°.\n(89) That is, 1453.\n(90) Manuscript: ut.\nsidered also a certain leaf of paper written in the hand of Master Guillaume Manchon, the other of the notaries, and recognised by him and produced by the parties, in which are contained corrections and additions to be made before the transmission of the articles for the seeking of opinions, which nevertheless were not made; and the qualities attributed and the crimes imputed to the same in the sentences pronounced against her being seriously scrutinised also (and the aforesaid confession of the aforesaid Joan particularly read and oft repeated), and the content in them of a certain abjuration, which the witnesses produced in the inquests assert and depose to have been not understood by her and extorted and exacted by force and fear, as it is described in the superior inquests specially read to this end.\nThe said first process conducted against the said Joan having then been visited with the preceding acts of this present process, and the premised discussion made about the series of the fact and the manifold difficulties which seemed to consist in the fact: the aforesaid lords Delegates, together with certain prelates and doctors and others expert in divine and human law, the matter being communicated with them and all things offered and opened to them fully and clearly about the reasons of law and the questions incidental in fact and law, in the first place read and visited and caused to be read and visited the opinions of the prelates, doctors and others who in the first process gave deliberations and counsels; then the allegations of the promoter and the parties noted above; subsequently verily the treatises foreinserted composed upon the same first process by the forenamed prelates and doctors; and then the opinions and considerations of certain prelates alike and doctors who, upon the incidental questions of law, both processes being joined together, gave opinions and counsels; recollecting and commemorating also among themselves and among the doctors evoked with them to this visitation, very many considerations and counsels given them upon the same incidental questions; and conferring among themselves all and each the aforesaid things with mutual communication of their own considerations and of the doctors evoked with them, beyond the communications had among them skilfully and the visitations already made; reserving further to communicate among themselves and with many counsellors, who also were present in the first process, in the city of Rouen, until the time and day of the sentence to be pronounced.\nNow this visitation, made as is premised about the acts as well of the aforesaid first process as also of the deduction of this present process, the aforesaid lords Delegates faithfully reported to us, the notaries, who in it, for other occupations, could not be present at length, and, we also being present, communicated of it among themselves, and ordered it to be inserted here among the acts; intending to have an ampler communication among themselves and with the expert counsellors in the city of Rouen, we being present, as is aforesaid, until they should come to the pronouncing of the sentence.\nAnd since in the visitation of both processes and of the acts of the same or the things contained in them, very many prelates, doctors and experts in law, the said processes, books and their acts being offered to them at length, for the multitude and very great prolixity rendered themselves excused from writing or saying at length upon the aforesaid processes, and deemed it only and at least to be answered to certain particular questions, as well about the matter as about the form, some in writing and many of them by word showing the nullity or annulment of the said first process: the aforesaid lords Delegates deemed the considerations of the aforesaid to be recollected among themselves, and, for the multitude and because many of them willed to express them only by word, ordained them leastwise to be inserted here.\n[Ordination for recollecting into one the foreinserted considerations.]\nAll the aforesaid opinions, treatises and considerations given as well by word as in writing having then been read, recited and examined, recollected to one another and collated among the aforesaid lords Delegates, many most learned and expert men also assisting and deliberating with them; a first discourse being made about the opinions set forth and described in the same first process: since it appeared that the aforesaid opinions in and upon the same articles forenoted above, dissonant and contrary to the confession and sayings of the aforesaid Joan, were founded, and given to so great a matter without allegations or at least with few; and that the same deliberators leastwise agreed, some asking the whole process to be communicated to them at length, others saying the same process was to be transmitted to the apostolic See, others relating they were coacted and precipitated in this part, or at least for the greater part saying the same Joan was to be admonished again of submitting herself to the Church (as also she submitted herself tacitly and expressly to the admonished apostolic See, and asked first herself, then all her sayings and deeds to be transmitted, submitting herself and them by all means to the same): therefore it seemed to the aforesaid lords Delegates and the counsellors evoked by them that the aforesaid opinions leastwise sufficed to the elucidation of the matter and in most things seemed impertinent to the same matter.\nNow about the aforesaid treatises, made upon the first process before the present process begun, and the aforesaid considerations by word [or] in writing upon the same both processes joined together, together said and presented, the communications being had and the visitations aforesaid made: the aforesaid lords Delegates specially ordained the recollection of all the aforesaid to be made by the venerable man Master Jean Bréhal, called and assumed by their special ordination into conjudge and condelegate, after and according to the apostolic rescript and mandate directed to them, and with the most reverend in Christ father the lord Guillaume, cardinal of the title of Saint Martin-in-the-Mounts and then legate of the apostolic See, of old adjoined in the informations and other things about this matter; for the fuller elucidation of the matter; briefly annotating the questions, and the same very many, among the aforesaid lords Delegates and condeliberators aforetouched, as also below in the following deduction of the questions, as well about the matter as also about the form, the said recollection is described at length by several chapters.\nThere follows the aforesaid recollection of Brother Jean Bréhal, containing nine chapters about the matter of the process and twelve about the form of the same.\nAccording to the Philosopher, in the 2nd of the Metaphysics, each thing as it has itself to being, so also to truth; for which, as each thing by natural instinct appetites to be and to be conserved in being, so also by natural impetus it inclines to truth; and most greatly the rational creature, because its perfection or intellect is the true; but the false is a certain evil of it. Whence also whatsoever false opinion occupy the intellect of a man, yet it properly assents not to it, save in the reason of the true. Which blessed Augustine thus deduces in the tenth book of the Confessions [chap. 23]: So amiable is (91) truth that whosoever love aught else, will that that which they love be the truth; for also they that are false will not be convinced that they are false; therefore for this thing they hate the truth which they love for truth. They love it shining, they hate it reproving. For since they will not to be deceived and will to deceive, they love it when it shows itself, and hate it when them themselves. Thence it shall repay them, that they who will not to be manifested by it, both them unwilling it manifests and for them therefore it is not manifest. To whom at least it is enounced, it oft-times breeds hatred, and he that preaches it becomes their enemy. By the same reason then he who loves truth also expugns or reprobates the opposite falsity, because it is of the same thing to prosecute one of contraries and repel the other, as medicine which induces health excludes sickness. Now what is said of the love of truth is indeed to be taken according to the natural order of the human mind; since, from the perverse deordination of the will it can befall that one desires to seem right and truthful in his opinion or judgment, who nevertheless of his own will embraces what is iniquitous or false, and by sophistical ratiocinations prosecutes falsity and injustice. Which indeed is most vituperable, as Bede says upon Mark, thus saying: They who spurn the rights of truth and charity betray God at least, who is charity and truth, most of all when they sin not by infirmity or ignorance, but by infidelity; thence they seek the opportunity how, the arbiters being absent, by a mendacious crime they may change truth and virtue. And it is alleged in the canon Abiit caus. xi, quaest. 3. Whence because in a judge and doctor most of all truth ought irrefragably to be found, therefore the supreme detriment is inferred therefrom if iniquity be mixed into judgment or falsity into doctrine. Which where it shall have stood ought in no wise to be transacted or pretermitted by dissimulation, as in can. Quisquis caus. xi, quaest. 3, and can. Nemo, and in the same question nearly throughout. Whence also the Philosopher in the book of the Elenchi distinguishes two works of the wise man, to wit, to say the truth of the things which he knows, and to manifest him that lies or repugns truth.\nTherefore, with the same Aristotle deeming it holy in all things most to honour truth, the due protestations and submissions of humility nevertheless being supposed and premised, especially of the sacrosanct apostolic See, to which I most obediently subject all things said or in any wise described to be emended, and moreover the judgment of each better discerning being saved: it seems to me that in the cause of old moved, deduced and concluded against Joan called la Pucelle, truth was in the two things aforesaid evidently and enormously enough injured; to wit in justice, as to the pretended judges; and in doctrine as to them that deliberated, counselled and others assisting. In the whole course then of the thing two things come in kind to be considered, to wit upon what those judging founded themselves so as to proceed; and then in what wise they bore themselves in proceeding and concluding or defining: so that the first of these concerns the matter of the process; the other verily its form or order. Now about these two points the present whatsoever counsel will turn severally and distinctly.\nNow the first point will have nine chapters, setting them after the words of the adversaries.\nThe first, that Joan frequently had corporeal visions or apparitions of spirits, as she said.\nThe second, that she asserted she had received many revelations and consolations from the same spirits.\nThe third, that she seemed to foretell or predict certain future contingents.\nThe fourth, that she oft exhibited reverence to those spirits appearing and speaking to her.\nThe fifth, that she departed secretly, not licensed by father and mother.\nThe sixth, that she long bore the male habit, cut her hair and bearing arms mingled herself in wars.\nThe seventh, that she uttered many words of rashness and vaunting, as it seems.\nThe eighth, that she refused to submit herself to the judgment of the militant Church of her sayings.\nThe ninth, that after the abjuration or revocation, she resumed the male habit dismissed by her, and adhered again to her apparitions and revelations, to which she had publicly renounced.\nThe entry of the first chapter, Of the visions and apparitions which Joan pretended she had.\nFor of these visions and apparitions, whether they be good or evil, it is not easy to be judged. For they are the secret mysteries of God, as is touched in the gloss upon that word I will come to the visions and revelations of the Lord (to the Corinthians II, 12, 1); for also Paul the apostle himself, full of the Holy Spirit, could not, as a man, know the secrets of the divine counsel, as appears in can. Beatus caus. xxii, quaest. 2. And in Daniel ii it is read: There is a God in heaven revealing mysteries. Nevertheless because in this cause whereof we here treat, it stands that upon the reprobation of the same visions a public and definitive judgment was given, therefore it will not shame to treat of them somewhat probably from the opposite; etc., etc.\nThe allegation of the predictions divulged of the Maid, from the same chapter.\nBut chiefly in this thing I deem it is to be attended that that supreme most wise and most clement provider of all things God, who has set in his power the moments of times in which at his nod he dispenses all things, then willed to give to the same Maid the consolation of these visions, when the hostile and ever inimical people of the English raised against the French the haughtiness of their extreme ferocity. And the most christian king Charles and the most renowned realm of France were succumbing, as was believed, near irremediably to the whirlwind of the wars, to wit in the year 1429, when, the whole realm being near desolate and the mind of near all the Gauls prostrate, the renowned city of Orléans was held most strictly besieged by the viperish army. Of which time indeed certain ones assert the venerable Bede long afore to have thus pronounced:\nWhen force with force shall join thrice seven, New wars the cocks of Gaul for the bull shall prepare. Lo they make wars, then a maid bears the standards (92).\nFor, understanding in the wonted mode by i one, by v five, by l fifty, by c a hundred, by m a thousand, by repeating the said word in the supputation, there are found the exact years prescribed in which the same Joan, induced by these admonitions or apparitions, came to the king and most efficaciously laboured to succour the realm. Now there are subjoined thrice seven, that is twenty-one years: which time indeed is that in which, God bestowing and the same elect Maid cooperating, to the glorious king Charles the Seventh, against the English enemies in the reduction of Normandy and the assault of Aquitaine, victory ever fell. Whence the same pious helper God in tribulation then clemently succoured and in opportunity, when it was most and most extremely needful to him; as to the Israelitish people despairing of salvation, cruelly besieged in Bethulia, the most proven Judith was granted, etc.\nMuch more also I deem is to be attended the place whence the same took her origin, where also she first had the apparitions. For she was sprung from the borders\n(91) The editions: amatur.\n(92) These verses are not of Bede and are not found in his works. The author of the chronicle of Metz, printed by P. Calmet (Hist. de Lorraine, preuves, t. II, col. 202), reports them, giving to the first another form under which it is wholly unintelligible: Bit lex cuculli bis septem se sociabunt. At least in our reading some sense is obtained by changing culibis into chalybis. To this correction another must be joined. As the verse is a chronogram, as Bréhal explains immediately after, vi cum vi would bring two figures too strong to produce the year-date wanted. This is why we should propose a vii in place of vi cum vi, and one would have VII. VI. chalybis ter septem se sociabunt, that is MCCCGXXIX, by adding the numeral letters and doubling the sum furnished by chalybis, as is recommended somewhat lower.\n(93) Read Chalybis, conformably to the restitution proposed in the preceding note. Such is a consequence of the error which made the copyist read Culibis instead of Chalybis, which was doubtless in the original minute.\nof the realm of France and the duchy of Lorraine, from a certain hamlet or village called Domrémy, situate on the part of the same realm; in which, not far from the paternal house of the same Joan, is discerned a certain wood which by an old name is called Canutum. Of which a vulgar and ancient fame has grown abroad, that a certain Maid was to be born from that place who should do great things, as also it is related in the process. To which that which is read in the history of Brut seems not a little to bear suffrage, that Merlin the English seer thus predicted (94): From the Wood Canutum a Maid shall be eliminated that she may apply the care of a remedy, and the rest which will be subjoined elsewhere. There is extant also another prophecy of Eugelidis, daughter of the king of Hungary, beginning thus: O renowned lily, bedewed with princes, etc. It follows: but by a Maid sprung whence first the brutal venom was poured out (95). Which venom indeed certain ones understand of the ancient rebellion or subtraction made from the obedience of the king of France by the inhabitants of that part of Gaul, which of old was called Belgic. But whether this is so or otherwise to be understood, I leave to the more perspicacious genius and to him more skilfully scrutinising the most renowned deeds of the French. Now that saying of Merlin, by the express designation of that wood, appears clear and manifest.\nCommentary upon the same predictions from the sixth chapter, That she long bore the male habit, etc.\nFor the whatsoever proof of which (96), certain things make which were foretold long afore of the marvellous event of these, as first that of Bede which we adduced above.\nA certain expert astrologer of Siena also, by name Jean de Monte Alcino (97), is said to have written beforehand to the lord the king among other things thus: In a virgin counsel shall be thy victory. Pursue thy victory without intermission even to the city of Paris, etc.\nNow Merlin the English seer thus sang:\nFrom the Wood Canutum shall be eliminated a Maid, that she may apply the care of a remedy; who, when she shall have entered all the strongholds, by her breath alone shall dry up the noxious fountains. She shall stream with piteous tears and fill the island with horrible crying. A stag of ten branches shall slay her, whereof four shall bear golden diadems, but the six remaining shall be turned into the horns of wild oxen; which with nefarious sound shall stir the islands of Britain. The Daneian wood shall be stirred, and breaking forth into a human voice shall cry: Draw nigh, Cambria, and join Cornwall to thy side (98).\nFor this prophecy is not wholly to be rejected or despised, since the things which this Merlin predicted are found commended enough.\nFor Sigebert says: Merlin revealed many obscure things, predicted many things to come, whereof certain can hardly be understood until they begin to appear. For the spirit of God is wont to speak his mysteries by whomsoever he willed, as by the Sibyl, by Balaam and the rest of this kind. For this is read in the third part of the Speculum Historiale, book xxi, chap. 30.\nNow in the first place there is expressed in the same the place of the Maid’s origin, by the designation of that Wood Canutum, whereof it was touched above. And he says shall be eliminated, that is she is proved to have been born within the limits of the said wood; for it is easily seen from the door of the paternal house of Joan, as is said in the process. Now the care of a remedy is the health of the realm then languishing begun and procured through Joan. She entered the strongholds when she summoned the king and the first men of the realm in the beginning of her legation; or when among the prelates and doctors endowed with wisdom she underwent a long and strict examination at Poitiers; or also when at Orléans, Paris and many notable cities of the realm and strong munitions and towns she manfully and intrepidly attacked; or perchance when she wholesomely conducted the lord the king with the peers of the realm and a great army to Reims to be crowned, through the swords of the enemies. By her breath, that is by the word of her strong reproof, she shall dry up the noxious fountains, that is she shall rebuke the treacherous conspirators and perfidious, and deprive them of her grace and friendship. She shall stream with piteous tears, because, pitying the calamity of the realm and the labours of the French, she shall copiously weep, and greatly merciful toward the poor, nay and most compassionating toward the humbled enemies. She shall fill the island with mighty crying, since the noise of her victorious fame shall exercise the whole people of the English, and it shall dread to commit battles in her sight. Now a stag of ten branches shall slay her, that is the young Henry, leaping into the realm of France by headlong usurpation, shall cause her to perish, being then indeed of the age of ten years. Four of these branches shall bear golden diadems, because for near four years from the birth of the same Henry the English shall dispense the empire of their power over their subjects with competent justice; but at length, all justice and the liberty of the people spurned, they shall be turned for the residue of the prescribed time into the horns of wild oxen, because they shall persecute their subjects with unbridled cruelty or tyranny. From which extreme cause of affliction, with nefarious sound, that is with the relation of their wicked deeds and the noise of the messengers of the murmuring people crying out together, they shall stir the islands of Britain, that is they shall implore with tumult the remedies of all suppressed justice. Which things being destroyed in that slaughter, therefore the Daneian (that is the Norman, because it proceeded from the Danes, so properly called), the Daneian, I say, wood shall be stirred, that is the promiscuous vulgar of Normandy; it shall be stirred, because, rebellion raised in the same land on this side and that, it shall be armed to the vengeance of the injury. And breaking forth into a human voice it shall cry, because, humanity being inspired into it and with all the heartstrings of the mind it shall aspire to its natural prince, saying: Draw nigh, Cambria, that is the crown of France, so called from Sicambria, an ancient city of Pannonia, whence the French came forth; for also to Clovis the protochristian king receiving baptism Remigius says: Bow down thy meek neck, Sicamber. Draw nigh, I say, thou who far from us and long as it were proscribed hast withdrawn, and join Cornwall to thy side, that is England, that the whole may be denominated from one part. Join indeed to thy side, since it is the votive confidence of us all that thou, by the success of happy victories, canst join England thence to thine empire.\nIn many things indeed I know a clearer and perchance another more convenient understanding could be elicited of the said prophecy by the geniuses; but in such things it is sufficiently permitted that each abound in his own sense. Nevertheless all the things which we have premised in expounding we see to have befallen with infallible success in our days.\nThere is found also a certain other prophecy, whereof we made mention above in the first article, in which it is thus held:\nO renowned lily, bedewed with princes, planted by the sower in a delightful shrubbery in many fields, immortal, walled with flowers and marvellously redolent roses! Let the lily be astonished, let the shrubbery tremble: for divers brutes, strangers winged in the aforesaid shrubbery, adhering horn to horns, shall as it were wholly suffocate it, and as though fading, deprived of dew, they shall think to waste it narrowly and for a little while, near plucking out the roots, by the breathings of the asp. But by a Maid sprung whence first the brutal venom was poured out, and bearing behind the right ear a little scarlet sign, speaking remissly, of little neck, they shall be exiled sadly from the shrubbery; ministering irriguous fountains to the said lily, expelling the serpent outside and signifying the venom to everyone, she shall happily crown with laurel at Reims Charles the lily-dweller, named the son of Charles, with a laurel not made by mortal hand. The turbid shall submit themselves around the borders, the fountains shall tremble, the people shall cry: Let the lily live! let the brute flee! let the shrubbery flourish! He shall ascend to the field of the island, applying fleet to fleets, and there very many brutes shall perish now in slaughter. Then peace shall be made of many, the keys of many shall recognise their maker of their own accord. The citizens of the renowned city shall perish by the slaughter of perjury, commemorating very many sobs in themselves, and very many walls shall fall swearing. Then the shrubbery of the lily shall be as it were in some wise of the brutes and shall flower for a long time.\nFor this prophecy indeed contains much praise as to the arms and crown of France, understood by the lily divinely transmitted by the heavenly sower. Moreover the realm itself is commended, which is hinted by the shrubbery, and this most of all as to the princes, prelates and wise, with whom the realm is known to be distinguished. It subjoins finally the past concussion of the realm and its near total destruction, wrought and procured partly by strange brutes, that is the English, partly also by certain domestics and nourished in the same place, yet joined together in the exercise of cruelty; so that the whole realm, held in long wasting, near all the princes now taken, now slain, should successively be desolated, or also infected with serpentine conjurations, as though deprived of dew, that is of the faithfulness innate to it, fading, should be thought utterly wasted. Thence it introduces the birth of the Maid, describing her in a marvellous scheme of words: whence, it says, first the brutal venom was poured out. Now this we have expounded above in its measure, where the place of Joan’s origin was treated; but nevertheless as there with this the designation may seem ambiguous, we leave it to the clearer intelligence. There are moreover delivered certain signets of the same Joan and certain of her characters expressly distinctive, to wit: a red mark behind the right ear; the second is a soft or remiss speech; the third verily shortness of neck. There is afterwards hinted the flight of the English and the ruin of certain princes and the renewed strong confederations and compacts with the king: from which the subdolous conspiracies of many perfidious men are wont to be made patent. It expresses at length very clearly the coronation of the lord the king, and the free and spontaneous surrender of certain ones subject to the English afore; and also describes the common gladness, peace and serenity of the people following therefrom. Finally it betrays the destruction and attrition of offence of the Parisians for the crime of perjury. Now at the end it concludes the future purity of the realm from the enemies and the enduring tranquillity of ensuing peace.\nFor in this prophecy many things are obscure enough, certain verily very open and express; certain verily seem to me transposed and not simply placed after the order of these things and as they succeeded. Which also frequently befell among the prophets of God; and it is saved by the figure which the grammarians call hysteron proteron. And because perchance it would seem little authentic among many, therefore it has pleased to insist less upon its declaration. Yet it is willingly here apposed, since, after the exigence of the thing, it can be an argument, and also these things are not easily given to contempt, most of all where naught repugnant to the catholic faith or to good and honest manners is found: for as it is said in John chap. iii, v. 8: The Spirit bloweth where it willeth. And upon that word of Paul to the Thessalonians, I, 15, 20: Despise not prophecies, a certain gloss says: God who opened the mouth of the ass, oft reveals to the lesser what is better.\nLet these things then suffice of the present article.\nDivision of the second part (99).\nThe second point or second part concerns directly the form of the process, and will contain twelve chapters:\nThe first, of the incompetence of the judge, especially of the bishop of Beauvais.\nThe second, of his severity and inordinate affection.\nThe third, of the incommodiousness of the prison and the keepers.\nThe fourth, of the recusation of the judge and the sufficient provocation or appeal to the Pope.\n(94) It is in vain that this prediction would be sought in the romance of Brut, where Wace expressly abstained from introducing the prophecies of Merlin, as he warns his readers (tome I of the edition of M. le Roux de Lincy, p. 361):\nDont dist Merlins les profesies Que vous aves souvent oïes, Des rois qui à venir estoient Qui la terre tenir dévoient. Ne voil son livre tranlater, Quant jo nel sai entepreter.\nAlthough two or three manuscripts of the Brut which M. Francisque Michel has found in England give in interpolation the prophecies translated by a trouvère named Guillaume, it will presently become evident that it is not from that version but from the opuscule of Geoffrey of Monmouth, intituled De prophetiis Merlini, that the passage to which allusion is here made has been taken. See overleaf, p. 341.\n(95) The text of this prophecy will be found p. 344; of its author we have been able to gather no information.\n(96) To wit, of the Deeds of the Maid. Fol. 184, v°.\n(97) In the collection of Simon de Phares, the forename of this astrologer is Pierre and not Jean (Ms. B. R. 7487, f° 143, v°): Petrus de Monte Alcino, practising the arts at Paris, sufficiently instructed in the science of the judgments of astrology, prognosticated upon the apparition of a comet which appeared in the year 1402, the 25th February sub marte, 28th degree of aries, well and truly, as appears by his index. And among other things predicted the destruction of the greater part of the halls and the death of the duke of Milan.\n(98) It is only by force of good will that these words had been applied to the Maid; for besides that they are drawn from a prophecy relative to Winton (it is intituled De Guyntonia vaticinium), they have been truncated in more than one place, to be reduced to the state in which Jean Bréhal reports them. Indeed, after having long enumerated the calamities with which the Welsh city shall be stricken, Merlin adds: After these, from the city of the Wood Canutum shall be eliminated a Maid that she may apply the care of a remedy; who, when she shall have entered all the strongholds, by her breath alone shall dry up the noxious fountains, and thence, when she shall have refreshed herself with the wholesome liquor, shall bear in her right hand the wood of Calidon, but in her left the bulwarks of the walls of London. Wheresoever she shall tread she shall make sulphurous paces which shall smoke with double flame. That smoke shall stir the Rutheni and shall make food under the seas. She shall stream with piteous tears, and shall fill the island with horrible crying. A stag shall slay her, etc., etc. The Daneian wood shall be stirred and breaking forth into a human voice shall cry: Draw nigh, Cambria, and join Cornwall to thy side; and say to Winton: The earth shall swallow thee. Six pages follow in the same tone. See Galfridi de Monemuta vita Merlini, edition of 1837 given by M. Francisque Michel, p. 67 et seq.\n(99) Fol. 187.\nThe fifth, of the subinquisitor, and his shunning, and the fear inflicted upon him. (100)\nThe sixth, of the corrupted composition of the articles.\nThe seventh, of the quality of the revocation and abjuration.\nThe eighth, of the pretended relapse.\nThe ninth, of the interrogations and difficult interrogatories made to Joan.\nThe tenth, of the assistants, defenders, exhorters and also preachers intervening in the process.\nThe eleventh, of them that deliberated in the cause or of their determinations as to the chapters of the cause.\nThe twelfth, of the quality of the sentence and the definition of the process.\nThe first chapter is of the incompetence of the judge, most of all of the bishop who led the process.\nFor in this undertaken work it seems not fully to suffice, unless somewhat and for our littleness we have shown there was not in it sufficient matter that Joan should be charged with error in faith or the crime of heresy or so rigidly proceeded against, unless also we have touched in its measure somewhat of the defects and vices of the process and judgment had against her. But because it more properly belongs to another Faculty and also certain most expert jurists are found to have treated of these most learnedly, therefore, under a compendium of brevity, these things seem to be passed over by us.\nOf the incompetence then of the judge, especially of that bishop of Beauvais, to wit the lord Pierre Cauchon, before whom and by whom that whatsoever process is known to have been chiefly deduced, something is to be noted at present, etc., etc.\nConclusion of the whole work (101).\nAnd so it is concluded from the foresaid in any wise deduced, that the process as to matter and form, and likewise the sentence had against this elect Maid, contain manifest injustice, which, for our littleness and under the premised protestations, we had undertaken to declare.\nHere ends the recollection upon the difficulties about the matter and the form of the same first process conducted against the said Joan and upon the elucidation of the questions incidental in the said matter and form of the process, made by the aforesaid Inquisitor by ordination of the lords Delegates and the counsellors evoked by them.\nChapter IX # [Visitation of the instruments of the cause made at Rouen by the counsellors of the first process still living.]\nThe aforesaid visitations, examinations and deliberations having then been made; the premised opinions and considerations, alike by word and in writings, and the premised recollection having been received in the city of Paris by the said lords Delegates, very many doctors and other counsellors assisting; the said term for concluding in the cause being assigned and pending: the aforesaid lords Delegates, as is said above in the preceding acts, in the said term of conclusion in the cause, situate in the city of Rouen, the aforesaid conclusion made, deemed all the aforesaid to be revolved and visited again, and to be communicated to certain doctors and counsellors in the same city of Rouen, and especially to those whom they knew to have been present in the first process, and whom of them they could find living and surviving in the aforesaid city; requiring also and receiving their deliberations and counsels.\nAnd these being required and had, conformably to the things premised deliberated at Paris by the said lords doctors and counsellors, as above; again among themselves with the aforesaid counsellors they deliberated, and willed to recollect all the aforesaid, that they might the more certainly and conveniently proceed in justice and truth to the pronouncing of their sentence, the term being assigned and already pending for this. All the aforesaid visitations and examinations being then renewed in the said city of Rouen, the aforesaid lords Delegates, after the assignation of the term whereof above in the preceding acts, proceeded to the pronouncing of the sentence and the definition of the cause, as it is described in the acts immediately following.\n[The last day of the process.]\nIn the year as above, on the seventh day of the aforesaid month of July, there appeared in judgment in the morning, at the palace or greater hall of the most reverend in Christ father and lord, the lord archbishop of Rouen, in the wonted place in which it is customary to sit in judgment in a cause of this kind, before the aforesaid most reverend and reverend fathers, Jean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume, of Paris, and Richard, of Coutances, by the same mercy bishops; Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, the other of the inquisitors of heretical pravity constituted in the realm of France; judges delegate and commissaries, etc. There appeared in judgment Jean d’Arc, the other of the principal actors, yet without revocation of the procurators constituted by him in the cause of this kind; Master Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator of the honourable persons Isabelle and Pierre d’Arc, actors, and in procuratorial name as above; and Master Simon Chapitault, promoter given and deputed in the cause of this kind; fortified with the counsel of the man of venerable circumspection and knowledge, Master Pierre Maugier, doctor of decrees, advocate deputed in the cause of this kind. And each of them, in fact, really and in writings, produced and exhibited the citation of old decreed to them against and adverse to the reverend in Christ father, the lord the modern bishop of Beauvais, the subinquisitor of heretical pravity constituted in the diocese of Beauvais, the promoter of criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and all others believing they have interest in it commonly or severally, with its execution, to hear right and the definitive sentence in the cause of this kind to be borne and pronounced. Of the said cited not appearing in the same cause nor caring to satisfy the term of this day, they accused the contumacy, and each accused; and asked that they be reputed contumacious by the lords judges and commissaries, and, in their contumacy, that right and the definitive sentence be borne and pronounced, and each asked.\nThen the same judges and commissaries reputed the said cited not appearing, nor sending anyone for themselves, nor caring in aught to satisfy the term of this day, deservedly, justice requiring, contumacious, and, in their contumacy, pronounced the definitive sentence, by the organ of the same lord archbishop, in the mode and form contained in the schedule inserted below. And in pronouncing the said schedule, it was said and pronounced that certain articles beginning Quaedam foemina, of old produced and exhibited before the aforesaid then bishop of Beauvais and the subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the diocese of Beauvais, were to be torn as false and mendaciously invented; as they were torn.\nOf and upon all and each the premises, the aforesaid Master Simon Chapitault, promoter, Guillaume Prévosteau, procurator, and Jean d’Arc, and each of them, asked that a public instrument or public instruments, one or more, be made to them by us, the notaries underwritten.\nThese things were done in the morning, at the eighth hour, in the said palace or greater hall aforesaid, there being present in the same place: the reverend in Christ father and lord, the lord Jean, bishop of Demetrias; Hector de Coquerel, doctor of decrees, vicar and official of Rouen; Nicolas Lambert, professor of sacred theology; Nicolas du Boys, dean of the church of Rouen; Jean de Gouys, Guillaume Roussel, canons of Rouen; Alain Olivier, Thomas de Fanoullières, Geoffroi de Croce, Jean Roussel, Guillaume le Conte, Reginald Diet, Pierre Roque, Jean Veteris, advocates in the court of Rouen, sworn witnesses, specially called and asked to the premises.\nNow the tenor of the said citations and the relation follows, and is such:\nThe most reverend and reverend in Christ fathers, Jean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, Guillaume, of Paris, Richard, of Coutances, by the same mercy bishops, Jean Bréhal, professor of sacred theology, the other of the inquisitors of heretical pravity constituted in the realm of France, judges delegate and commissaries of certain causes of nullity, etc., command to be cited, and cite peremptorily before them the reverend in Christ father and lord, the lord bishop of Beauvais, the subinquisitor of heretical pravity in the said diocese of Beauvais, and the promoter of criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, the modern ones, and all others and each believing they have interest in this part commonly or severally, for the Wednesday next to come, precisely and at the seventh hour in the morning, in the archiepiscopal palace of Rouen, in which they have been wont to sit in judgment; to see and hear by the said lords judges and commissaries in this part right and the definitive sentence to be said, borne and pronounced, in the cause and causes of this kind moved and pending before the same, between the venerable men Pierre d’Arc, knight, Jean, provost of Vaucouleurs, brothers, Isabelle d’Arc, mother of the same deceased Joan, actors; the venerable and circumspect man Master Simon Chapitault, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, promoter given and deputed in the cause of this kind, adjoined to the same actors, on the one part; and the reverend in Christ father and lord, the bishop of Beauvais, the promoter of criminal causes of the court of Beauvais, and all others and each believing they have interest commonly or severally, defendants, parties on the other part; with the intimation wont to be made in such things; faithfully executing the mandate of this kind by affixion to the portals of the greater church of Rouen, at the instance of public edicts, which of old were written on the white of the praetorium. Given at Rouen, in the year of the Lord 1456, the fifth indiction, on the third day of the month of July of the pontificate of the most holy in Christ father and our lord, the lord Calixtus, by divine providence the third pope, in the second year; under the seals of the aforesaid lords of Reims, of Coutances, and of Jean Bréhal, inquisitor, since the lord bishop of Paris at present lacks his own seal (102).\nThe form and tenor of the pronouncing of the sentence follows, and is such:\nIn the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, amen. By the providence of the eternal majesty, Christ the Saviour, Lord, God and man, instituted blessed Peter and the apostolic successors chief watchers of the regimen of his militant Church, who, the light of truth opened, should teach to tread the paths of justice, embracing all the good, relieving the oppressed, and reducing them that decline to devious ways, by the judgment of reason, to the right ways. Now exercising this apostolic authority in this part, we Jean, of Reims, Guillaume, of Paris, Richard, of Coutances, by the grace of God archbishop and bishops, and Jean Bréhal, of the order of the Friars Preachers, professor of sacred theology, the other Inquisitor of heretical pravity in the realm of France; judges specially delegated by our most holy lord the now-reigning Pope;\nThe process solemnly conducted before us having been seen, in the force of the apostolic mandate reverently undertaken by us and directed to us, on the part of the honest widow Isabelle d’Arc, of old mother, and of Pierre and Jean the said d’Arc, german brothers, natural and legitimate, of good memory Joan d’Arc, vulgarly called la Pucelle, deceased, and in the names of their kinsmen, actors, against and adverse to the subinquisitor of heretical pravity constituted in the diocese of Beauvais, against the promoter of criminal negotiations of the episcopal court of Beauvais, and also against the reverend in Christ father the lord Guillaume de Hellande, bishop of Beauvais, and all the rest and each believing they have interest in this part and respectively, as well conjointly as severally, defendants;\nSeen in the first place the peremptory evocation and its execution, at the instance of the same actors and also of our promoter instituted, sworn and created by us ex officio in this cause, decreed by us against the said defendants, to see the rescript itself commanded to execution, to say aught against, to answer and to proceed as reason should persuade;\nSeen the petition of the same actors, their facts, reasons, conclusions reduced in writing under the form of concluding articles, tending to the declaration of the nullity, iniquity and guile of a certain pretended process in the matter of faith, of old made against the said deceased in this city by the deceased lord Pierre Cauchon, then bishop of Beauvais, Jean Magistri, pretended subinquisitor in the same diocese of Beauvais, and Jean d’Estivet, promoter, or bearing himself there for promoter, and demanded to execution; at least to the cassation of the same, and the annulment of the abjurations and sentences and of all things thence following, and to the expurgation of the same deceased, and the other ends there expressed;\nAnd the original books, instruments, muniments and acts, notes and protocols of the aforesaid process having been seen, oft read through and examined, delivered and shown to us in force of our compulsory letters by the notaries and others; and their signs and writings recognised in our presence; and long upon them with the said notaries and officers constituted in the said process, and the counsellors evoked to the said process, whose\n(100) Fol. 190.\n(101) Fol. 202, r°.\n(102) The execution of this citation, although announced by the rubric, is not consigned in the manuscripts.\npresence we could have, communication being had beforehand, and also the abbreviation, collation and comparison of the same books and notes;\nSeen also the preparatory informations, as well made by the most reverend in Christ father, the lord Guillaume, cardinal priest of the title of Saint Martin-in-the-Mounts, then legate of the holy apostolic See in the realm of France, the Inquisitor being called with him, after the visitation of the same books and instruments presented to him; as also confected by us and our commissaries in the exordium of the process of this kind;\nInspected also and considered the various treatises of the solemn and most approved prelates, doctors and practicians, who, the books and instruments of the aforesaid process having been visited at length, deemed doubts to be elucidated; and made and composed by the ordination of the same most reverend father and ours;\nAnd the aforesaid articles and interrogatories having been seen, presented to us on the part of the actors and the promoter, and, after many evocations, admitted for proving; and the depositions and attestations of the witnesses being attended, as well upon the conversation and the departure of the same deceased from the place of her origin, as upon the examination of her in the presence of very many prelates, doctors and experts, and especially of the most reverend father Reginald, of old archbishop of Reims, metropolitan of the said then bishop of Beauvais, made at Poitiers and elsewhere on repeated days; as upon the admirable deliverance of the city of Orléans, and the progress to the city of Reims and the royal coronation; as about the circumstances of the same process, the qualities, the judgment and the mode of proceeding;\nAnd the other letters, instruments and muniments also having been seen, beyond the said letters, depositions and attestations, delivered and produced in the term for producing, and the preclusion of speaking against the products of this kind; and our promoter being afterwards heard, who, the same products having been seen and said, joined himself plenarily to the actors, and for and in the name of our office reproduced for his part all the aforesaid things now produced, to the ends expressed in the writings of the said actors, under certain protestations; and the other requests and reservations made on his part and that of the said actors being admitted by us, together with certain motives of law, under brief writings, availing to advert our mind, received by us;\nAfter which, the cause being concluded in the name of Christ, and the present day assigned to hear our sentence; all and each the things expressed above having been seen and maturely revolved and attended, together with certain articles beginning Quaedam foemina, which after the said first process the judges pretended to have been extracted from the confessions of the said deceased, and transmitted to very many solemn persons for opining; and which the aforesaid promoter and actors impugned as iniquitous, false and alien from the said confessions, and mendaciously contrived;\nThat from the countenance of God our present judgment may proceed, who is the weigher of spirits, and alone of his revelations the perfect and most true knower and judge; who blows where he wills, and sometimes chooses the infirm that he may confound all the strong, not deserting them that hope in him, but their helper in opportunities and tribulation; mature deliberation being had, as well about the preparations as about the decision of the cause, with expert alike and proven and God-fearing men; and their solemn determinations having been seen, as well made in treatises with great revolution of books, and the compositions of many; and the opinions having been seen, alike by word and in writing, as well upon the form as upon the matter of the aforesaid process, delivered and given, in which they esteem the deeds of the said deceased worthy of admiration rather than condemnation; marvelling most at the reprobatory and determined (103) judgment given against her, by reason both of form and of matter; and saying it most difficult to give a determined judgment of such things, blessed Paul saying of his own revelations whether he had them in the body or in the spirit he knows not, and refers himself to God upon this:\nIn the first place we say and, justice requiring, decree that those articles beginning Quaedam foemina described in the pretended process and the instrument of the pretended sentences borne against the said deceased, were, are and are to be corruptly, guilefully, calumniously, fraudulently and maliciously extracted from the same pretended process and confession of the said deceased; the truth being passed over in silence and falsity expressed in very many substantial points, and such that from them the mind of them that deliberated and judged could be drawn away to another deliberation; and they unduly adding very many aggravating circumstances not contained in the aforesaid process and confession, and passing over in silence in very many certain relieving and justifying circumstances, and altering the form of words which changes the substance. Wherefore the same articles, as false, calumniously and guilefully extracted and difformed from the same confession, we quash, irritate and annul; and the same, which we have caused to be extracted from the said process, we here judicially decree to be torn.\nMoreover, the other parts of the same process being diligently inspected, and especially the two pretended sentences contained in the same process, which the judges call of lapse and relapse; the quality also of the aforesaid judges being longer pondered, and of those under whom and in whose custody the said Joan was detained;\nAnd the recusations, submissions, appeals and manifold requisition having been seen, by which the said Joan most often and most instantly required that herself and all her sayings alike and deeds, and the process, be transmitted to the holy apostolic See and our most holy lord the supreme Pontiff, submitting herself and all the aforesaid to the same;\nAnd there being attended, about the matter of the said process, a certain pretended abjuration, false, subdolous, and extorted by force and fear, the presence of the torturer and the threatened burning by fire, and least foreseen and understood by the said deceased; and also the aforesaid treatises and opinions of the prelates and solemn doctors, expert in divine and human law alike, saying that the crimes imputed to the said Joan expressed in the aforesaid pretended sentences do not depend on or cannot be gathered from the series of the process, and determining many things most elegantly of the nullity and injustice in this and in others;\nAnd all and each the other things being diligently attended which were to be attended and seen in this part; sitting in judgment, having God alone before our eyes, by this our definitive sentence, which sitting in judgment we bear in these writings,\nWe say, pronounce, decree and declare the said process and sentences, containing guile, calumny, iniquity, repugnance and manifest error of law and fact, with the aforesaid abjuration, the executions and all things thence following, to have been, to be and to be null and void, invalid and irritated and inane.\nAnd nevertheless, so far as is needful, reason commanding, we quash, irritate and annul the same, and utterly empty them of force; and the said Joan, and the same actors and her kinsmen, declaring to have contracted or incurred no note of infamy or stain by occasion of the premises, and to be and to be immune from the premises and expurgated, and, so far as is needful, utterly expurgating;\nOrdaining the execution or solemn intimation of our sentence of this kind to be made forthwith in this city in two places: the one to wit presently, in the square of Saint Ouen, a general procession preceding, and in a general sermon; and in the other, on the morrow, in the Old Market, in the place to wit in which the said Joan was suffocated by cruel and horrendous burning, with solemn preaching there and the affixion of an honest cross to perpetual memory, and for the salvation of the same and the other deceased to be implored; reserving to our disposition and for cause the ulterior execution, intimation and, for future memory, notable signification of our said sentence in the cities and renowned places of this realm, as we shall see expedient, and whatsoever other things remain to be done.\nThis present sentence was borne, read and promulgated by the lords Judges, there being present the reverend in Christ father the lord bishop of Demetrias; Hector de Coquerel, Nicolas du Boys, Alain Olivier, Jean du Bec, Jean de Gouys, Guillaume Roussel, Laurent Surreau, canons; Martin Ladvenu, Jean Roussel, Thomas de Fanoullières. Of all which things Master Simon Chapitault, promoter, Jean d’Arc, and Prévosteau for the others, asked an instrument, etc.\nThese things were done in the archiepiscopal palace, in the year of the Lord 1456, on the seventh day of the month of July.\n[Idiograph attestations of the notaries of the cause.]\nAnd I, Denis Lecomte, priest of the diocese of Coutances, bachelor in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial [authorities], and sworn of the Court of conservation of the privileges of the University of Paris; was present at the presentation, reception of the said apostolic letters, the observation of all and each the terms, the pronouncing of the sentences; and saw and heard these things so done. Therefore to this present process, containing two hundred and four leaves, I have set my wonted sign, together with the sign and subscription of the venerable and circumspect man Master François Ferrebouc, public notary, and the appension of the seals of the lords judges (104), required and asked, in testimony of truth.\nSigned in the margin with a flourish: D. Comitis.\nAnd me, François Ferrebouc, clerk of Paris, licentiate in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial authorities, and of the Courts of conservation of the privileges indulged by the holy apostolic See to the alma mother University of Paris, and episcopal of Paris; who was present at the presentation of the apostolic letters written above, the reception of the request of the petitioners, the decree of citation, the observation of the terms, the pronouncing of the sentences and the other things concerning the premises, and saw these things so done. Therefore to this present book or quaternion, containing the form of the process and the definitive sentence in two hundred and four leaves of parchment, I have set my public and wonted sign, together with the sign and subscription of the notary written above who laboured with me in the deduction of the premised process, and the apposition of the seals of the lords Judges, here subscribing myself with my own hand, required and asked, in faith and testimony of the premises.\nEND OF CHAPTER IX AND OF THE WHOLE CAUSE.\nPRIMITIVE REDACTION # OF THE TRIAL OF REHABILITATION\nAFTER THE MANUSCRIPT OF D’URFÉ.\nREDACTION OF THE MANUSCRIPT OF D’URFÉ.\n[Titulation.]\nThis work contains the judiciary process digested with grave maturity, defined by order of law, specially indicted by the most equal mandate of the holy apostolic See and the supreme prelate of the universal Church, directed to the most reverend fathers, renowned, most elect and eloquent judges underwritten; by whose series, justice prevailing, that iniquitous, detestable, false and calumnious process was sententially damned, quashed and revoked, by means whereof Joan d’Arc, called the Maid, falsely accused by subdolous and feigned suspicion of the faith, iniquitously damned by violent hand, at length consummated by ferocious fire, persisting in the solid faith, after pious exclamations of the holy name of Jesus, is said to have openly rendered her spirit to the Creator, in the sight of the people condoling with tearful sighs. Now after the definitive sentence of this renowned apostolic process borne in the archiepiscopal palace of Rouen, the public execution followed in general processions and public preachings solemnly and most devoutly celebrated; where the abomination of the preceding iniquitous process was openly revealed to the whole people.\n[Prior presentations and supplications.]\nIn the name of Christ, amen. To the perpetual memory of the things underwritten. To all who shall inspect the present letters, Jean, by divine mercy archbishop and duke of Reims, first peer of France; Guillaume, of Paris, and Richard of Coutances, bishops, judges delegate and commissaries in this part specially deputed by the most holy in Christ father and our lord, the lord Calixtus by divine providence the third pope, to the cause and parties underwritten, salvation in the eternal Saviour of the faithful.\nIt is sanctioned by the public laws and the divine assertion manifest connexed to catholic piety, that the oppressed poor and the cries of widows ought the more swiftly to be heard by the clement embrace of prelates, and healthful aid to be imparted to their desolate complaints by the ministry of charity and justice. He who has not clemency, says Jerome, nor is clad with the bowels of mercy and tears, though he be spiritual, has not fulfilled the law of Christ. Again the sacred tradition of the Church, reverently received by every company of the faithful, thunders, crying that it is lawful for none either to will or to be able to transgress the precepts of the apostolic See or the dispositions and just mandates of its same holy supreme prelate, whose mystery it behoves the charities of the faithful to follow.\nBut lately, within a few times, sad with copious afflictions, attesting from within by face, gesture, word and immense bitterness of mind the grave stings of griefs, there applied to our presence the honest persons Isabelle d’Arc, mother, and Pierre and Jean d’Arc, brothers of the late deceased Joan d’Arc, vulgarly called la Pucelle, [residents] of certain of the city\n(103) Manuscript ND., delectatum.\n(104) There remains no trace either of these seals or of the place where they may have been set.\nof Orléans and associated with other grave persons, expounding to us with tearful voices: that from our most holy lord the supreme Pontiff they had obtained an apostolic mandate directed to us, which under a leaden bull the same mother held in her hands, together with a certain most pious supplication, effectually expressing that the said Joan d’Arc, deceased, by a certain guileful, false and simulated process, which are named in the same apostolic rescript, was iniquitously damned, and at length delivered to the last supplice and openly burned by fire, as erring in the faith and relapsed, albeit innocent of the imputed crimes, and persisting in the constancy of the catholic faith had lived and persevered even to the end; and since these things proceeded in fact to the denigration of her fame and against justice and truth: the apostolic letter commanded that justice be ministered, the things to be repaired repaired, the nullity uncovered, the things iniquitously judged retracted, and the defamed restored to fame, them that were to be called being called without delay; the same desolate persons instantly asking that we undergo the burden of so great a thing and not defer to execute the apostolic mandate.\nNow this new request of the grieving being heard with no moderate adjuration and pious compassion, albeit there occurred to memory the saying of the holy pope Gelasius inserted in the sacred canons, saying to bishop Honorius: Mindful of the divine retribution, doubt not that it pertains to the pontifical conscience not to deny pious solicitude to the commodities of the needy [Dist. lxxvii, c. 4], and although the same modern lord Pope, bearing pious bowels over the afflicted, in example of his clemency inclined benign ears to the cries of the desolate, conceding his aforesaid rescript; yet with so great a moderation of reason added, that, them that were to be called being called and the present process gravely discussed, justice and truth should obtain the principate: we willed not forthwith to approach a matter of so great arduousness difficult exceedingly and then unknown to us, without long meditation and the due prior information. For in the first place, communicating with the desolate petitioners in benign and deliberate exhortation, we expounded to the same the difficult progresses and prolix and dubious egresses of so great a thing, and that the matter had been pretended in the process of faith justly or unjustly by their adversaries; which is to be called favourable, chiefly if a right and ordered judgment of the undue judges preceded; and for the sentence of such the laws will rather that it be presumed; attentively adverting the same petitioners that either they should desist from their undertakings, or seek the valid counsels of experts and doctors, after which, being referred to us, we might walk the more safely; intimating also to the same that at length without legitimate informations or due preparatory documents we should in no wise be disposed to intend to the execution of their mandate or to begin any process. Who, the petitioners, answered and asserted with lugubrious voice yet constant minds unanimously, on the faith of an oath, that informations were ready, made ex officio by the authority of the most reverend father the lord cardinal d’Estouteville, then legate in France; and that they had many counsels, treatises, works and writings of doctors of the sacred page and of either law and experts, and that the first processes were by their inspection null and iniquitous; and other documents which, either presently or in their places at an opportune time, they willed to minister to us, to order those things to be prepared for us and caused to be exhibited.\nNow that the said petitioners might then render us more certain, they left with us a certain note containing the grievances and oppressions of old inflicted upon the same deceased Joan, and certain other things which should render us readier to the preparation of the justice of this kind sought and the acceptation of the apostolic mandate, which are inserted below; supplicating again and humbly requiring that we should deign and will to undertake the burden of the business of this kind enjoined by the apostolic See, embracing the example of the same supreme Pontiff, who cared to hear the voices of the same desolate, and to provide for them by the concession of his apostolic mandate; and imitators of the eternal Judge, commanding by the prophetic mouth: Blessed is he that understands upon the needy and poor, etc.; bearing the likeness of the lawgiver who, entering of old to the Lord with the complaints of the people, related that, taught the truth according to his behest, he should judge.\nWhich being ministered to us, seen by us to sufficiency and diligently attended, together with that process of old deduced against the same Joan, and other things exhibited to us as preparatory, whereof special mention is made in this process in their places, which ought deservedly to move our mind in the zeal of piety and justice and obedience of the holy apostolic See: to the same Isabelle, Pierre and Jean, and the other complaining kinsmen and friends, we gave a consolatory answer of their grief, such to wit: that it was needful they make their supplication in a public place openly and solemnly for the healthful introduction of so great a business; and that we were ready, the matter of their supplication opened, according to God and justice, to do and fulfil those things which by prior deliberation we might better fulfil; intimating to the same petitioners that, fortified with good counsel, they should appear before us, Jean the archbishop and Guillaume the bishop of Paris, Richard the bishop of Coutances albeit absent from the city of Paris, on the seventeenth day of the month of November, in the hall of the episcopal house of Paris, before us, and present to us the said apostolic letters openly and publicly, and we should there deliberate everything to be done which should be just, and should expound the deliberated publicly and manifestly.\nNow the tenor of the certain note exhibited and delivered to us among the same preparations of judgment by the said petitioners follows in these words (105).\nThen follow the articles upon which the underwritten witnesses were examined by the most reverend father in Christ the lord cardinal d’Estouteville, etc. and the venerable man father Jean Bréhal, etc., in the fact of Joan called la Pucelle, of which mention is made above (106).\n[Solemn presentation of the apostolic rescript.]\nNow the said day arriving, which was the seventeenth day of the month of November, we, Jean archbishop of Reims and Guillaume of Paris, our colleague the bishop of Coutances being absent and acting in remote parts, being constituted in the greater hall of the episcopal house of Paris; there being present and assisting in the same place the venerable fathers, the lords abbots of Saint Denis in France (107), Saint Germain des Prés (108), Saint Magloire of Paris (109) and Saint Launomar of Saint-Lô of the diocese of Coutances (110), of Saint Crépin of Soissons (111) and of Corneilles (112) of the diocese of Lisieux, abbots; and also the venerable and scientific and religious men, Masters Jean Henri, archdeacon of Ouche in the church of Évreux, and Jean Lebeauvoisien, counsellors of our lord the king in his venerable court of parliament; the Brothers Jean Soret, minister general of the order of Carmelites, Jean de Vernon, Thomas Verel, Pierre de F……, Devotus de Puteo, Gérard Gehe, Guillaume Bouillé, professors of sacred theology; Martin de Fraxinis, Hector de Coquerel, doctors of decrees; Guillaume Sohier, Pierre Gay, Jean Lestournel, Jean Levebouys; and a copious multitude of notable men; before whom we were prepared to hear the complaint of the kinsmen of the same late Joan la Pucelle, unwilling to rely upon our own prudence; but desiring to proceed and agitate the cause by the counsel of the proven and in so arduous a business expert, so far as should be possible; we granted audience to the same kinsmen in the presence of the said prelates and expert men and the notaries underwritten (which notaries we commissioned as to this and caused the oaths wonted in such things to be made); expounding nevertheless to the same beforehand how arduous and difficult the deduction of such a business to be approached by them is, and how ambiguous the event of judgments, and that it has often been seen to befall that they who believed their undertakings would easily have happy issues, least led to their votive end, at length saw the things so begun turn to their own and others’ detriment.\nWhich audience nevertheless being so granted to them, appearing before us the aforesaid Isabelle d’Arc, mother, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, brothers of the same late Joan d’Arc, and in the names of the other kinsmen of the said deceased, and for them; there assisting them several notable burgesses and citizens of Paris and proven women of the town of Orléans; by the organ of the venerable and scientific man Master Pierre Maugier, distributed to them by us for advocate and counsellor, they caused to be expounded to us that, since already of old they had oft-times approached our and each of our presence and offered to us a certain supplication containing the causes of their grief and complaint; and albeit it was received with benign meekness, yet we deferred to proceed to the hearing of the contents in the same and her full answer; the aforesaid petitioners fearing, the gravity of the matter attended, that they could not come to the effect of the things contained in the same; since we had also on repeated occasions exhorted them that, relying on sane counsel, they should tread maturely and advisedly in the deduction of so great a business, nor declining from the way of truth and justice begin at the pleasure of their will so great a work, but should beforehand inform us, at least summarily, of the contents of their supplication, as they best could; which they had now done, as they said, as well by certain informations made of old and inserted above as from the tenor of the processes and acts of the adversaries and the opinions of the doctors had upon them; whence also we, moved by the premises, as they asserted, assigned them the present day to appear before us, and offered to the same condoling to do the complement of justice, as it should best seem to be done: therefore, that we might care to proceed with vigilant diligence to the complement of the business of this kind begun, they presented to us certain apostolic letters of the most holy in Christ father and lord Calixtus, by divine providence the third Pope, etc., etc., supplicating that we should proceed to the execution of the same and of the things contained in them with the just balance of justice. We therefore, the premises attended, desiring to obey and serve the apostolic authority; and compassionating the afflictions of the petitioners and most of all of them pretending oppression and lesion against justice and in their own fame; and willing to succour the same in truth and justice; summarily informed of and upon the things contained in the same apostolic letters and the others already of old expounded to us, received these apostolic letters with the reverence which was due, mature deliberation being had beforehand. Which we caused to be read through by the venerable man Master Jean de Cruisy, public notary, in the presence of the notaries subscribed, under this tenor.\nThere follow in the order of the things done or the productions made in the cause:\nThe tenor of the apostolic letters. — The oration of Master Pierre Maugier on the aforesaid presentation. — The adjunction of the lord Inquisitor. — The prior interrogation of the actors. — The ordination upon the evocation and citation of the parties. — The tenor of the procurations of Isabelle, Pierre and Jean d’Arc.\nThe 12th of December. Continuation of the assignation after the default of the cited at the city of Rouen.\nThe 15th of December. Productions made for the foundation of the judgment. — The proposition of M. Pierre Maugier translated into Latin. — The institution of the notaries and officers of the cause. — The evocation of the cited and the petition of contumacy against the same not appearing. — The assignation made to the defaulting to speak against the lords Delegates or the mandate directed to them. — The requisition of the promoter upon the informations made at Rouen in the year 1452, and the production and recognition of the same informations. — The production of the interrogatories of the first process. — The tenor of the letters of citation published in the diocese of Rouen and given at Paris on the 17th day of the month of November. — The tenor of the relation of Jean de Frocourt, executor.\nCertain acts pending the aforesaid assignation. — The tenor of the citation of witnesses in the diocese of Rouen, given on the 17th day of December.\n—— of the written petition of M. Guillaume Prévosteau —— of the same petition.\nThe 19th of December. The production and reception of the witnesses. — The tenor of the relation of D. Richard de Sainte-Marglise, executor of the citations in the diocese of Rouen.\nThe 20th of December. The appearance of the procurator on the part of the heirs of the deceased P. Cauchon. — The tenor of the schedule presented in the name of M. Jacques de Rivello (113). — The tenor of the commission in virtue whereof the inquests were made in the place of the origin of the said Joan. — The articles or interrogatories for the informations to be made in the country of the origin of the deceased Joan vulgarly called la Pucelle. — The attestations and sayings of the witnesses. — The tenor of the relation of MM. Reginald de Chichery and Walterin Thierry, commissaries for the abovescript inquest to be made. — The inquest made at Orléans. — The depositions of the witnesses examined as well at Paris as in the town of Rouen.\nThe 1st of June 1456. The undertaking of the cause by the lords Jean Fabri and Hector de Coquerel, judges subdelegated. — The tenor of the commission of the said subdelegates.\nThe 2nd of June. The assignation for producing, the way of speaking against the witnesses being precluded to the defendants. — The tenor of the citation given at Rouen on the 10th of May.\nThe 4th of June. Continuation of the assignation given for producing.\nThe 5th of June. Productions made by the procurators of the actors, to wit:\n1° The tenor of the citation given at Rouen on the 10th of the month of May. 2° The tenor of the letters of guarantee given by Henry, king of England, on the 12th of June in the year 1431. 3° The work of Master Jean de Gerson upon the fact of the Maid and the credence to be given to her. 4° The minute or note of the notaries of the process conducted against the same Joan la Pucelle, delivered in force of the compulsory by Master Guillaume Manchon, the other notary, and for the greater part written in his hand, in which minute among other things is inserted a certain little leaf making mention of the correction of certain articles whereof mention is made in the preceding act (114).\n(105) There follows the Memoir of Guillaume Bouillé. See above, p. 322.\n(106) There follows the information made at Rouen in 1452, which has been reported in our second volume, p. 291 et seq.\n(107) Philippe de Gamaches.\n(108) Hervé Morillon.\n(109) Jean Louvel.\n(110) Richard N. His family name is not known.\n(111) Guillaume Cayrol, professor in canon law of the University of Paris.\n(112) Constantin Segré, third successor of Guillaume Donnel who assisted at the first trial.\n(113) This piece, written on the verso of leaf 150, is interrupted at the words Protestor tamen which end the page. From the recto 151 to the recto 157 the copy of the procès-verbaux of the 17th November, the 12th and the 15th December begins again.\n(114) This rubric, which ends the leaf v° 204, answers to nothing. The manuscript there presents a lacuna which seems ought to be filled by going to fetch at fol. 17 r° the fragment of the minute of the trial of condemnation which has been printed opposite the definitive redaction in tome I of the present work. See what is said in the preface on the confusion which the manuscript of d’Urfé presents.\n5° The copy of the whole process conducted against Joan. 6° The tenor of the sentence or sentences borne against the same Joan (115), which tenor is such:\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. To all the faithful of Christ who shall inspect the present letters or the present public instrument, Pierre, by divine mercy bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Magistri, of the order of the Friars Preachers, deputed and commissioned by the man of great religion and circumspection Master Jean Graverent, eximious professor in the sacred page of the same order, Inquisitor of the faith and of heretical pravity in the whole realm of France deputed by apostolic authority, in the diocese of Rouen and specially as to the present process; competent judges in this part: salvation in the author and consummator of the faith, our Lord Jesus.\nSince it has pleased the supernal Providence that a certain woman, Joan by name, who is vulgarly named the Maid, should be taken and apprehended within the terms and limits of our diocese and jurisdiction, of the aforesaid bishop, by renowned men of war; the common fame now promulgating in many places that the same woman, wholly forgetful of that honesty which becomes the female sex, the reins of modesty broken off, oblivious of all womanly shame, bore with marvellous and monstrous dissolution deformed habits accommodated to the male sex; whose presumption moreover was reported to have gone so far that, besides and against the catholic faith, in lesion of its articles, she dared to say and disseminate very many things, and was said to have not mediocrily delinquished in these things, as well in our aforesaid diocese as in most other places of this realm; after these things were known to the alma University of Paris and to Brother Martin Billorini (116), vicar general of the aforesaid lord Inquisitor, they instantly required the most illustrious prince the lord duke of Burgundy and the renowned lord Jean de Luxembourg, knight, to whose dominion and power the aforesaid woman was then subject, a summation being added, under the pains of law, by the vicar now named, that they should render and deliver the aforesaid woman, as is premised defamed and suspected of heresy, to us, the aforesaid bishop, as ordinary judge.\nNow we, the aforesaid bishop, as it is incumbent on our pastoral office, desiring with all our forces to intend to the exaltation and promotion of the christian faith, opted to fulfil a due inquisition upon the things so much divulged, and, as law and reason should persuade, to proceed with mature counsel to the things which should seem further incumbent. For the sake of which thing we also required the aforesaid prince and the said lord Jean, and under the pains of law, that they should remit to us and our spiritual jurisdiction the oft-said woman to be judged; and the most serene and most christian prince, our lord, king of the French and of England, required them nevertheless to the same end. At length the most renowned same lord duke of Burgundy and the aforesaid lord Jean de Luxembourg, benignly acquiescing in the aforesaid requisitions, and desiring with catholic minds that the things which seemed accommodated to the reparation and augment of the faith be fulfilled: rendered and delivered the same woman to the same our lord the king and his commissaries. Thenceforth verily the royal providence, kindled with all desires in favour of the orthodox faith, delivered to us, the aforesaid bishop, this same woman, that we should inquire at full of her deeds and sayings, further to proceed conformably to and after the canonical sanctions.\nWhich things being so done, and the territory in this city of Rouen, through the renowned Chapter of Rouen holding the administration of all manner of spiritual jurisdiction, the archiepiscopal see being vacant, being liberally accommodated and conceded to us; certain informations upon the sayings and deeds of the same woman, by our command, being first made in the country of her nativity and elsewhere in many and divers places and reported to us; and other things being attended which the public fame and the clamorous insinuation with scandal related; and counsel and mature deliberation being had with many doctors and licentiates and experts in the sacred page and canon law, whether to wit in that matter and how it was to be proceeded: we decreed that by us, the aforesaid bishop, it was to be proceeded in the business of the inquisition of this kind, and that the abovesaid lord Inquisitor was to be required that he should will to adjoin himself with us, or commit his turns in this to another; and that the oft-said woman, as suspected of heresy, was to be evoked and cited in the matter of faith, as, at the instance of the venerable man the lord Jean d’Estivet, canon of the churches of Bayeux and Beauvais, whom we constituted and ordained promoter in the cause of this kind for the deduction and promotion of the inquisition of this kind and its process, the said woman was cited and evoked to appear before us at a certain day. Which day arriving, and the same parties, to wit the said promoter in the aforesaid promotorial name on the one part and the said woman personally for herself on the other, appearing, and the judgment being so founded ex officio, we deemed she should be interrogated of and upon certain things concerning the said office of inquisition, and as well by us as by certain divers and renowned doctors we interrogated her and caused her to be interrogated.\nMeanwhile verily a special commission to the present cause was transmitted to us, Brother Jean Magistri, the aforesaid vicar, by the abovesaid lord Inquisitor, by his patent letters, and thenceforth we, the aforesaid bishop and vicar, proceeding conjointly in the same business of inquisition, unanimously approving all things done, made and conducted aforetime in the process, assigned to the said parties a certain day, to wit for delivering and giving on the part of the said promoter written articles against the said woman, upon which he willed, asked and required that she be interrogated and inquired, and that answer be made to the same by the said woman. On which day the same articles, made in writing in judgment before us, were lucidly declared to the said woman in the French tongue. To which articles, the suit being first contested and the oath of calumny sworn, the same woman then answered. Afterwards verily we caused her answers, as well to the said articles as to the other interrogatories made to her ex officio concerning the same articles, and the assertions said by the same woman in the process, to be extracted and reduced under a certain compendium, into the form which follows:\nA certain woman says and affirms, etc.\nWhich answers and assertions indeed we transmitted and communicated to the doctors and masters, licentiates as well in the sacred page as in canon and civil law, being at Rouen and elsewhere in copious multitude, and to the alma University of the study of Paris, that upon these they should charitably render their deliberations in favour of the orthodox faith; and their deliberations being had, we charitably admonished the oft-said woman, and caused her to be admonished by divers doctors and proven men frequently and on repeated occasions, that she should recede from those errors into which, after the deliberations of the aforesaid University and of other wise men, she was found to have fallen. Which when she refused with obstinate mind, willing in no wise to submit herself to the judgment of our Lord the supreme Pontiff, of the sacrosanct general Council, or to the determination of holy mother Church, but to the judgment of God alone, from whom she said, vainly vaunting herself, that she had and had done all things; the cause being renounced and concluded, at length on the twenty-fourth day of the present month of May, by us the aforesaid judges, a day being assigned to the same parties to hear our definitive sentence borne; and the same woman being again admonished in a solemn preaching by a renowned professor of theology, and the mind of that woman persevering ever in its pristine obduration, the healthful exhortations and monitions being spurned: we began, as law and justice persuaded, to pronounce a sentence against her, as obstinate, damnably and perniciously persevering in heresy, to the condemnation of her malice. But before the said sentence was borne, the said woman began to be converted; and returning to heart, submitted herself to our holy mother Church and our judicature, and revoked and abjured her errors with detestation of them, subscribing the schedule of revocation and abjuration with her own hand, the tenor whereof follows in the French tongue:\nAll persons who have erred and misdone in the christian faith, etc.\nWe also, the aforesaid judges, after the revocation and abjuration of this kind made as is premised, deemed the same woman was to be received to the mercy of the Church, and pronounced a milder sentence in the said cause, as the then appearing penitence and correction of the said woman demanded, in the mode and form following:\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. All the pastors of the Church, etc.\nThese things being so done, we, the oft-said judges, hoping the oft-said woman should assiduously remain in the way of truth and salvation which she seemed to have entered; deemed she should be confined in prisons for the doing of healthful penance. In which, while she had persevered a little time, and had taken the habit congruent to her sex in fact, the male garment being cast off, by our ordination, again and as it were forthwith we understood by renowned clamour and veridical revelation that the same woman, the male habit being received again, had fallen into the prior crimes and pristine errors, and was relapsed. For which cause, that we might know her state and disposition at full, we approached the place of her prison, and finding the same woman in the aforesaid male habit, deemed she should be interrogated, and interrogated her, of the cause of the resumption of the aforesaid male habit and of her relapse into the pristine errors.\nWhose deposition being had, to wit that of her own accord and her own motion and will, none compelling her to it, she had resumed the habit of this kind; and also that she had from her revelations that by the consent given to the premised abjuration and revocation for the salvation of her corporal life she had committed and perpetrated a great treason against God; nor in the same abjuration and revocation had she done aught else save only for fear or terror of the burning; nay she willed to persevere in the sayings, deeds and things asserted by her in her process; and to have had all things contained in the same process and confessed by her from God and the Saints;\nAnd her other answers and the aforesaid assertions being attended; counsel and mature deliberation of very many doctors and expert men being had upon these: we found the same woman had in no wise truly and mentally receded from the premised errors by her aforetime revoked and abjured, as is said, and the other grave delicts and crimes wrongly oft and scandalously committed and perpetrated, but persevered in them with admirable hardness of heart and was relapsed.\nHence it is that, at the instance of the said promoter that, notwithstanding our prior sentence, we should will to declare the oft-said woman relapsed, as is premised, and heretical: we, the aforesaid judges, the things to be deservedly attended about these being attended, assigned to the said parties the Wednesday, the penultimate day of the said month of May, and caused the same woman to be cited to hear right and our sentence to be borne on the same day.\nOn which day indeed, and the same parties appearing in the place in which we sat in judgment, to wit the said promoter in the aforesaid promotorial name and the same Joan for herself; and the judgment being so founded; the word of God being first proposed by a solemn professor of sacred theology, to the instruction of the people there existing in greatest multitude, and their consciences to be kept, and also to procure the eternal salvation of the same Joan and induce her to true contrition and penitence; her errors, into which lapsed she had lamentably long remained and still remained and was relapsed, the truth of her confession inspected, and the perils to which she had exposed herself being luculently declared: we, the aforesaid bishop and vicar; respect being had to the premises, by which it stands the aforesaid woman never truly receded from her errors and obstinate rashness and nefarious crimes; nay showed her diabolic malice of obstinacy in the darksome simulation of fallacious contrition, penitence and emendation, with the perjury of the holy divine name and the blasphemy of his ineffable majesty, manifoldly more damnable; and by these, as obstinate, incorrigible and heretical, and relapsed into heresy, utterly unworthy of all grace and commutation mercifully offered by us in the prior sentence;\nAnd all and each the things to be considered in this matter being attended: by the mature deliberation and counsel of many experts we decreed it was to be proceeded to our definitive sentence, and proceeded, and pronounced it in writing in this wise:\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. As often as heresy, etc.\nIn faith and testimony of all and each the premises, we have caused the present letters to be reduced into this public form by our notaries subscribed, and commanded them to be fortified by the appension of our seals, together with the signs and subscriptions of our aforesaid notaries subscribed.\nGiven and done at Rouen on the said days, to wit Thursday the twenty-fourth of the month of May, in the cemetery of the abbey of Saint Ouen of Rouen, where the first sentence was borne; and Wednesday the penultimate day of the said month of May, in the Old Market of Rouen, near the church of Saint Saviour, where our definitive sentence was borne; in the year of the Lord 1431, the ninth indiction, of the pontificate of the most holy in Christ father and our lord, the lord Eugenius, by divine providence the fourth pope, in the first year.\nThere being present at these:\n(115) This piece is found also in the manuscript ND., following the productions made on the 5th June. It is that which in the deposition of Guillaume Manchon is called instrumentum sententiarum. See above, p. 145. We reproduce it without repeating the documents of the first trial which are inserted in it.\n(116) Perhaps this other form of the name, which we read Billormi in the 1st vol., p. 3 of this work, better recalls a French name. We propose it after the inspection of new texts.\nOn the said Thursday, the most reverend in Christ father, the lord Henry, by divine permission cardinal priest of the holy Roman Church of the title of Saint Eusebius, vulgarly named the Cardinal of England, and the reverend in Christ fathers, the lords Louis of Thérouanne, Jean of Noyon, and Guillaume of Norwich, bishops; Gilles of the Holy Trinity of Fécamp, Nicolas de Gemetics, Guillaume de Cormeilles, abbots; and also the venerable, circumspect and scientific men, lords and masters, Pierre, prior of Longueville-Giffard, Jean de Châtillon, Guillaume Boucher, Jean Fabri, Pierre Maurice, doctors; Guillaume Haiton, Nicolas Coppequesne, Thomas de Courcelles, bachelors in the sacred page; Raoul Roussel, doctor in either law, Jean Garin, doctor in canon law; Nicolas de Vendères, Denis Gastinel, licentiates in either law, Jean Pinchon, Robert Barbier, licentiates in canon law, André Marguerie and Jean Ad-Ensèm, licentiates in civil law;\nAnd on the said Wednesday, the already said reverend in Christ fathers, lords and masters, Louis of Thérouanne, Jean of Noyon, bishops; Pierre prior of Longueville, Jean de Châtillon, Guillaume Boucher, Jean Fabri, Pierre Maurice, Guillaume Haiton, Thomas de Courcelles, Raoul Roussel, Jean Garin, André Marguerie, Nicolas de Vendères, Jean Ad-Ensèm and Denis Gastinel; together with many others doctors, masters, licentiates and bachelors in divers sciences in copious multitude, congregated on the said days and places, witnesses specially called and asked to the premises.\nAnd I Guillaume Manchon, priest of the diocese of Rouen, etc., was present at the bearing and pronouncing of the aforesaid sentences and all and each the other premises, while, as is premised, they were said, done and made by the same lords Judges and before them, together with the notaries underwritten and written above, and saw and heard these things so done. Therefore to the present letters or the present public instrument faithfully written by another’s hand, I have set my wonted sign, together with the signs and subscriptions of the said notaries subscribed and the appension of the seals of the aforesaid lords Judges, in faith and testimony of the premises, required and asked. So signed, G. Manchon.\nAnd I verily, Guillaume Colles, otherwise Bois-Guillaume, priest of the diocese of Rouen, etc. So signed, G. Colles.\nAnd I verily, Nicolas Taquel, priest of the diocese of Rouen, etc. So signed, N. Taquel (117).\nThere follows consequently the deposition of the noble man the lord Jean d’Aulon, knight, examined by our authority for our information and the inquisition of the truth; received by us, the archbishop of Reims, on the fifteenth day of the month of June, in the year of the Lord 1456; which we have willed and ordained to be inserted among the acts of the cause of this kind.\nThe 9th of June. Continuation of the day to the morrow, made by the lords subdelegates.\nThe 10th of June. Declaration of contumacy upon the cited not appearing, the ulterior deduction of the process being reserved to the lords judges. — The tenor of the citation given by the lords subdelegates (118).\nOpinion of the reverend in Christ father, the lord Élie, bishop of Périgueux (119). Opinion and counsel of Thomas, bishop of Lisieux.\nOpinion of the reverend in Christ father, the lord Martin Berruyer, bishop of Le Mans (120).\nOPINIONS AND EXTRAJUDICIAL MEMOIRS # PUBLISHED IN THE LIFETIME OF JOAN OF ARC.\nSUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS GIVEN BY THE DOCTORS ASSEMBLED AT POITIERS.\nMARCH-APRIL 1429.\nThis is the opinion of the doctors which the king asked touching the fact of the Maid sent on the part of God.\nThe king, having regard to [the] necessity of himself and of his realm, and considering the continual prayers of his poor people toward God and all others loving peace and justice, ought not at all to abandon or reject the Maid, who says she is sent on the part of God to give him succour, notwithstanding that these promises may be but (121) human works; nor also ought he to believe in her forthwith and lightly. But following the Holy Scripture, he ought to prove her in two manners: that is to wit by human prudence, in inquiring of her life, of her manners and of her intention, as says Saint Paul the Apostle, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God: and by devout prayer, to require a sign of some work or divine hope, whereby it may be judged that she is come by the will of God. Also God commanded Ahaz that he should ask a sign, when God made him promise of victory, saying to him: Ask a sign of the Lord; and likewise did Gideon, who asked a sign, and many others, etc.\nThe king, since the coming of the said Maid, has observed and held the works and the two manners (122) abovesaid; that is to wit probation by human prudence and by prayer, in asking a sign of God. As to the first, which is by human prudence, he has caused the said Maid to be proved of her life, of her birth, of her manners, of her intention, and has caused her to be kept with him, well nigh the space of six weeks, [for] to show her to all people, be they clerks, churchmen, people of devotion, men of arms, women, widows and others. And publicly and secretly she has conversed with all people; but in her no evil is found, only good, humility, virginity, devotion, honesty, simplicity; and of her birth and of her life many marvellous things are said as true.\nAs to the second manner of probation, the king asked her for a sign, to which she answers that before the city of Orléans she will show it, and not at all in another place: for so it is ordained to her on the part of God.\nThe king, having regard to the probation made of the said Maid, so far as is possible to him, and no evil found in her, and her answer considered, which is to show a divine sign before Orléans; her constancy and her perseverance in her purpose seen, and her instant requests to go to Orléans, there to show the sign of divine succour, ought not to hinder her from going to Orléans with his men of arms, but ought to cause her to be conducted honestly, hoping in God. For to doubt her or forsake her without appearance of evil would be to repugn the Holy Spirit, and to render himself unworthy of the aid of God, as said Gamaliel in a council of the Jews in the regard of the Apostles.\nTREATISE OF JACQUES GÉLU, # ARCHBISHOP OF EMBRUN.\nMAY 1429.\nPreliminary epistle to the king Charles VII.\nTo the most christian prince the lord Charles the Seventh, most serene king of the French, and most renowned dauphin of Vienne, to bring ever into consideration the magnalia and mercies of the Lord.\nBecause about most lately, in favour of your highness and the praise and perpetual fame of the glorious house of France, I have understood the learned men to feel variously of the things done by the ministry of the young Maid, whose marvels cease not to strike the ears of all; certain asserting there to be a peculiar provision of the Most High, for the conservation of your proper dominions in your person and progeny, to endure happily for ever; others opining that the aforesaid Maid, deluded by the fallacy of the most wicked enemy, works by his means and his satellites to the confusion and vituperation of the most renowned justice of virtues, which they allege her to cultivate: therefore considering that in the Lord’s field, as each is able, one is held to sow his corn, another some precious thing, and another what he has, albeit not much excellent, nor are the riches of others to be made poor by another’s poverty; that the aforesaid matter may be made clear, I shall comprehend it after the measure of the credited talent in the present little treatise, God the giver of sciences favouring. Which I have proposed to destine to your majesty for a bright and wholly polished mirror, in which the fragility and imbecility of human and earthly power, and the excellency of princes albeit presiding over a grave people, and also the overabundant and manifold graces of the omnipotent blessed God imparted to you, yet without the bond of any obligation, of his mere liberality, moreover, which you are able to repay to the same God the lord giver by no faculty, you may be able to behold in the beneficence, to meditate, to see and recognise, albeit insufficiently. But now in an enigma and by this into the love, fear, praise and glory of God the benefactor, the free-born parent, with all the mind, all the virtue and all the soul may you arise, and at length progressing from virtue to virtue, render thanks to him face to face in the fatherland, dowered with the beatific vision. Which, that it may be, I suppliantly implore from my inmost heart the pious, merciful God, giver of all good things.\nYours, of old of Tours, now of the metropolis of Embrun, Jacques, unworthy minister (123).\nHere begins the treatise of the Maid.\nThe faithful writings of the doctors having apprehended primarily the singular deed of the Maid coming to the most serene king of the French the lord Charles the Seventh, we began, not without marvel, to doubt the event here, and to inquire its final, efficient and material cause, and to scrutinise the will, piety, mercy and justice of God. Whence we find many things ceding to the confirmation of the sacred catholic faith and the confusion of certain ones attributing care to none of the universe; whom we have oft-times detested, and refute and condemn by the present little treatise, made to the glory of God, the approbation of the faith, the immense gladness of catholics, the excellency of the most high house of France, the praise of the aforesaid lord king and the perpetual fame of his realm and its most christian faithful inhabitants, by me Jacques, of old archbishop of Tours, now unworthy prelate of the holy church of the metropolis of Embrun; in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred twenty-ninth; the lord pope Martin the Fifth presiding over the Roman church, and the lord Sigismund over the Roman empire, happily. In which treatise indeed we will assert naught rashly, but to follow the judgments of them that know better, our saviour the Lord Jesus Christ favouring, to whom alone is due honour and glory.\n(117) This piece ends at the bottom of folio 100, recto; on the verso of the same leaf is found the deposition of Jean d’Aulon, whose rubric we report.\n(118) This piece is interrupted at the bottom of folio 103, verso. On the following page begins a more modern copy of the last acts of the trial of condemnation.\n(119) Fol. 205, recto.\n(120) It is in the middle of this memoir, folio 240, verso, that the ancient writings of the manuscript of d’Urfé end.\n(121) We doubt this word, which might be read senties in the manuscript; the copyist visibly hesitated over it. The sense would require instead of seules a participle such as consentant.\n(122) So. M. Buchon, in the text which he gave of this piece, substituted for meurs the correction manières.\n(123) We possess enough details on the life of this prelate, thanks to the care he took to note its principal circumstances on a book of canons which belonged to him. Born at Ivoy, in the duchy of Luxembourg, he made his studies at Paris and Orléans, professed the law, then, by the protection of the duke of Orléans, became successively master of the requests of that prince, counsellor in the parliament of Paris, and president of the dauphinal court. At the death of his master, he devoted himself entirely to the Dauphin Louis, who made him general of the finances and archbishop of Tours (1414). Sent the following year to the council of Constance, he was head of the embassy to go, in the name of the assembly, to signify to Pierre de Lune the subtraction of the obedience of France. On his return he was one of the delegated electors for the nomination of a pope. The support which on this occasion he lent to Martin V earned him being attached to the legation of the cardinal of Saint-Marc, a mission in which he nearly perished because of the massacre of the Armagnacs which took place while the pontifical commissaries were in the capital, and whence the bishop of Paris had all the difficulty in the world to draw them, both the archbishop and the cardinal. Since 1418, Jacques Gélu employed himself in divers embassies for the Dauphin Charles, brother of him to whom he owed his high fortune. He went to Castile and to Naples to essay to obtain succours for him. About 1427 he left the archiepiscopal see of Tours for that of Embrun, and died in 1432. Besides the present treatise, we have of him a book written against Benedict XIII, of the time of the council, and a chronicle of the archbishops of Embrun. (See Martène, Thesaurus anecdotorum, t. III, col. 1; Gallia christ., t. III, col. 1090; Monstrelet, t. I, c. 196, § Pareillement prins les cardinaulx…)\nNo people anywhere is or was so cast outside laws and manners, which has not believed in some gods. For the opinion of God is engrafted in all: hence every care of mortals, which the labour of manifold studies exercises, albeit it proceeds by a divers path, yet strives to come to the one end of beatitude. The more is the pravity of certain ones to be admired who, albeit they exist informed with the rational soul of the human kind, because we are all members of one great body and nature has brought us forth cognate, since she generated them from the same into the same: yet suspect evil and impiously of God; attributing to fate or chance, not to the omnipotence of the creator, the things which befall by divine providence; falsely esteeming that God has no greater care of men than of the individual members of the vilest species: whereby it comes that they believe they can indifferently and freely use their own wills, and at length, pressed by the mass of their sins, deny in God justice, the most renowned of all virtues; and, immersed also in cruelties, the piety which avails to all things; and, moved to the injuries of their neighbours, the mercy which is proper to the creator; nor esteem that they sin if they most avidly enjoy whatsoever their pleasures, which are not worthy of the excellence of man. But also they are most miserable who have come so far that they make such superfluous things necessary to themselves; for then is unhappiness consummated where base things not only delight but please, and there ceases to be a place for remedy when things which are vices become manners. Sprung from lust, they are without term; and cupidity which overleaps the natural measure goes forth into the immense. Wherefore they who immerse themselves in the aforesaid cannot lack the same, being as it were brought into custom; and because sin soon draws by its weight to another, and vices lead us into desperation, they fall into nefarious things, so that they posit not even hell, where they may pay the pains of their misdeeds (which nevertheless is described as a region oppressed by perpetual night in which is no redemption), denying also paradise where the things which neither eye has seen nor ear heard, and which has not ascended into the heart of man, God prepares for them that love him: esteeming also impiously that the human soul, educed from the potency of matter, is corrupted to wit as a brute’s and to the corruption of the individual; when nevertheless by this the divinity of the human species is severed from the brutal, at length the fool says in his heart: There is no God. They who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they who do, but also they who consent to them that do.\nThe aforesaid assertions can happily occupy a man nourished in vices and versed in damned manners; but virtue, which makes us blessed, since it draws us by its force and allures by its power, is not attained save by a mind well instituted and led to the highest by assiduous exercise in good things. Nature gives not virtue; for it is an art to become good, and a mind imbued with evil arts has not easily lacked lusts. Hence the things which are salutary ought often to be agitated and versed, that they be not only known but ready. The intellect is compelled not only to opine the dogmas set above to be false, but to know it by eyed faith and intellective reason, if that singular and marvellous deed be considered which the Lord now shows us through the Maid, divinely transmitted in aid of the lord king for the recovery of his dominions; which it has befallen to run through in mind, lest the posterities to come should hesitate about the aforesaid.\nNow that naught of antiquity be unknown and the exordium of the thing be clear to all, we have deemed the business should be woven so that we choose king Jean of good memory for the stock. For he had four sons: Charles the Fifth, first dauphin of Vienne; Louis, duke of Anjou, king of Sicily; Jean, duke of Berry; and Philippe, duke of Burgundy, who had Jean, also duke of Burgundy (of whom it shall be said below), father of the modern duke of Burgundy. Charles the Fifth had Charles the Sixth, meek and pious, but hindered by infirmity, whereby he was less apt for the helms of the realm; and Louis, duke of Orléans, a man of elevated sense. Charles the Sixth begot Charles the dauphin, dead in tender age, to whom succeeded Louis duke of Aquitaine, a dauphin of perspicacious genius, deceased about adolescence. To him Jean count of Ponthieu, called of Hainaut, who had to wife the daughter of the count of Hainaut, stood successor; but he lived dauphin a moderate time. Lastly the modern lord king Charles the Seventh came to the dauphinate, afterwards to the realm.\nBut for the declaration of the things to be said, it is to be known that, Louis of Orléans and Philippe of Burgundy the dukes living, great dissensions rose between the same by occasion of the regimen of the realm, which were continued by the aforesaid Jean, his father being deceased, even so far that he secretly caused the duke Louis of Orléans to be slain. For which infinite evils came, because the lords of the most high house of France divided themselves, some cherishing the Orléans party and certain the party of Burgundy. The people also was divided. Hence bloody slaughters and seditions arose, in the midst whereof many notables at Paris and elsewhere, by vile men and of abject estate holding the Burgundy party, were delivered to death. Now the English, considering the division of the realm, invaded it and by lapse of time obtained many countries, cities and castles by their force and industry, partly also by the aid of the Burgundy party and of the subjects not obeying the lord king, and most attenuated in field battles the Orléans party which the lord king cherished as his own. The Burgundy party procured many damages to the lord king, because it confederated itself with the king of England; by whose aid the English obtained France, Brie, Champagne, Picardy, Normandy and the realm even to the Loire, and took Charles the Sixth and his queen his wife; whom being brought into their power, they caused by them the lord king to be disinherited against all right and divine and human law, and the king of England to be instituted heir; and afterwards the English appropriated to themselves a great part of the realm with the aid of the Burgundy party, and so terrified certain princes, nobles and others holding the king’s party, that the royal party was much weakened. For certain of the princes of the royal party did homage to the English; others extorted the lordship of the king from him by exquisite colours; others despoiled him of his faculties and finances; certain sowing false things in the people, that it might hold the king hateful, through the whole realm, and so much did these pests prevail that scarce was found who would obey the lord king. Item certain of the nobles and princes fell from hope, and leaving the lord king reduced themselves to their own, and the rumour grew strong that it was lawful for each to appropriate to himself of the realm what he could occupy. Whence the most patient king was impoverished, even so that he had scarce a slender sustenance not only for his house but for his person, and the queen; and the thing was so conducted that there was no appearance that the lord king could recover his dominions by human aid, the power of the enemies and of them not obeying him continually growing, and the remission of the aid of those who had cherished his party. The king could not find finances of his own, and the gifts of his subjects were dissipated without measure. The king was left without royal apparatus, and had not whence he might succour himself. Yet he sustained all things patiently, destitute of human aid and impoverished by the avarice of his own; but we have heard that he had placed firm hope in God and had recourse to God singularly, by prayers and alms, by the sale even of certain jewels which he had. By whose means, as is believed, the merciful God, placated and moved by the ardour of charity, inwardly thought thoughts of peace, reparation and restoration upon him and the realm; inclining his majesty by piety, that he should do mercy and justice to the same.\nIt pleased then the Most High, on whose thigh is written King of kings and Lord of lords, to succour the king by an adolescent maid, of late-bearing nourished and reared; informed not by magistral stole, not by the conversation of the prudent, not by the instruction of doctors; bearing the male habit; asserting herself sent by God, that she should be prince of the royal army to tame the rebels and expel his enemies from the realm, and to restore him in his dominions. Which thing, albeit considered in itself it stands marvellous, since it suits not a woman, especially a girl and young, for the fragility and modesty of her sex, that she be leader of an army or mingle herself in arms, and vanquish warlike men potent in corporal forces, exercised, who were a terror to all; yet related to the power of God they ought to induce no admiration, because in few as in many, even by the intervention of the female sex, he can equally bestow victory, as it befell in Deborah. There is none who can resist his will, since all things are set in his dominion. Hereby we are taught that men can do naught save the Lord doing it, because all power is from the Lord God. For human presumption is damned to extol itself against the justice of God; the necks of the proud and the great brows of them that confide in themselves are confounded; God has chosen the lowest that he may confound the strong. But even if we bear the present matter into a more open place, many things offer themselves for which we could deservedly suspect and believe the divine clemency to be inclined to the so doing of the aforesaid.\nFirst occurs the justice of the lord king. For he was the son, now the only one, of Charles the Sixth of good memory, begotten in constant marriage, natural and legitimate, who did naught of ingratitude against his parents; and yet they, deceived, induced and terrified, disinherited him in fact, instituting his capital enemy, the king of England, heir against natural, divine and human right.\nSecondly, the glorious merits of his predecessors offer themselves. For after the reception of the catholic faith they are never noted with any error in faith, so that of France it may be said that it alone lacked a monster. They honoured God, augmented the faith and the Church and ever held them in reverence.\nThirdly, the prayers of devout persons and the wailings of the oppressed, moreover on the other part the infidelity of the subjects and their inhumanity. For by them the faithful of the king being taken, they sometimes offered hay for foods and aliments as to brutes; denying them aliments altogether against the right of nature and, after their killing, burial. Secondly their savagery into all indifferently, without choice of estate or sex; for they slew prelates and ecclesiastical men, nobles, counsellors and virgins, the old with the younger and pregnant women.\nFourthly, the injustice of the enemies having no valid title, [who], as though they had not professed the catholic faith, which forbids not only to usurp another’s but to covet the neighbour’s thing, feared not to will to appropriate to themselves the diadem and sceptre of the realm; when nevertheless all that is not of faith is sin.\nFifthly, the insatiable cruelty of that people which admits no piety in its acts. For they feared not to deliver to death those whom they had subdued in wars, in no wise indulging the like, but slaying the same against the right of nature. By them all christianity was troubled; nay the whole orb; the enemies also of the cross of Christ gloried too much, hearing such destructions among christians, since no destruction of ours can be nearer than by such divisions. But we never saw the thing so conducted, albeit much troubled for the evils of our people, that we should not hope in the piety, mercy and justice of the Lord; asserting and persuading the lord king that it was more possible that in a living man there should be no rational soul, than that piety, mercy and justice should fail in God; and that by the sins of our king and the people or of all together the aforesaid pest befell not to the destruction of the royal house, but to our correction. Now it remained that, corrected from sins, we should flee to the Lord, because the agent acts in the predisposed patient. Hence we persuaded the lord king to flee to the goodness of the divine piety and commit himself to it with all devotion of mind, and firmly hope in it; for it can consummate desperate things by the magnitude of its virtue.\nBut let us for a little release our matter for cause.\nIt is asserted to us that much lettered men constantly say the aforesaid Maid is not sent by God, but rather deceived and deluded by diabolic art, and does not what she does by the power of God, but performs it by the ministry of demons. For argument they catch that in one impetus or moment, so to speak, God performs, since he needs not any time for the consummation or perfection of his works. He said and they were made; he commanded and they were created. Now this Maid began long ago; she has not yet accomplished; therefore, etc.\nItem if the aforesaid were divine, God would have destined an angel, not a simple young woman nourished with sheep, subject to all illusion and easily deceivable for the nature of her sex and the solitude of her life passed in leisure. For the wary demon mostly deludes such. This we experience daily most of all in these regions in which we live. For many and various are his arts of deluding and deceiving men, whom he envies by nature after his fall and is at enmity with. Therefore, etc.\nFrom the aforesaid theme we judge it useful enough to elicit certain little questions, that the present matter may be made clear; because truth agitated shines the more into light. I ask then first whether it becomes the divine majesty to introduce itself singularly into the acts of one man or realm.\nSecondly, whether God has rather to despatch his things by angels than by men.\nThirdly, whether it becomes the divine wisdom to commit to the female sex the things which are competent to men.\nFourthly, if and by what we are able to know works to be from God or done by diabolic art.\nFifthly, if by the ordination, will or disposition of God certain things are to be done, whether they are to be performed without human prudence.\nExcerpts from the discussion which is had affirmatively about each one of the aforesaid little questions.\n1° From the third question.\nWe say that God could ordain that the Maid should preside over armed men and also rule them, and that she should vanquish and overcome the strongest and most exercised, and proceed doing such things in the male habit. Nor in this does the divine wisdom deceive or is deceived. For by the best reason all the aforesaid beyond the will of God, which is the supreme reason and which suffices for every cause or reason, are done, if the case which offers itself be well considered. The enemies of the lord king (who are christians and consequently obliged after the rules, precepts and mandates of God contained in the Decalogue to live), confiding in their virtue and power, willed to despoil the king of his paternal heritage without just cause, against the precepts of the law, or, the divine mandate being contemned, and as though God had ordained naught in this thing, to the contempt of God and the most injury of the neighbour. When nevertheless they ought to have served the Lord God alone and obeyed the same, and loved their neighbours as themselves, they strove to occupy the realm and appropriate it to themselves, offending the law of God and of nature; to convince so great pride and disobedience and to show that God is he to whom the injured can flee and obtain remedy; and that, without his good pleasure, human presumption ought to attempt naught.\nContemning such pride so elevating itself, could not God justly destine a woman, nay not even a shrewd one, a little simple Maid, of inferior estate, untaught, unexercised, in the male habit, that he might wholly confute so great pride; giving by this a doctrine to the human kind that in God is the piety by which he is moved to succour the injured, in God is the mercy by which he relieves the afflicted (and so afflicted that there was no human appearance for their restoration or reposition into the pristine state; but all human senses and prudence failed: for then it suits that the divine mercy interpose itself in human things, because it can consummate and complete desperate things by the magnitude of its virtue); to teach also that in God is justice, which attributes and conserves to each what is his, etc., etc.\nNow that she justly proceeds in the male habit doing the aforesaid, this act has it by mode of sequel. For it is more decent that these things be committed in the male habit, for the conversation with men, than otherwise; because he who bears a like life with others, it is necessary that he feel a like discipline in the laws. Whence then we say that, even if there appeared not in our case any reason of so doing, beyond the sole will of God (which would suffice for reason, since we ought not to will to know the reason of the things done by the divine wisdom which is infinite and whereof we are not capable), yet, even if God were a mortal prince also, so many and so great ministries of ours concur, as is said above, that he could recede from the common law (which is that virile acts ought to be committed to men) and commit this virile act not only to a woman but to an untaught Maid; lest ever human power how great soever should dare or presume to elevate itself against the divine majesty, but should subject its acts to the divine power, and know that there is not humanly a valid power save so far as it shall have been positively conceded by the Lord, or at least permitted.\n2° From the fourth question.\nIf it be said: Certain feign themselves to be good, as the hypocrites, when nevertheless they are evil; wherefore we can be deceived judging of the operations of such; under the appearance of a lamb they bear the wolf: the blessed Lord taught us their judgment, saying: By their fruits you shall know them. Moreover feigned things cannot long lie hid. Feigned things are compared to a grave and enclosed sickness, which must either be overcome by nature soon enough, or overcome it; for the extremely harming cannot long stand. Now when such sicknesses come to an issue, they go forth with impetus and violently break out, and openly manifest of what kind they were when enclosed. So it befalls in hypocrisy.\nApplying to our case, of our Maid and her works, that they are from God, so far as human fragility suffers to know, we can affirmatively answer, that to wit they are from God. For she, as a good and faithful christian, worships God, adores him, solicitously venerates and frequents the ecclesiastical sacraments, oft confessing and devoutly receiving the body of the Lord. She is honest in words, honest in conversation, avoiding much-speaking in which sin is not lacking; sober in food; showing also in her other gestures naught indecorous, naught base, naught that becomes not girlish modesty, as it is related to us. Nor are the aforesaid of one day, lest they be thought feigned, but of many months; in which it could sufficiently have appeared if aught sinister were to be said of her. And albeit she is versed about arms, yet she has never persuaded cruelty, but pities all fleeing to the king her lord, or willing to recede of the enemies. She thirsts not for human blood; but offers the enemies a pacific withdrawal to their own, the realm being left in quiet and peace, and to the rebels a return to their home by good obedience, the indulgence of pardon being received from the king. It is true nevertheless that she strives to complete the things to which she is sent, to wit to subjugate the enemies and compel the rebels to submit their necks to the yoke, since, required that they do their debt, they have denied. For this is the way of the common law, consonant to all reason.\nOf the conversation in the male habit she is sufficiently excused above, because the act to which she is sent requires this, as it has stood sufficiently deduced above. It behoves her also to have conversation with men, because it is theirs to be versed about difficult things, to intend to the things about which she is sent. Nor the less nevertheless she lives among the armed, armed, honestly, chastely and decently, doing naught for this which becomes not a virgin Maid, as it is related to us. Which also we piously believe, the whole thing being well pondered in itself.\n3° From the fifth question, where it is concluded.\nBut coming to the last reason of the question, it was asked if by the divine will or ordination certain things are to be done or performed. We say with correction that, since it has well pleased God to commit to some creature the disposition or regimen of some business or deed: his will is to be undertaken and embraced with great devotion and followed with thanksgiving, so far as can be done; so that in no wise it be resisted to God, who willed to do the aforesaid rather by his goodness, piety, mercy and justice, than by debt or otherwise. Whence consequently we should counsel that the will of the divine commissary or messenger be in no wise resisted, but the same be wholly obeyed, most of all in the things which touch the essentials of his commission or his deed. Yet it is true that, before such a creature be received from the beginning of the business as sent by God, the spirit is first to be proved whether it be sent in from God or the adverse part, as Joshua did. For not lightly and without great weight and advisement was faith to be applied in such things from the beginning of the business; but since, the thing being examined and known so far as human fragility suffers to know, the business was undertaken as ordained and committed by God; we should then judge that it is to be said to anyone as it is written above. It is thus persuaded: obedience is better than sacrifice. Whence, because Saul obeyed not the divine will said to him by Samuel the prophet, he lost the realm, albeit nevertheless he believed not he did ill. For he and the people had reserved the fatter of the herds that they might offer them to the Lord, and he had pitied Agag king of Amalek, whose destruction God had committed to Saul. Whence certified of the aforesaid by Samuel, he made reservation of the abovesaid, albeit not uncolouredly; yet he was deprived of his own realm, because he obeyed not the voice of the Lord and his will. So ought the king to fear lest, if he omit to do the things which the Maid counsels, believing he does well, or hoping in human prudence, he should be left by the Lord nor obtain what he opts, but be frustrated of his intention.\nSecondly thus; if it be doubted of aught concerning the deed committed to the Maid, whom we piously believe to be the angel of the Lord of hosts, sent to make the redemption of his people and the restoration of the realm: it is to be judged rather to the divine wisdom than the human, because of the same, to wit the human, there is no comparison to the divine, since there is no proportion of the finite to the infinite. For the divine wisdom reaches from end to end mightily and disposes all things sweetly. Wherefore it is to be believed that he who committed will inspire into his creature whom he sent the things which are to be done, better and more expediently than human prudence could seek out.\nThirdly, the passions of men are divers. Some by fear of person, some by fear of estate, some by fear of goods, some willing to be advanced to higher things, some by divers considerations, as to each his fancy is, can be diverted from the true. Now the divine will and wisdom can neither be deceived nor deceive, nor be beguiled nor beguile, because it is ever its part to do good and benefit.\nWherefore we should counsel that in such things, first and principally, the will of the Maid be sought out, and howsoever it be dubious to us, or having no great appearance as to us, that yet, if she should say aught fixedly, the lord king should follow it as inspired from God, and keep it, for the minuteness of the business committed to her. Now as to the preparation of the businesses, as of machines, of bridges, of ladders and like things to be made; of victuals for the sustenance of the men of war and the like; of the mode of having finances and such extrinsic things, without which nevertheless the thing could not endure without miracle: we should say enough is to be provided by human prudence, by the reasons adduced in the beginning of the question. But where by the divine wisdom something is to be done more than otherwise, human prudence ought to succumb and humble itself, and ought to attempt, propose or follow naught which may offend the divine majesty. And in this we say the counsel of the Maid ought to be first and principal, and to be asked, investigated and sought from her before all them that assist. He who gives the form gives the consequences to it, and he who commits one thing commits also all without which… Wherefore we ought to hope in the Lord, who made the king’s cause his own, that he will inspire such things whereby the thing shall obtain its due and effectual end; because the Lord knows not a work of imperfection.\nMoreover we should consider to the king that every day he should do some certain thing well pleasing to God and grateful to his will, and that upon this he should confer with the Maid, and, after her advisement, should bring it into being most humbly and devoutly; lest the Lord have cause of withdrawing his hand, but continue his grace. For properly his own is ever to have mercy and spare, unless we have made ourselves unworthy of his grace. Let then the mortal humility of the king submit necks and necks and bend the knees to the eternal majesty, offering the promptitude of his will to the divine dispositions. By this he shall have done his debt and meritoriously placated him through whom kings reign; to whom be honour and glory in sempiternal ages. Amen, amen.\nIT ENDS.\nPROPOSITIONS OF MASTER HENRI DE GORCUM (124) # FOR AND AGAINST THE MAID.\nJUNE 1429.\nTo the glory of the blessed Trinity and of the ever glorious Virgin mother of God and of the whole court of heaven (125).\nThe Lord took me when I followed the flock and said to me: Go and prophesy to my people Israel. (Amos vii, 15.) The people of the realm of France can not incongruously be spiritually named the people of Israel; whom it is known to have ever flourished in the faith of God and the cult of the christian religion. To the son of this realm a certain young woman, daughter of a certain shepherd, who herself also is said to have followed the flock of sheep, approached, asserting herself sent by God, that through her the said realm should be reduced to his obedience. Now lest her assertion be reputed rash, she uses also supernatural signs: as to reveal the hidden things of hearts and foresee future contingents. It is moreover related that she is shorn of head in the manner of a man, and willing to proceed to warlike acts; clad in male vestments and arms, she mounts a horse; who while she is on the horse, bearing a standard, straightway flourishes in marvellous industry, as an expert leader of an army to the artful institution of the army. Then also her own are rendered courageous; but on the contrary the adversaries timid, as though destitute of forces. Now when she descends from the horse, reassuming her wonted habit, she becomes most simple, unskilled in secular businesses as an innocent lamb. It is also said that she has lived in chastity, sobriety and continence, devout to God, prohibiting slaughters, rapines and the other violences to all those who will to exhibit themselves to the said obedience. For these things then and the like, the cities, towns and castles submit themselves to the king’s son, promising him fealty.\nWhich thing so standing as is aforesaid, certain questions emerge and allure learned souls to their declaration; for example:\nWhether the Maid is to be believed a true person of human nature, or transformed into a like fantastical effigy?\nWhether the things which she does can be done by her humanly, or through her by some superior cause?\nIf by a superior cause, whether by a good, to wit a good spirit; or an evil, as for instance by an evil spirit?\nWhether trust is to be exhibited to her words, and her works are to be approved as divinely done, or pythonical and illusory?\nFor because about these or like little questions certain ones feel in this wise and others in that, so that each may be able to bring forth testimonies from the sacred letters for their defence, the present little work, not asserting but dictating by collation, offers certain propositions for the one part, and again certain for the other, in problematic mode; provoking the subtler geniuses to the profounder intelligence. Yet commending this to memory, that, to sententiate aught securely in this matter, it is necessary to foreknow to the liquid the manners, words, works and the other gestures of this Maid, as well those which she has solitary as those which she has with others in public, and the other circumstances of her life; and whether the things which she reveals and foretells are ever found true. Now in the things following, what is set is to be taken after the relation of common fame translated to these parts by many worthy of faith.\nPROPOSITIONS FOR THE MAID.\nI.\nThat she is a true Maid and a true person of human nature is simply to be asserted.\nThis proposition appears, because not only the rule of the philosophers sings that the operation argues the form; nay and our Saviour witnesses that cognition is to be taken from works. Because then this young woman is found continually conformable to other men in human acts, speaking, hungering, eating, drinking, watching, sleeping and the rest of this kind: who would dare to say she is not a true person of human nature, as others communicating with her in the like signs of human nature? Therefore, etc.\nII.\nThe time ordained prophetical was before the advent of Christ, enduring in the exordium of the nascent Church with the operation of miracles.\nThis proposition is declared by the sacred doctors from this that the whole time of the old Testament was figural\n(124) Trithemius (De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, n° 817) calls him, without the particule, Heinricus Gorrikeim, an alteration little distant from the form Gorinchem which the Germans give to the Dutch name Gorkum. It is known that this lettered man was professor and vice-chancellor of the University of Cologne, and that he was still living in 1460. It is at Cologne that his life passed, so that he was not at all under the empire of the Burgundian party, as Lenglet du Fresnoy advanced (Histoire de Jeanne d’Arc, t. I, p. 186). His biographer resumes in these few words the nature of his talent: A profound theologian, a solemn philosopher, he shone by the wholly scholastic turn of his language and by his subtlety in the discussions. His works are numerous. Fabricius, who does not speak of the propositions on the Maid, cites of him twenty treatises of which the following: 1° Conclusiones in quatuor libros sententiarum; 2° … celebratione; 4° Contra Hussitas et Bohemos; 5° … dictorum Sah…; 6° Positiones in Aristotelem de cœlo et mundo … metaphysicæ de ente et essentia; 8° De modo conjurandi dæmones.\n(125) This invocation is in the edition of Du Pin (opera Gersonis, t. IV, col. 859) and not in that of Goldast.\nin this that the whole time of the old Testament was figural for the foretelling of the advent of Christ and the future state of his mystical body. Likewise in the primitive Church many are read to have been prophets. And because the things were then preached which transcend all cognition of the human faculty, it was necessary to apply signs by miraculous works, whereby the sayings of this kind should be confirmed. Otherwise it would have been less sufficiently provided to the salvation of the human kind, after that which Gregory says, that a plant newly fixed in the earth needs frequent watering, that being well rooted it may grow strong. Therefore, etc.\nIII.\nIn the days now running it is not unworthily deemed that from time to time certain persons are raised to the spirit of prophecy and moved to the operation of miracles.\nThis proposition is of Augustine’s De civitate Dei, and can also be extracted from the doctrine of Gregory. Whose declaration also appears from this, because by the Saviour’s mouth it is promised to us that he is with us even to the consummation of the world, directing the human kind by the hand of his providence, as the opportunity of our salvation requires. For so he has not bound his power to the sacraments, so neither has he bound it to any time, places or persons; nay in many of his mercies he is ever present to the human kind, providing congruous remedies and aids. For, says Isaiah, the hand of the Lord is not shortened, that it cannot redeem. Therefore, etc. Since then the human kind needs to be excited and recalled by the revelation of hidden things and the operation of miracles, now in one people, now in another, it is piously to be deemed that such things are not denied to us. Therefore, etc.\nIV.\nIt is consonant with the sacred letters that by the fragile sex and innocent age a gladsome salvation has been exhibited by God to peoples and realms.\nThis proposition appears because, the Apostle witnessing, God chooses the infirm things of the world, that he may confound all the strong. Hence proceeding exemplarily, it is read of Deborah, Esther and Judith, that salvation was obtained for the people of God, and Daniel raised in boyhood to the deliverance of Susanna. So David in youth prostrated Goliath; nor undeservedly, because in this mode the affluence of the divine piety is made the more evident, lest man ascribe to his own aids, but rather refer thanksgivings to God. For so through the humble virgin the redemption of the whole human kind arose. Therefore, etc.\nV.\nSacred scripture witnesses not that men of depraved life were sent by God under such a form or manner as the common recital celebrates of the said Maid.\nThis proposition appears, because as the Apostle says, there is no convention of Christ and Belial, nor does he deign to enter society or contract familiarity with demons, or with their ministers and members, albeit it is read that certain evil ones sometimes prophesied something in passing: as Balaam prophesied that a Star should arise from Jacob; and Saul and Caiaphas prophesied. But it is far otherwise of this Maid, who has at her nod the use of supernatural gifts in manifesting hidden things and foretelling future things serving her ministry, moreover prohibiting (as is premised) slaughters and the other vices to be done, exhorting to virtues and the other works of probity, in which God is glorified. As then Joseph was sent before in the spirit of God before his father and brothers into Egypt, and Moses to the deliverance of the people of Israel, and Gideon, and the abovesaid women: in like mode it is not incongruous to connumber this young woman among the good ones specially sent by God, chiefly since she neither seeks gifts and labours with all devotion to the good of peace. For this is not the work of an evil spirit, who is rather the author of dissension than of peace.\nVI.\nAs it were by corollary following from the propositions premised afore: this girl is a true person in human nature, specially sent by God to those works which are done not humanly but divinely; to whom faith is to be exhibited.\nThis proposition appears answering the questions prelibated. For that she is truly man appears from the first proposition. And because he ceases not even in these days specially to provide for us by supernatural signs, it is not incongruous for God to assume an innocent Maid, chiefly after the fourth proposition. And because that gift perseveringly resides with her to a deific end, and through the means of virtue and honesty, as the fifth proposition asserts, this sixth proposition seems consequently to be conceded. Nor is it a marvel if in the equestrian state she be of another light than in the wonted female state: because also David, willing to consult the Lord, put on the ephod and took the psaltery; and Moses, while he bore the rod, did marvellous things, because, as Gregory says, the Holy Spirit frequently conforms himself inwardly to the concurrent outward things.\nSo from the prelibated, the friend of this way can take occasion of defending his part, proceeding also to the ampler dilation of another. But because there are found others more inclined to the opposite part, it remains to bring from the sacred Scripture certain testimonies from which they may be able to take the fulciments of their position, inspecting the propositions underwritten.\nPROPOSITIONS AGAINST THE MAID.\nI.\nMany pseudoprophets are to come, asserting themselves to be divinely sent by God.\nThis proposition is of the Saviour saying that in the last days, to wit of the evangelical law, many shall say they come in my name and many shall be deceived by them. Whence also the Apostle says that the angel of Satan transfigures himself into an angel of light. Nor is it a marvel: because that malignant king over all the sons of pride incessantly strives to usurp the excellency of the divinity, and therefore procures false prophets sent under the name of God to deceive. Therefore, etc.\nII.\nPseudoprophets frequently foretell the hidden things of hearts and the effects of future contingents.\nThis proposition is wont to be conceded by the doctors. Whose reason is because, the higher a virtue is, the more amply it extends itself. Now it stands that the intellect of demons is much higher than the human intellect, and so the things which are hidden to us and future, which are unknown to us, are known by the evil spirit. And so the prophets of demons, by their instruction, can reveal such things. Therefore, etc.\nIII.\nThe true prophet is not easily discerned from the false by outward appearances and signs.\nThis proposition appears because it behoves not a prophet to be of virtuous life or to have grace; and the prophets of demons can prognosticate things hidden to us and future; and so of many other things in which they agree with the true prophets. But if sometimes they foretell false things, they know to palliate by giving another understanding, or to allege that the true prophets sometimes prophesied certain things which came not to pass. So it is read of the prophets Isaiah and Jonah. For which also the Apostle says that not every spirit is to be believed, but they are to be proved whether they are of God, insinuating a difficult discretion between the good and the evil prophets. Therefore, etc.\nIV.\nNow, in the time of grace, that a spiritual mission be made by God to the prosperity of temporal felicity has not much apparent efficacy.\nThis proposition can be taken from the things which Augustine oft commemorates: for the goods of the present life are equally conceded to good and evil, just and unjust, chiefly in this time of grace, lest the good affix their love to transitory goods in which the evil most flourish; that they may also attend what goods he reserves to his friends in the future life, when he affluently confers the transitory goods of this life upon his enemies. To make then a mission procurative and prognosticative of the present felicity (which is written to be little weighed) seems to have a moderate appearance. Yet in the Old Testament, while that people served God for these temporal goods, it is read that mention was sometimes made to such (126). Therefore, etc.\nV.\nThis Maid commits two things which are read to be prohibited in the sacred Scripture.\nThis proposition appears because in Deuteron. xxii a law prohibits that a woman put on the garments of a man; and the Apostle prohibits that a woman shave her head in the manner of a man: now the opposite of either is narrated of this Maid. And it seems at first face to verge upon a certain indecency of young girls, that the Maid sits a horse clad in the male habit; and, since God loves modesty, it seems to derogate from the assumed divine mission, to transform herself into the male form. Nor does such a mode seem concordant with the familiar mission, because so familiar a mission is made through the Spirit sanctifying the soul inwardly, after that of Wisdom vii: The wisdom of God transfers herself into holy souls; she constitutes friends of God and prophets. For which, if the mission of this young woman be prophetical, it behoves her to be of a certain excellent sanctity and of the divine mind inwardly, and it seems indecorous that such a person transform herself into a secular man of arms. For it is not so read of Esther and Judith, albeit they adorned themselves with the more solemn cult, yet womanly, that they might the more pleasingly please those with whom they had conceived to act. Therefore, etc.\nVI.\nThat the said Maid was specially sent by God, and that God works through her, or that trust is to be applied to her, cannot be shown by sufficient appearance.\nThis proposition appears as it were by corollary from the premised, because, if many false prophets are to come like to the true; if to the prosperity of temporal felicity there be no special mission under the time of grace; if her proceeding is made against the divine mandates: how can it be assertively held that a girl of this kind was singularly elected by God to execute the things which are famed?\nFrom which it appears how the favourers of this way may colour their part, impugning the opposite way, moreover taking occasion from the premises to find profounder things. So these things joined here and there, collectively set, are offered to them that shall see the cause of the present case or of a like future one, that they also may be able to answer something to them that move like questions, ever to the glory of God, who reigns blessed in the ages. Amen.\nSIBYLLA FRANCICA. # DISSERTATIONS OF A GERMAN CLERK OF THE DIOCESE OF SPEYER,\nJULY — SEPTEMBER 1429.\nSCROLL I.\nPriests are commended by the honour of the Gods and the contemplation of the Angels (as in can. B. Gregorii caus. xi, q. 1, Sacerdotibus), since indeed, dowered with divine wisdom, they are comforted by frequent visions of Angels. Whence they know to interpret the mysteries of the marvels of God, and also to reveal by the high virtue the disposition of human things, by which the state of this sliding world is carried and governed. Verily it is clear that the things which God works marvellously in the lands, he willed these same to be manifest to his elect, whom he set in the lot of his heritage, and to whom he commended the treasures of wisdom and knowledge to be dispensed to the rest.\nA rumour having lately arisen, which titillates the ears of them that hear, of a certain sibyl in the realm of France, who has begun to prophesy, the fame shining fulgid, besprinkled with the good odour of the opinion of all, notable in life, manners and conversation; whom the vulgar says to gleam with sanctity, learned also to wars and prescient of the events of battles: whence, admiring with stupor at the unaccustomed, it asks faith of the clergy, under whatsoever colour, what is to be thought of the same; as befell me four days not yet elapsed, a certain army of the lord N. returning and coming from the siege of the city N. (127), a question of such kind was impulsed. Now openly I gave solution to a secret thing, whereby I left the suspended minds of the askers. Yet I closed the round mouths of the adherents, the objected matters at length passing under silence, so that they nowhere raised the noise of asking further.\nAt length I revolved in mind the matter of the stupors of this kind of this rare and unaccustomed thing; so far as I could from the littleness of my genius, I have cared to amputate the ambiguous: whence indeed the clergy may be able to solve to the asking vulgar the doubt; and let the vulgar discern that wisdom and the knowledge of divine things are committed to the clergy from on high; and the things which God has excogitated to be done about these inferior things, he willed to be revealed and interpreted through the clergy, who knows the sense of the Lord, himself revealing, and was his counsellor predestined before the constitution of the world through Christ Jesus, who is a priest for ever; in whom participating the nature of the divinity, we also are made heirs of the realm of the heavens; who made known all things which he heard from the father; by whom he commanded and constituted himself to be offered, a host of salvation in the odour of sweetness, for sacrificing, in the sacrament of the altar, consecrating the mystery of our peace and unity in the table of proposition, as De consecratione, dist. ii, can. Quia passus. But because I am rude and untaught, I have bent my reed to simple things, so that also the idiot, who knows not letters, may be able to enter into the powers of the Lord, and that he may be able to know, and not be ignorant, that there are prophets in Israel, and that their germ fails not, until he who sits in the throne has made all things new.\nThat there is a sibyl in the realm of France I doubt not. For among the Greeks every woman who interprets the divine mind to men is called a sibyl, which name is from the office and not from the propriety of the word; as prophet in the male sex. Jerome, the most excellent of the doctors, who knew the Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Egyptian and Latin tongues as though he had been born and nourished in them, as Augustine relates of him, mentions to have read of ten sibyls:\n1° The Persian, born of the Persians, in the time also of Cyrus the first king of the Persians, who reigned thirty years, and took up the government of the realm in the year from the creation of the world three thousand four hundred and seventy-three, of whom the History of Kings treats much, and of his son Cambyses, Darius, and his son Xerxes, who loosed the captivity of the Jews after the prophecy of Jeremiah, with whom this Sibyl protested the propitiation of the Gods upon the nation of the Jews. Of which things, in iv Kings, in Ezra and Nehemiah, you may revolve the histories, which I shall dismiss for brevity’s cause, this only being considered, that this Sibyl demonstrated by prophecy that the realm of the Jews was to be recovered, as our sibyl of the house of France is said to prophesy the same.\n2° The Libyan, so called from Libya, near Crete and Sicily, which are the septentrional parts of Africa; whose presage was of the marvellous nativity of the incarnate Word, declaring that men in those times were to be communicated to the nature of the Gods. That as the Apostles and you, who in the primitive Church were fervent in exceeding charity, ever expecting the sword, raised the dead and foresaw the triumphs of wars, as in the Legend of SS. Simon and Jude the Apostles; so also our sibyl, in the noble realm of France, is said to direct battles to the salvation of the French against the occupiers and invaders of the same realm.\n3° The Delphic, born in the temple of the Delphic Apollo, who prophesied before the Trojan wars, of whose most verses Homer, the greatest Poet of the Greeks, inserted into his work (as in Inst. De jure naturali gentium, § 4), as among the Latins Virgil is said. To our purpose. Troy being destroyed, Rome began to be planted, as Orosius and Gilbert (128) say in their chronicles. In like mode, the English being expelled, Paris shall be recovered, and the realm of the Franks shall be established in the hand of the Dolphin, the most illustrious firstborn prince of the house of France.\n4° Herophile, born in Babylon, whose songs were found in the island Erythrea; who is proclaimed more celebrated and more noble than the rest, in this that she wrote most manifestly of Christ, and of the destruction of the realm of the Jews; who is also said to have been in the time of Ahaz and Hezekiah kings of Judah, in the year from the beginning of the world three thousand two hundred and fifty-three (of which iv Kings, ch. 17 and 18). Our sibyl, concerning the Dolphin king of the Franks, has signified many deeds done in part, part certain ones to be expected in future, as a most faithful prophetess in the events of things.\n5° The Samian, called from the island, of which Bede says, book De temporibus, ch. 33, that the longest day there has fourteen equinoctial hours and two thirds of one hour; and to the gnomon of twenty-one feet answers a shadow of fifteen feet. She prognosticated one king of the whole earth; but our sibyl, one king in the realm of France, without the schism of the English.\n6° The Amalthæan, who offered nine books to Tarquinius Priscus, in which were written the decrees of the Romans. She is also called the Cumæan, of whom Virgil:\nNow comes the last age of the Cumæan song\nand again Lucan, book V, fol. 3, after the beginning of the Punic war:\nSuch in the Eubœan recess the Cumæan prophetess, Disdaining to serve her fury to many Nations, proud from so great a slaughter of fates;\nwhere the civil and Punic wars of the most sacred Pompey are surveyed, whom Mars the progenitor of Romulus dedicated to the city (129), who also subjugated realms. Yet his sepulchre is still discerned in Sicily, which is known to be subject to the Roman Church, as in Clem. Pastoralis De sententia et re judicata; and also lib. VI cap. Ad Apostolicæ, etc. So it is necessary that our sibyl, the Dolphin being crowned king of the Franks, will give informations and sane counsels, by which the realm itself shall be conserved, governed and prosper. The time of her prophecy being fulfilled she shall go out of the realm, and shall serve God in a humbled spirit. For her memory shall be more celebrated in death than in life.\n7° The Hellespontine, born in the Trojan field, who is written to have been in the time of Solon, who with Draco, as the Justinian institution says, first published civil law for the Athenians; and committed the twenty-four letters to be used in writing, in the year after the creation of the world three thousand six hundred and eighteen; in which days Aristotle the son of Nicomachus was auditor of Plato, being in the eighteenth year of his age, in the time of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes occupying the realm of the Chaldeans, as the history of Esther in part relates, which was completed in that time. To our purpose. The Sibyl of France will cause the parliament at Paris to be solemnly treated and held for ministering justice to each; and the laws of Solon to be more ardently observed in the town of Paris, and letters as well of divine as of human things, by the doctrine and knowledge of the venerable and egregious doctors and masters, publicly and continually to be taught and preached, etc.\nLong and tedious it would be to apply the properties of all the sibyls to our sibyl, of whom, to wit the Phrygian, Tiburtine and Albunean, for the present I supersede for brevity’s cause and the tedium of labour: since indeed from the things now set anyone of sound mind can understand that our little virgin fittingly obtains the sibyl’s name. And not undeservedly, according to the state of men and the qualities of the times, God works his miracles in the world variously and in divers modes through the weak and womanly sex, and reveals hidden things, so that by this intuit princes and dominators may feel the divine power above them, not hoping in bow and swords; as in times past it is read to have been done of Deborah, Judges ch. v, Judith and Esther, where by a womanly hand the victory was made by divine virtue. For thereby God is the more glorified than if in ten times a hundred thousand he had restored his people to liberty. For the weaker the person, the more glorious the triumph against the stronger.\nI am borne indeed against the ferocity of the nation of the English, which is taught to wars in lance, sword and bow. For it has subjected the realm of France to itself under tribute. Yet let him see by what right it could do this, since otherwise the king of the English stood invested as feudatory of the king of the Franks, as De judiciis cap. Novit; what hostilities then has he made after the constitution of Frederick and Conrad of renowned memory (in lib. III De Feudis, tit. In quibus vasallus tenetur domino), Imperialem firmiter; likewise lib. III De pœnis violatæ pacis, of the constitution of the abovesaid, Hac edictali, etc. Not undeservedly then he is expelled as a foreigner, who by fraud trades against the most holy laws of the emperors. The pious France of the Gauls has generated many most profound doctors in the Church of God. Fierce England has atrociously fined very many, whom it has sent to the heavenly palaces by the most savage supplications. For she who has not blushed to pour forth her own blood (as Ex. De homicidio), as is worthy, neglects not to range against the blood of others. France, I say, is sweetly nourished of the things born of the land; but the other, shaken by the maritime floods after the likeness of the sea’s fervour, uses the goods of others. The islanders of the sea, as the English, the British, the Scots and the Thuleans, who are the last of all, among whom, as Pliny relates, the sea is held to be frozen, are exercised in the ferocity of wild beasts. Wherefore they are crueller than the other nations to rage not only against enemies but also sometimes against kin and friends; who, as Horace and Juvenal narrate, have in winter time nights continued for eighteen days without day, without the alternation of day. Night indeed is said from harming. Wherefore this people is prompt to harm, whom the Lord, to the ignominy of confusion, has suddenly reduced in the hand of our sibyl Maid.\nVarro relates many sibyls, by whom it is commemorated that salvation was restored to realms, peace to lands, unity to the fatherland. For in the parts of the Rhine, Hildegard (130), whose prophecies and sepulchre are narrated at Bingen (131), of whom the inhabitants of the land behold to this day the events of many future things. Moreover also in the realm of Norway, Bridget, notable in birth and lineage, who slept in the Lord on the morrow of Mary Magdalene in the year of the Lord 1372 (132), how great a sibyl and prophetess she was, her eight books of celestial revelations attest, in which she saw manifold things of the future state of the Church, chiefly in the fourth, where she speaks of the glomeration of those, and of the ductile gold in comparison to Urban VI. Verisimilarly in the Epistle to Gregory XI, which she sent from Rome to Avignon, the prelibated Bridget born of the realm of Sweden, in which she evidently expounds of the mode of the blessed one’s assumption to the regimen of the universal Church, the joy of her mind, with insertion of certain hidden mysteries; whom lately Boniface IX aggregated to the catalogue of the Saints. Which all and singular things foretold by the same have either already passed, after the herald of the prophecy, or are expected in secure faith to be done in future without dread of the contrary.\nNow the reason and causes that things so great and stupendous, never wont to be done, should be made, more than is wont (133) admires. For from the old times God was preached marvellous in the prophets. And these seemed as though by natural law to have authority of prophesying, because the prophet was born of the loins of a prophet, as Hosea of Beeri, and Joel of Pethuel, etc., proceeded of seed, yet notwithstanding that the light of prophecy is more excellent than the light of natural reason. For touched by the divine Spirit they were moved now to apprehending, now to speaking, now to doing something, or to all three at once, according to the magnitude of the good which God willed to give through them, or preordained the pain of evil to amend by temporal vengeance. The people thereafter became so fastidious at the annunciation of the prophets that it neither profited to good nor cared to cease from evil. And also they, sometimes troubled in a vehement spirit, brought vengeance, as IV Kings ch. 1, of Elijah and the two fifties. Similarly of the same, III Kings ch. 18. In the same mode of Elisha and the boys mocking him, whom two bears coming from the grove slew, forty-two in number, as IV Kings ch. 2 about the end. And moreover sometimes they were moved against the Lord who sent them, troubled in spirit, as appears of the son of the widow named Amati, whom Elijah raised; who sitting under the ivy, seeing not the comminatory prophecy against the Assyrian Ninevites completed, was angry against and towards the Lord, as Joshua says.\nNow verily, in the time of grace, the Lord God has decreed to reveal gifts of this kind into the human kind through the womanly sex, which is soft and compassionate and bears pious bowels over the afflicted; so that, admonished by piety, we may rather be delighted to good, receding from evil, by the zeal of charity from piety, than by the liveries of chastisement from the terror of fear. This noble realm of France, I say, has suffered ruin of the superfluity of life and the abundance of bread, on account of the appearance of one woman (134). Now that the order of reparation may by merit answer to the prevarication of the offence, it is expedient to repair by a person fragile in sex but humble in life and devout to God, through the virgin, that which had been ruined through the woman. For France, in the pride of her swelling, extolled herself in power and arms above all the realms of the christians; terrified the neighbouring fatherlands to peace, as a lion; and when she roared, invaded and devastated lands; confiding too much in the wisdom of others’ counsels, as Achitophel; and in riches, as Baruch ch. 3, exalting herself to the stars; now verily prostrate on the earth, not able to rise again by her own power and fortitude of arms. That she may then fear God, and the more clearly recognise the sower of peace in all the powers of the reasonable creature, God disposed to raise her who could not rise of herself, since she has fallen and declined utterly to the depths.\nI feel that the little virgin in France is a sibyl. For by the apprehension of instinct, by the revelation of the spirit as to vision, by the persuasion of counsel, and by the determination of the deed in her own person, she sets ends to the things to be done and done, as blessed Thomas says in the Second of the second, ch. lxxiii, q. 9, last art. And hitherto she herself has ever been intent and agitated by the prophetical spirit of predestination, which must by all means come to pass. But since she shall have begun to expound the vision of the menacing prophecy, even if the penitence of the people, against whom she shall have denounced the divine terrors and the vengeances of justice, shall thenceforth not obtain the pre-opted effect and the longed-for end (for the spirit of the Lord more perfectly touches the hearts of the prophets and illumines their minds, as IV Kings ch. 20); it will be verisimilar that she will not fully obtain with the vulgar the authority and credence of divination, although she be a true sibyl, as her life and acts contest. For she frequently purges and purifies her conscience by pure confession, and is strengthened in the virtue of the spirit of wisdom in the perception of the Eucharist; humble and molestless in conversation and consenting to the good, she vehemently detests the rapine of the poor and the depression of pupils and orphans. Wherefore she holds the state of honour in France for so much time as she shall reveal the visions of the prophecy of promise. Now the Gallic nation flourishes in cunning. For it is more summery than the Allemannic; but the latter is stronger, because more abundant in blood; therefore it fears not wounds from so great a one, as Vegetius says De re militari, lib. I, ch. 2. For which cause I move the violent by exasperating presumption, that, when she shall have declined the mode of prophesying of predestination and promise, it shall cast off the yoke of the Lord, nor hear the voice of the prophet, shall deport the sibyl into exile, and at last with the nation of the Jews shall treasure up to itself evil in the day of the Lord’s fury, as appears from the canon of the Bible in many passages of the histories.\nNow on what kind of vision the aforesaid sibyl relies, the vulgar ceases not to ask. More than a year past, by a certain Frenchman of the Norbertine or Prémontré order coming to Laudun (135) with two horses as a pilgrim, I was in part taught. For she also contemplates by night the stars of heaven and measures the constellations. Yet I think that her sight is more towards the septentrion, and that thence she noted the stars of the Crown of nine stars, three of them more splendid, to wit the king of England, the dukes of Burgundy and Orléans, whom the Dolphin holds under his empire; Hercules standing genuflecting, having on his head and either shoulder a splendid star, the club (136) in the right, the lion’s skin in the left. Diligently she observed the lion of England to be crushed by the club of Hercules, and its power to be humbled; Cassiopeia quiescent in her seat in her thirteen stars, of which the first splendid in the head, so long as the daughter of the king of France stood matrimonially coupled to Henry king of England; the other great and splendid situate in the navel, since of the seed of the king of England she begat Henry, king of England, still established in puerile age, who also shall be lord of the sea, after the realms of Denmark, Sweden and Norway shall have been subjugated to the English lions. But Andromeda she revealed to be the queen of France, who glories in a constellation of twenty stars: in the head indeed a splendid one; for the firstborn of the Dolphin shall be more rutilant than the rest (137). At length both the hands of Andromeda are full of justice and truth; her steps upon the Lion and the Dragon.\nAnd this as to the first kind of vision. We should have set more of the same, as of Bellerophon, Helice and Phœnix, which are also called constellations. Similarly also of the stars, as Orion, Bootes and the Hyades, which appear more in springtime, and their significations and ostensions; which I have passed over for brevity’s cause, and the tedium of the labour, and the moderate fruit. Indeed this thing is constituted in labour, which for the most part is contemned. The star is said from standing, because it is fixed to the orb. Constellations are made of many stars, as the Hyades and Pleiades, by which the times of the year are discerned. Whence Ovid:\nThat we may be in Pontus, the Ister has thrice stood with cold, The risen Pleiad makes four autumns.\nThe poet sets part for whole, or autumn for year, by a synecdochic locution, etc. The great stars are the constellations, as Orion, Bootes, Arcturus in the præcordia of Bootes, and Arctophylax, who is also called the keeper of the planets, etc.\nBehold I have set the discretion on account of the wiser about the objected matter. For it is fair to speak of the soldiery of heaven, since the speech sparkles in the ears of them that hear; but the labour is egregious, for divine; for the astrologer is reputed a participator in the nature of the gods. Yet I will not that this our sibyl be connumbered among the planetarians, whom the Church disapproved, as caus. xxvi, qq. 2 and 3 throughout; but by the imaginary kind, doubt removed, she is not excluded: when being for the most part drawn out by sleep, or by a voice fallen from heaven, or by an accepted parable, corporally seeing things and their varieties, from which one elicits what the future event of battle or war will be; but by the intuit of the mind, so that she seems often to be set in ecstasy by the greatest, thus ministering truth to her revelations. For I doubt not that sometimes, with fasting stomach, through the natural day she considers and ponders the issues of things and the best ends, sometimes pursuing a solitary life, lest, that which is sought by the divine gift be lost by human conversation. For Parmenides the philosopher sat fifteen years on an Egyptian rock, that he might be free for the wisdom of natural things, sequestered from men.\nStill the vulgar vacillates suspended in admiration, whence this befalls, that our sibyl prophesies not of other realms or lands, provinces or duchies. I shall lightly give an ear-soothing response. The studious inquisitor ought to contemplate the Master of the Scholastic History on the correspondence of the books of Kings, the thirteenth chapter, of Isaiah the prophet, born of royal seed, who prophesied the Babylonian captivity under four kings. Similarly Jeremiah in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah began to prophesy even to the third year of Joachim king of Judah, in which the captivity was made. Now Ezekiel and Daniel under four kings of the Chaldeans, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, Cyrus. These four greater prophets looked to naught more than only the kings of the Jews, the captivity and their deliverance. Little was their care of the realms of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes and Persians, etc. At last the twelve lesser prophets prophesied only over the things to which they had been sent. Certain over the realm of Judah, that is of two tribes; certain over the realm of the Chaldeans; certain of the Medes; certain of the Assyrians: they prophesied each severally, and not each to each. So also and in like pace our sibyl looks only to the noble realm of France, and not the rest. Yet I have heard the relation of a certain one, who understood this same by ulterior fame, that the sibyl of France gave faithful testimony evidently of a certain other sibyl dwelling at Rome, whom she has never contemplated by corporal sight, by whom the realm of Bohemia was to be recovered. Behold an unaccustomed thing; wherefore worthy of admiration. Now what does this please, unless as though she should say that she is sent only for the realm of France, but that another is to be sent for another realm? Now as the Master in the histories relates, Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, merited in spirit to know the secrets of the prophets, because the world in flesh and full of faith. Marvel not then that the sibyl of France names another to come for another realm, describing the place of habitation and the disposition of the person: for she is the virgin of the Lord; she thinks the things that please God. That she may be chaste in mind, immaculate in spirit and body, her prophetical intellect, strengthened by the divine light, transgresses the corporal and the natural intellectual vision. For the corporal sight stands at the superficies of the seen body, and progresses not beyond. But the intellect by natural cognition stands at that which can be known from sensibles, so that it progresses also beyond. For this cause not by one and the same vision did all the prophets see. For certain denounced the future blinding of the Jews; certain the illumination of the gentiles; certain the final conversion of the Jews. Which all the Apostle commemorates in brief speech to the Romans, ch. xi, saying: Blindness in part has befallen in Israel, behold the first; until the fulness of the gentiles should enter, behold the second; and that all Israel should be saved, behold the third. Which shall be in the consummation of the world, and about the end of the world, when there shall be made one fold, that is the unity of the Church gathered in itself of all nations under the discipline of one faith; and one pastor, who set his soul for his sheep, which he marked in their fleeces by the aspersion of his blood, whom he shall lead to the fonts of life and the green pastures; who God and man born of the Virgin, lives and reigns in the ages of ages, amen.\nAlbeit my style redolent not the Italian eloquence, but in an uncultivated speech I have depicted these truths, and moreover with a hand tedious of the reed, yet not by that the less fruitful. He who shall have decorticated the spread grain, shall find marrow-deep the fecundity of its sweetness. The considerations of the soothsayers and mathematicians, who in exploring the nativities of men contend to arrive even to the atom, and also the influences of the heavens and stars, and the speeches on the harvest of the king of the Franks both of peace and of war — whoever shall will to speculate, labouring through lugubrious nights, shall arrive at the evident experience of all the premises, which is the directress of things and the most efficacious mistress. But since I am a christian, there is to me no care of such things; but let the things which have been said suffice for the present.\nHERE ENDS THE FIRST SCROLL OF THE SIBYLLA FRANCICA.\nSIBYLLA FRANCICA. # SCROLL II.\nGod illumines every man coming into this world (as De hœreticis, cap. Cum ex injuncto); and the things which are said in darkness shall be produced into light; since naught is covered which shall not be revealed, and hidden which shall not be known. Before all things I supplicate that you attend, be not to me the most exacting exactors, but sustain somewhat the little of my insipience; support me in charity. For the things which I write, behold before God, who is witness of the pure conscience, which honours the magisterium and makes republics to be blessed (as De consolatione philosophiæ, lib. I, prosa 4, after the beginning), I testify are not feigned. I proceed only among so many things to inquire the truth, and in suspended doubt to choose the safer path (as De homicidio, cap. Ad audientiam), as of the sibyl of the realm and dominion of France, of which lately I persuaded certain things in a scroll, which I transmitted to your reverence. Now because I seem to fable things contrary to the priors, for this I pray I be not cursed, as he who enters the land by two ways is named accursed by the testimony of the law, as De apostatis, cap. Quidam.\nFabling, I lately sat, the ninth day of the month of September, by night, in a certain castle, about the hearth in collation with a certain doctor of law. Who among the rest related that he had newly come by sea from the realm of England; and of his own motion began to fame of the sibyl of France, and that among very many her deeds were detested, and not undeservedly. For revolving the books of the Old and New Testaments, nowhere is it read to be licit for a woman in the male habit, and chiefly in arms, to war. Wherefore the argument of the wise would be against the same, because led not by a good spirit she would attempt and prosecute things of such kind: but nay more strongly, by the faith of many, she would work such marvels hither and thither by magical arts and diabolical suggestions, etc.\nTo which I answered, albeit insufficient:\n— I contest by the prohibition of the law (as in Deuter. xxii ch.) that it becomes not a woman to bear the male habit, nor vice versa, lest the rite of the gentiles be approved by the customs of the faithful. For the gentile women, that they might consecrate the sacred temples of Mars by their libations, bore arms and were vested in the garments of men; and on the contrary men attended to the distaff and spindles for the honour of Venus, the goddess consecrated to love. For the works of the illicit thing, so exhibited and noted with vice, are utterly to be punished; both because the outward cult ought to compete to the condition of the person, after the common custom. Nevertheless, as blessed Thomas says in the Summa, q. lxix, art. 2, this can be done without sin for cause of necessity, or on occasion of hiding from enemies, or of another reasonable cause. Whence deservedly it is most often read that women changed their wonted habits, as Tamar at the crossroads, Genesis ch. xxxviii.\nHe answered: — But not into the womanly.\n— And moreover, as blessed Jerome relates in the book Vitæ Patrum, of brother Marinus, who, his sex and habit denied, assumed religion, his feminine name being changed to a masculine. Then because the virgin was a loving daughter to her father, who entered religion; and she sighing to the same, denied the name Marina, and moreover the womanly sex, and said she was Marinus a male, etc. And to blessed Jerome the Church stands as to an asserter of truth, as pope Gelasius relates in dist. xli, can. Sancta Romana, in which also the same book, to wit Vitæ Patrum, is approved by the Church by the testimony of seventy-two bishops. And if it pleased God that the virgin Marina warred in the spiritual male habit, when nevertheless certa spiritual things ought not to be intercepted by any fraud or guile: how much more does this virgin sibyl not offend in warlike arms; but shall be able to war for defending and forewarning for the republic and the common good?\nAnd I marvel that one so famous in prosperous acts and deeds is not proved of what spirit she is; and that things so arduous and stupendous are neglected to be examined and proved by the Church. Indeed, since negligence hurts the soul and is the stepmother of the divine discipline (as in Auth. coll. VI De quæstore § Hæc omnia), the Church would be in fault if she should pass through dissimulating these things, since dissimulation is sometimes a mortal sin. Which nevertheless be far away. For the holy, immaculate and unwrinkled virgin mother is the Church, as in Clem. De summa Trinitate et fide, etc. Wherefore I am moved to excuse the virgin sibyl only from the relation of good odour and fame, which I have learned from the speeches of very many, by these writings: yet with protestation saved, that, if her deeds should be reprehended by the sacrosanct Roman Church, which by the Lord disposing is the directress and mistress of the others and of all the faithful (as De summa Trinitate, cap. Damnamus\n(126) Reading of Goldast and of Du Pin. One would better understand missionem.\n(127) These names, probably left blank in the author’s manuscript, could not since be supplied. The Vatican manuscript presents at this place the same lacuna as Goldast’s printed edition.\n(128) That is to say Sigibertus, a frequent alteration in the middle ages of the name of Sigebert of Gembloux.\n(129) We correct this member of the phrase after the Vatican manuscript, which bears quem mars proyenitet Romuli dicacit verbi. Goldast set in his edition quem Mars progenie et Romuli ditavit urbe.\n(130) This saint, whose visions were examined and approved at the council of Trier, died on the 17th of September 1180. She began to be honoured only in the fifteenth century.\n(131) Pinguïa, Bingen. It was indeed in the monastery of St Robert, under the walls of Bingen, that the relics of St Hildegard were kept until the Thirty Years’ War. Acta SS. Bolland. September, t. V, p. 67.\n(132) Error of date: St Bridget died on the 8th of October 1373. Her predictions were approved by the council of Basel, which even declared them worthy to be commented on in the chairs of theology; they were thus one of the most widespread books at the beginning of printing. Editions were made in all languages. On the vogue which they enjoyed long before receiving the solemn approbation of the Church, see the Acta SS. of the Bollandists, t. IV of October, p. 400. Jouvenel des Ursins reports that in 1414 an ambassador of the king of England, the bishop of Norwich, harangued Charles VI relying on a quotation from St Bridget, wherein it was contained that by the prayers and orisons of mons. St Denis, patron of the French, the princes of the lineages of France and of England, by right, ought to have firm and stable peace.\n(133) Reading of Goldast’s edition, no less vicious in the Vatican manuscript, which bears numquam in consuetum fieri plus solite.\n(134) Allusion to Queen Isabeau de Bavière. Compare the analogous terms of the deposition of Catherine Leroyer: Prophecy… militèrent deperditioni, etc., t. II, p. 141 of this work.\n(135) Doubtless Laudun, in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.\n(136) Reading of Goldast and of the Vatican ms. Correct rhopalon.\n(137) This prediction applies to the child who was afterwards Louis XI. He was seven years old in 1429. See further on, p. 465, another version of the same oracle.\n…, penultimate §), or by whomsoever having authority from the same, who should detest things of this kind as pernicious and contrary to the catholic faith, I reprehend and detest all and singular, as is premised, done by the aforesaid sibyl, or in any wise to be done in future, as void and superstitious, from these my writings and my own hand. For even if an Angel from heaven should evangelise to me another mandate than what the Church approves and establishes (Ad Galatas, ch. i, v. 8), I would not believe him. For I know that Satan also sometimes transfers himself into an Angel of light, so that he may be able to ensnare the miserable souls of the doubting; and he has knowledge of many things, as appears from the sentences of Isidore, book II of the Sentences, dist. 8, saying: By a triple acumen the malign spirit is known to flourish; by the subtlety of nature, because albeit lapsed from grace, yet not despoiled of nature; by experience, which is the effecting mistress of things (as De electione, c. Quid sit ecclesiis, book VI), which also is wont to constitute the untaught wise; and by the divine permission, as in blessed Job, Antony, etc. Whence for deluding he sets hidden snares, that he may be able to seduce, nay even sometimes sets the elect in error.\nYet it seems to me that this sibyl is not impelled by the prestiges of the malign spirit; otherwise she would by no means flee the legal pains, as C. De maleficis, l. Nullus, l. Nemo, l. Culpa. For she would be to be struck with the sword or burned with fire (in Inst. De publicis judiciis, § Eadem lege); where after Accursius, Azo and Bulgarus, by the Cornelian law on assassins, poisoners who publicly sold evil medicaments, so that man was extinguished by poison as by the sword, who are called assassins (as De homicidio, c. Pro humani, book VI), by which not only the death of bodies but also the peril of souls is procreated; and the whisperers, that is enchanters, and the rest insisting on odious arts, walk in like pace to the fining of pains. But nay rather of her merits, the sanctions of the laws requiring, if she should be caught noxious, she would be lethally punished, albeit the canons more mildly inflict a pain of forty days for penitence, as De sortilegiis, c. In tabulis, etc.\nYet I will premise certain arguments for knowing the diabolic arts, whence at length a presumption of the sibyl may be the more efficaciously had; first only presupposing the little treatise on superstitions of the venerable master Nicolai Jayr, doctor of the sacred page of the bounteous University of Heidelberg, whose fame and life is glorified by multimodal titles of lauds, and whose writings are deservedly approved by the Church, since from its unity by the integrity of the faith he seems not to have made digression. But also because the same little book is common in this fatherland, and known as its author, for that cause I pass it over, and presuppose in truth the things woven in it, willing to render some obedience to certain things which I find not set in the same.\nSolinus in the second book De mirabilibus mundi says: The first voice of the newborn is wailing; for the joy of the living is deferred to the fortieth day, the mother’s pains being loosed and purged. Now only Zoroastres is read to have laughed in the same hour in which he was born. Nor is this a good sign by the indication of futures: for he was the first inventor of the magical art; for he invented iconias, that is images, on which this art is considered to rely.\nIt remains nevertheless that the iconic similitudes mix astrology and necromancy, superstitious faculties; but with a cult sometimes disparate. For the iconia of each art retains its operative force. Moreover the commentator recites upon the Centiloquy of Ptolemy (who, as the Histories of Realms hand down, stood a marvellous man in the mathematics; for he added more to astronomy than he found written before him. He was an advocate of Alexandria, and with astronomical instruments observed the stars in the time of Pius Antoninus the emperor, who was also related among the divinities, and as Romulus was worshipped by the Romans. For he was son-in-law of the tyrant Hadrian, who made the fourth persecution of the Church. He was, I say, in the island of Rhodes, where naval commerces were formerly treated: whence the Rhodian law took its exordium, as De consecratione dist. iii, can. Rhodiæ leges, and ff. De lege Rhodia de jactu, l. Si laborante, § Si conservatis, etc. For of moderate stature, white in colour, strong of anger, of little food, having a redolent breath, and shining garments; and he composed many books, the Almagest, the Perspective and the Centiloquy, etc., and lived eighty-eight years. These proverbs of his are borne: Among men he stands higher, who cares not in whose hand the world is. Likewise: The last promises of a man are hoary, etc.) that he saw a certain one who sculpted the figure of a scorpion, the moon existing in the sign of the scorpion, and whosoever afterwards had an impression of it, whether in incense or in wax, was cured of the bite of the scorpion.\nMaster Robert Holkot, an Englishman, narrates in like manner how in his times a certain one was in London, having the image of a golden lion fabricated after certain constellations. By means whereof they were cured who laboured of the quartan fever. This he in the fifty-second question, about the book of the Wisdom of Solomon. Place the reason whereof. For, as the Experimentator says after the division of the triple kind of the lion, the lion is the driest of animals, and of all quadrupeds its fat is the hottest, and is shaken together with quartan fevers. Wherefore the figure of the lion under the influence of the thirteen stars describing the sign of the lion seems to afford remedy against the leonine fevers, that is the quartans. For the scorpion in theriac heals the bite of the scorpion, as the Philosopher witnesses in the book De pomo, saying: Logic avails the philosopher as much as the scorpion in theriac, which alone profits them that are struck by scorpions, and not the sane; so alone against the sophists logic avails, and not them that nakedly inquire the truth.\nBehold these figures had efficacious operations, the egregious masters afore-mentioned witnessing. When nevertheless the illustrated reason persuades that artificial images can attain no truth from art, nor have any from the celestial bodies, unless such as they should have by reason of nature and the substantial form. For the figure which the thing imprints causes not the principle of altering.\nWherefore it appears that such figures, as of the scorpion and the lion, are invented by demons through hidden pacts by reason of certain characters impressed on them, and consecrated to the same demons, as they were so. For only in this do astrological and necromantic iconias seem to differ, that these are expressed by hidden pacts, but those by public, invoking the virtue of demons, are confected and fabricated by artificers. Now the mathematicians sometimes use iconias, or the similitudes of figures congruent to that art. But these seem to have in them a certain oracle of divinity; which most openly appears by the lord Albertus Magnus in his Prestiges. Those also blessed Augustine confesses in the IV book of the Confessions to have fabricated, saying: Those planetarians, whom they call mathematicians, I ceased not to consult. And the same, caus. xxvi, question ii, can. Illos planetarios.\nAgain, astrology is distinguished from astronomy. For, Hugh witnessing in the Didascalicon, lib. II, c. 11, Astronomy investigates of the law and habitude of the stars in their motions, sites, dispositions of orbs, and their quantities and proportions, by demonstrative processes; from which it predicts future eclipses, conjunctions and the other predications of stars. And this is one of the seven liberal arts, which elevates the human intellect to the consideration of the most excellent work of God, which is the wondrous fabric and hall of the noble heavens. But astrology observes the conditions and habitudes of the stars and the parts of heaven, and considers them as causes and signs of future events. And that is partly natural, partly superstitious. Natural in the complexions of the elements and other bodies, which after the temperance of the superiors are varied in health, sickness; tempest, serenity; fertility and sterility. But superstitious in these events which are subject to free will, which, as Hugh witnesses where above, the mathematicians treat; who in exploring the nativities of men contend to arrive even to the atom, while they distribute the zodiac circle into twelve signs, each sign into thirty parts, each part again into twelve points, each point into forty moments, the moments into sixty ostents, that they may the more diligently consider the partitions of the stars to catch, as it were without error, the fate of him who is born, as the lord Bede says, book De temporibus, ch. iii, etc. Behold how much labour and how frequent exercise this valid thing requires.\nThere are also mathematicians who consider matter abstracted from its quantity and the other accidents: whom Boethius calls the intelligent; who by speculating know the things under the lunar globe by the more blessed and prior intellect, which requires a great clarity of light of the intellect, etc. Yet blessed Augustine reproves astrology in the V book De civitate Dei, ch. 1 to the eighth; likewise the second De doctrina christiana, where he says: The motion of the stars is certain; but to will to predict from what motion the manners of the newborn and events, is a great error and a great dementia; etc. Sententially also he says of astronomy: Albeit the demonstration of the stars contains not superstition by itself; yet because it is familiar to the most pernicious error of the magicians, for that cause it is more commodiously and more honestly contemned by christians than learned. Also the prophet Isaiah detests it, ch. xlvii, vv. 11 and 13, where he speaks of the Babylonians and Chaldeans, among whom the consideration of the stars flourished: There shall come, he says, upon thee suddenly a misery which thou knowest not. Let the augurs of heaven stand and save thee, who contemplated the stars and computed the months. Likewise the Apostle to the Galatians, ch. iv, v. 9, says: How are you converted again to the infirm and egenous elements, to which you will again to serve. You observe days and months and times and years. I fear you lest perchance I have laboured in you without cause. Albeit after blessed Jerome and the ordinary Gloss upon the same passage, this letter is taken of the ceremonies of the judaising, yet not inconveniently, after master Henri de Hassia, can it be understood of astrological things nakedly to the letter.\nNow it is to be known that where I have set image, figure or similitude, always understand nakedly iconia, which term iconia is proper to this art; but for the better understanding I have added the concomitant, as is figure, image or similitude, etc. For upon such iconias the virgin sibyl of France is not heard to intend, nor has any fame ever besprinkled her as suspect and to be noted of such kind.\nMoreover necromancy verisimilarly fabricates images, which we call idols. Now necromancy, pyromancy, hydromancy, geomancy, spatulomancy (138), etc., were invented by demons, by which from of old the hearts of the gentiles given to vanity were prohibited, being impeded from the cult of the one true God. And those arts, after blessed Augustine, are inspired into men by demons from a certain familiarity, by which they are deceived when they converse with them, by the divine permission, on account of the manifold kinds of their sins. For certain things which are revealed to men by demons contain the express invocation of demons, as appears of the mode of enclosing the malign spirit, where a certain pact and promise is required, sometimes under a chirograph, sometimes in one’s own blood, sometimes in renunciation of the faith and detestation of the name of Jesus Christ, etc. Now the idol being fabricated, if anyone will to foreknow certain future effects, it is necessary for him to offer a holocaust, adoration being adjoined with unknown words. For such words are so truncated that neither Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean, Arabic nor Syriac could interpret their virtue. But it seems to me that these prayers, under the tenor of obscure words, are collected by the astuteness of the demon from divers languages into one, so that the worshipper of the idol may not understand the mysteries and the force of the words of such kind. Now the holocaust and adoration being completed, the fallacious deluder and father of lying exhibits his presence. O how great a holocaust offered Gilbert (139), who was the preceptor of Otto the emperor and of Robert king of France (who published the sequences of the Holy Spirit, and another Veni Sancte Spiritus, and stood an illuminated and learned king), and was also author of the six principles which the dialecticians formerly used! For the same ambitiously sought divers honours. For first he held the chair of the Church of Reims; at length translated to Ravenna; lastly made pope, named Sylvester in his obedience. Yet primitively, when he was a monk of the convent of Fleury, over which presided the abbot Joachim, as De summa Trinitate, cap. Damnamus, made an apostate, he did homage to the devil for the ambition of honour, and handed himself over to him. At length nevertheless, his members being incised, the trunk of the body set on a beast, he was borne to St John Lateran at Rome, and there buried (140).\nIn like manner it is narrated of the lord Albert, surnamed Regmersdorf, bishop of the church of Halberstadt, who was a great sophist (which shines again in his sophisms, which among the scholastics in the Universities of Rostock (141), Oxford, Erfurt and Leipzig are most frequently frequented). The same, while he was in his castle of Grüningen (142), situate at the distance of a great mile from the city of Halberstadt, in the time of the strife and war of the illustrious dukes of Brunswick (143), had an enclosed spirit, whom he consulted, and to whom he exhibited holocaust and adoration. Who answered the consulter: Lord, be secure; thine enemies shall be subjected; and in the same night, sleep being heavy, the aforesaid castle was taken by the dukes and burned.\nBehold the fallacious deluder, the express invocation of the demon with a mendacious deception. Sometimes nevertheless not fallaciously but veraciously he gives responses after the order of the thing and the series of events, as befell the venerable lord John the Teuton, doctor of both laws, whom the lord Gaspar Caldrini alleged in his writings, in the treatise De decimis, etc.; who was provost of the church\n(138) The Vatican manuscript gives spatumancia, but the correction spatulomantia emerges from the explanation given further on (p. 458) of this kind of divination. Spatulomantia is wanting in the glossary of Du Cange.\n(139) That is to say Gerbert.\n(140) It is long since criticism has purged history of these puerile fables. See the Apologie des grands-hommes accusés de magie, by G. Naudé, and the Histoire littéraire de France, tome VI.\n(141) The Vatican manuscript gives Rostagtzensi. It is Rostock, in Mecklenburg.\n(142) Brunyngin, in the Vatican manuscript.\nof greater Halberstadt, and a fervent disciple of this discipline. Once in the sacred night of the Nativity of the Lord he read the lessons of the nocturnal office in the Cologne, Magdeburg and Halberstadt churches; relying on the authority of the magical art, as by a spiritual motion, the same cold old man, subtly journeying through the air in the space of three hours, exhibited his personal and corporal presence in the three aforesaid places distant from each other. He had also an enclosed spirit, whom he compelled by exorcism to responses.\nIt is also said that, while he insisted on the precepts of the exorcism against the enclosed spirit, and heard a priest with a lamp and the sacrament of the Eucharist pass by his house, after the honorary constitution De celebratione missæ, c. Sane, he bent his knees, reverently inclining himself to the sacrament. Now the same little shade in the glass vessel was discerned to do likewise. And because the incautious priest had only one part in the pyx, which he communicated entire to the sick man, and on his return induced and permitted the people to idolatrise: the lord John hearing the lamp, bent his knees. Smiling, the spirit said: The house is empty, and the guest has gone out. Passing, the provost looked into the pyx in which the sacrament was being borne, and found it empty. Behold he gave truth to his responses. The same lord John the Teuton was a marvellous operator of the magical art. He built indeed a certain thunder-veil (144) of the greatest square-cut stones under the earth, in which I also have been, the first truth witnessing; where he diligently attended to the exercises of the aforesaid art, and explored and demonstrated many experiences in the events of things thereupon.\nSometimes also they are deceived who study in the magical art, not indeed by those demons whom they worship and invoke; but by their princes, who are more powerful than the others. Whence while a certain German was journeying to St James, when he had come to the realm of Navarre, he met a certain necromancer, who said to the pilgrim: I see thou art in peril of death; but if thou wilt repay me a reward, I shall save thy life. The German promised. The necromancer therefore led the pilgrim into a certain town, and in the chamber prepared him a bath, and while he was in the water of the bath, he set before him a delectable mirror, which the magicians are wont to use, and asked of him what he saw. The pilgrim answered: I see in my house my wife, and a man with her. Then the necromancer had formed a certain image of virgin wax, and again said to the pilgrim: What seest thou in the mirror? He answered: I see a certain clerk standing with a bow stretched and an arrow set, that he may shoot thy waxen image. Then the necromancer, expounding to him the deed, said: The waxen image is thine image. Now thy wife and the clerk her lover agree in this that they slay thee; because if the clerk shall be able to shoot that image, thou art dead. Guard then thyself, and when he begins to draw the bow, immerse thyself wholly under the water of the bath in which thou standest. Do this a third time, because he cannot shoot more. Which being done the pilgrim raised himself from the water, and again looking in the mirror, saw how the wife with the handmaid buried that clerk, dead of a sudden death, in a certain stable. The German therefore paid the necromancer the reward, and his pilgrimage accomplished, returning home, perceived the things which he had seen in the mirror completed in deed. Whence it appears that that necromancer of Navarre had a demon superior to that which the clerk had at home with the pilgrim’s wife. And so that clerk was deceived not indeed by his own demon, but by the superior, as appears.\nI think it not to be passed over in silence that many simple ones are deluded by the magical arts, by no means ascribing authority to the suggestions of the demons, for the reason that they understand not the mysteries of the pacts and their hidden causalities, but sometimes believe things of this kind to come to pass by chance, sometimes by natural progress. As that which Palladius relates De agricultura, lib. I, where treating of doves he says: The doves perish not, nor desert the place, if through all the windows something of the wood or the bond of a strangled man be suspended. All such things look to certain pacts constituted of old between men and demons, and many other things which are frequented by old women in common uses, as are the medications (145) which they make with poplars and a measuring-rod of seven feet in length upon the head of a sick man, for recovering lost things (146): as those who suffer the cholic passion, which is called by old women the pregnant woman, and them that suffer turrets, pustules or ulcers of the lung. For with the length of the crucified one they strive to cure, proffering words whose significations are well known to the devil; and maledictions, which they have for benedictions, into the remedy of the amaror of the bowel or the vecordial passion; and exorcisms whereby they compel the amarons (147) to return in the morning and seek fire before the sun’s rising; and incantations whereby they procure sometimes the intent sterility, sometimes fecundity, or the impotence of coition (as caus. xxxiii, q. 1, can. Si per sortiarias), by deprecations and immolations and exorcisms of lights kindled in praise of the idol, which they worship under an unknown name, believing it the name of God; yet it more truly represents the name of the devil. For the malign spirit, as is clear in many passages of the sacred Scripture, greatly affects latria, servitude and the honour of the creator. For this cause when he is adored, and this from the intention and confidence of the magician, he makes sometimes unaccustomed and marvellous things; as we have here to intersert a long history, which is not a fable but a thing done, at which I also was personally present in the territory of Mainz (148), about twenty years having flowed by, how the malign spirit supplied the office of a midwife, and the infant being born, deported the same into another house, guarding its mother and forewarning her from infamy. Afterwards the mother revoking the homage by penitence, it besieged her. At length liberated, she exposed to all the series of the thing of adoration, immolation, holocausts and pacts entered between them. Whence from the evidence of the deed an argument is taken, how and wherefore the iniquitous spirit suborns very many deceptions and fallacies; although the human kind obstinate in sins least perceives the lurking snares of the enemies.\nFor every superstitious thing, as blessed Augustine says, lib. II De doctrina christiana, making for worshipping, or for consultations, or for tacit or express pacts bargained and federated with the demons themselves, against the cult of the true religion of one God and faith, is to be eliminated by the Church. Chiefly the volumes of the magical arts, and the ligatures of sicknesses, which the discipline of the physicians condemns, whether in prayers, or in words, or also in figures, which they call characters; as the Master of the histories relates, of the correspondence of the Gospels, how in the presence of the renowned Vespasian, while he was in the siege of the city of Jerusalem, a certain Jew by exorcisms confected by Solomon ejected demons, chiefly applying to the nostrils of the obsessed the root of a certain herb, which the old women call the herb of St John. For what cause this was sinning, it pleases to know. I answer: it stands that Solomon was sometimes an idolater; whence it is possible that his exorcisms were ordained by demons, and therefore are illicit. For upon such characters no virtue from the stars or planets can be imprinted, as I foretold, since they are not distinct things figured. But if there is imprinted upon them a virtue on account of the figure or character or the authority of words, as here, this is naught but through pacts of demons instituted of old. For by a great pact the evil spirit inflexed Solomon to idolatrise. For as a just king erects the earth, Proverbs ch. xxix, and directs all the people subject to him in the way of the Lord, because the heart of the holy king is inscrutable of high counsels, Proverbs ch. xv, so the iniquitous king makes all the people delinquent in the law of God, etc.\nNow they who have pythons study the magical art in prayers. For the pythonic art is firstly in the raising of the dead, that he may give responses, or the devil in his likeness, as is I Kings, ch. xxviii. Saul consulted the Lord, who answered him neither by priests, nor prophets, nor dreams. He approached the pythoness, prayers and pacts being voluntarily entered with her. Lifting himself up, the devil appeared in the likeness of Samuel, and straightway sent himself to be adored (which Samuel would not have done), saying: To-morrow thou shalt be with me; and consequently he prophesied the issue of the war and true things, because future contingents, hidden to us, are permitted sometimes to be predicted by the divine ordination. Moreover, from this that Saul was not worthy to have responsion from any of the prophets living, so much the less prodigally would he have merited responses from any of the prophets dead, chiefly of Samuel, the most eximious of all the prophets, postulated from the Lord. Yet willing more fully to know the pythonic divination subjected to the error of the magical art and equally condemned, let the prudent reader recur to the Epistles of blessed Augustine, epist. ii, to Felician, and he will find a copious matter, which for brevity’s cause I pass over. Similarly in caus. xxvi, q. 5, can. Nec mirum, where also of the rods of the magicians in Egypt, etc.\nI have seen and heard in the mountains of Styria and Carinthia women having pythons. And near the town of Prunecke, of the diocese of Brixen, there was a certain old woman diligently intent on prayers and diabolic holocausts, who in a time of serenity, the sun inflecting its course about the tropic of Cancer, raised a most savage tempest with lightnings and coruscations and no small hail, through the spaces of certain fields, willing to avenge herself on her adversaries. At length indeed, caught and vanquished by her own confession, she was given living to the fires. Which I think was done not yet twelve years past. I have seen several obsessed and fatigued by the malign spirit in those fatherlands. For the worst people of these lands for the most part delights in curious superstitions. The competently taught clergy prohibits not the people, but dissimulates.\nAbout divination many things are to be considered. For certain divine in a dead python, as I have now foresaid; certain in a living one, as the arrecticii, who only know the variable qualities of the times, the light of the sun alone being considered: for Python Apollo, after Isidore, is said to have been the author of divining; certain in fire, as the pyromantics; certain in the air, as the aeromantics; certain in water, as the hydromantics; certain in the viscera of immolated animals, as the aruspices; certain about the sites and motions of the stars, as the genethliacs, observing the considerations of natal days; certain about the garritus of birds, as the augurs, of whom much in the poets; certain about the words of men prolated beyond intention, which they retort to something future, which they think to foreknow thence. And these are called ominor, as Maximus Valerius relates, saying: The observation of omens is connected by some contact of religion, since it is believed to stand not by fortuitous motion but by divine providence; as, the Romans deliberating whether they should migrate to another place, by chance at that time a certain centurion cried: Standard-bearer, plant the standard; here we shall best remain. Which voice heard they took for an omen, relaxing the counsel of passing. Now certain from the inspection of hands, as the chiromantics; certain from the shoulder-blades of animals, certain flowers appearing thence, who are called spatulomantics; certain from the stars, as the astrologers; certain from dreams.\nBut of dreams the cause is twofold: interior, and this is twofold: one indeed essential, in so far as it intervenes in the man’s fantasies in sleeping, in which his cogitation and affection had lingered waking. And such a cause of dreams is the cause of future events; whence dreams of this kind are accidentally related to future events. If sometimes they concur together, it will be casual. Albeit the intrinsic cause of dreams is the corporal cause; for from the interior disposition of the body, a certain motion is formed in the fantasy, convenient to such disposition: as to a man in whom cold humours abound, it shall occur in dreams that he is in water or snow. Similarly choler abounding too much in the body, the man suffers dreams of fires; as the lord Albert narrates that he had a certain dream, that burning pitch was in his belly. The cause was, because black choler dominated in him. Rising from sleep he emitted black choler in great quantity, etc. And for this the physicians say that dreams are to be intended, for cognising the interior dispositions.\nNow the exterior cause of dreams is similarly twofold; corporal, in so far as the imagination of the sleeper is changed either by the contingent air or by the impression of the celestial body, so that certain fantasies may appear to the sleeper conformable to the celestial disposition. Now the spiritual cause is, sometimes indeed from God, who by the ministry of Angels reveals certain things to men in dreams, after that of Numbers xii: If anyone among you shall be a prophet, in vision I shall appear to him, and by dream I shall speak to him; sometimes also from the devil on account of tacit or express pacts, entered or to be entered, as Matth. ch. xxvii, of Pilate’s wife.\nYet the Philosopher determines three kinds of men frequently to have significative dreams. The first the frenetic, that is the idiots, who are not solicitous about terrene things nor about themselves, and therefore well feel the extraneous motions of the celestial bodies, as certain birds and beasts forefeel rain and things of this kind. The second the melancholies, who are imaginative, and commonly the inventors of arts. For they are naturally cold and dry: therefore the impression of the simulacra becomes naturally stronger, since indeed their brain is naturally white and\n(143) It is here a question of the war which William and Henri of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel made against their uncle Bernard of Brunswick-Lunebourg, which war lasted from 1416 to 1428.\n(144) The reading is the same in the manuscript and in the printed text as to the two words tonitru vélum; but the beginning of the phrase differs in the manuscript, which bears: edificavit quidam quotam. t. e. It is impossible to understand either the one or the other. Some word of the hermetic tongue, having the sense of laboratory, must hide beneath the expressions tonitru and vélum.\n(145) Mensiona, in the edition of Goldast.\n(146) In the manuscript: Et septem pedum longitudine recuperanda perdita.\n(147) For this word, as for all that precedes, the edition of Goldast and the manuscript are in desperate agreement.\n(148) Maiszensi in the manuscript.\nclear; wherefore they delight in light and clarity, and hate blackness and obscurity. They are the most expert authors of novel subtleties, as appears of Ptolemy, where above. The third are the lovers. Whence the Milesian poet:\nHe feigns the embraces, kisses, sights of the brother, Lastly figures the sweet work of Venus.\nFor love rests not, which has transverberated the marrows of hearts. In the absence of the beloved it contemplates, in his presence it rejoices. Now it plays in Fescennine songs words stammering in the manner of tender little boys, proffering the mysteries of secret things. Whence Ovid De remedio amoris:\nBy innumerable arts the mind of lovers is besieged, As a stone beaten on all sides by the waters of the sea.\nNow it pours forth the entangled words of them that stagger in the gulf. Whence Naso in the books of the Tristia:\nOften I bid farewell; again I have said many things, And as though departing I gave many kisses, etc.\nAnd if it shall please, I shall collect into one the hidden art of the poets of loving, the times being apt. In like manner you can take judgment of enmity, since the same discipline most often belongs to opposites.\nNevertheless since I have a little touched the species of the magical art and of divinations, unwilling to interpret each too expositorily: both because none could obtain fruits, and also, if by your negligence or inadvertence the present scroll should come to the hands of idiots, certain might attempt less sufficiently; whence could follow peril of bodies and souls, as befell at Erfurt not many years past. Certain were congregated in one conventicle (149), willing to prove an experience in necromancy, which they called an experiment, with lights made of virgin wax being kindled and consecrated. The adoration being made, when they ought to have offered the holocaust, they offered not duly. Wherefore two of them were found dead in the morning; and the third, bowed in hands and feet and head through one seat, after the custom of that fatherland, quadruped, anxiously tribulated, and that night made bald as though he were an old man of seventy years, when he was scarce thirty; whom I saw and knew, who also obliged himself by vow to will to be promoted to the priesthood. The same, called Johannes Lapicida, became a good organist, chaplain of the lord Bishop of Merseburg.\nYet I am silent for the present of many things, discerning of fewer; willing indeed to add one thing to the premises of the notory art, which is of the acquiring of knowledge, which is wont to be done with great abstinence, fasting and labour. And the followers of this kind take argument from the three boys and Daniel, who so merited discipline, and wisdom in every book, and the notice of future things. These therefore use certain characters, and observe fastings prohibited by the Church, to wit on the Lord’s days, as De consecratione, dist. iii, cc. Placuit and Jejunium and dist. xxx, c. Si quis presbyter. Also with prayers collected from the tongues of divers idioms, which no expert can understand; but it is presumed that they are pactionary with the iniquitous spirit, who blinds such in their malices, on account of the fervent desire which they have to such an art, so that they see not the way of truth, as the Psalmist says: The fire of vain concupiscence has fallen upon them, and they saw not the sun. Whom blessed Augustine detests (as in caus. xxvi, q. 2, c. Qui sine Salvatore) with the anathema of eternal damnation, and says it is the error of the magical arts. For they think not that the gift of knowledge is a gift of the Holy Spirit, which is given to one and denied to another (as I ad Cor. ch. xii, Divisiones gratiarum, etc.); which the Lord God conceded to Solomon by his ineffable liberality (as III Kings, ch. iii, and II Paralip. ch. iv, etc.); and promised to concede to his disciples (Luke ch. xxi: I shall give you a mouth and wisdom, etc.). It is expedient to serve him who has eternal wisdom to give; who knows when, to whom and how much he ought to give, according to the capacity, the committed office being faithfully executed to the common utility of the republic and the mutual participation of charity, etc.\nI knew a certain licentiate of the sacred page, who had no moderate notice of these arts. About seven years past he came with royal promotions to the lord duke Frederick of the house of Austria (who in the sacred council of Constance strove to deport the lord Balthazar de Cossa, called in his obedience John XXIII, into Italy; and sufficiently argued in him the jest which the most illustrious king Sigismund had played upon him); and had prayers for the bishopric of Trent. He made great costs and large expenses; at length retarded and neglected in the promotion, intercepted by the death of duke Ernest of Austria. The likeness, I say, of Priam shone again in him; of wondrous eloquence, and amiable to all the courtiers. Who, more joyful all his days, one night after the feast of St Martin, as I learned from his host, went more joyfully to bed. In the morning he was found dead, so that no wounds of death shone out at all. He left behind him one codex ever closed with an iron lock; and he esteemed it as a manual, because he confided it to none; whose key they found by his thigh-piece. The codex being opened, divers figures, characters, iconias and idols appeared written. The readers understood not. Called by the lord Ulrich, then chancellor of the aforenamed duke Frederick of Austria, now bishop of Brixen, I came, revolved the codex, and in the presence of the lord Duke interpreted one iconia. Lastly the same duke willed that I should proceed to the praxis, promising me a copious reward. But I excused myself as best I could. I persuaded him at last of a certain Goliard called Moreller. For in these things I should be insufficient. So that by the naked argument of reason I comprehended that the prelibated licentiate was a great magician and diviner. I said also to the aforesaid Ulrich the chancellor, from this that he went so joyfully to bed, and because perchance he grew warm with wine, he forgot to offer the evening sacrifice. Which being neglected, the evil spirit took to himself the sacrifice as his own, to wit the soul of the diviner, because every diviner, as the law of sacrifices says, is acceptable to the devil.\nNow by the common fame, which is the officious nurse of virtues and honours, and the sweet pupil of praise, as Virgil relates in the Æneid:\nFame, the ill than which no other is swifter, Flourishes by mobility, and acquires forces by going;\nand again in the same:\nEach has his day; brief and irreparable is the time Of life to all; but to extend fame…\nthis little virgin in the realm of France is praised by all in the profession of the catholic faith, and in the ceremonies is found supported; she venerates much the ecclesiastical sacraments; she is conversant in a laudable life; religious in acts and deeds; in the name of the Holy Trinity she undertakes all works how great soever, and brings them to the opted end; confirming peace, taking away the want of the poor, she loves pursuing justice; she requires naught of the vanities of the world, neither pomps nor riches. For if she intended to superstitious things, her conversation would manifest it, since she would fabricate iconias, idols or figures, etc., and offer holocausts to the devil, and adore him by prayers, unless by occasion of inspection, as I related in the first scroll, or because she is arrecticiate; then because she is puerile in conversation with the boys, whom she is wont most to love, she could be named reprehensible. For levity in every divine work is to be avoided, and the gravity of manners most greatly to be pondered, by the Saviour’s example, the Scripture relating. Yet I think, ampler information saved, that the thing done by her is of the divine ordination. Within a term, the Lord helping, she promised the restitution of the realm to the Dolphin, and that he should reign twenty years. But of his coronation naught certain is heard. But it is patent to all that the archbishop of Reims has to anoint the king of the Franks with the oil of the ampulla of St Remigius, which even to-day is said to be closed in the prelibated church of Reims. For each of the christian kings receives from a certain bishop the munus of consecration and unction, as Ex. De sacra unctione cap. Cum venisset, of which Hostiensis sets the cause. For the Hungarians, second after the king of France, are anointed by the archbishop of Strigonium; the Poles by the Cracovian; the Bohemians by the Pragatian, etc. But the king of the Romans is honoured with a triple crown. The first at Aix-la-Chapelle, of the diocese of Liège, by the archbishop of Cologne, of silver, that he may shine in eloquence, divine wisdom and the clarity of purity. The second of iron, by the archbishop of Milan, that he be a strong hammer against the heretical pravities, crushing the insanity of the enemies of the Church of God, as by iron all metals are tamed and fabricated. The third of gold, from the hand of the Supreme Pontiff in the church of the Fisherman, prince of the apostles, where the splendour of gold designates the ecclesiastical liberty, which he is held to guard with sincere faith, after the form of the oath which he ought to make to the Church before the coronation and to exhibit (as in Clem. De jurejurando, cap. Romani principis). In the last coronation he receives the munus of sacration and unction. Yet the Roman pontiff can commit to cardinals or bishops, who also outside the Roman city have to anoint and consecrate the king of the Romans, from certain reasons and legitimate causes occurring. I believe nevertheless that the illustrious Sigismund, king of the Romans, has not yet attained the last two coronations with their insignia; but of the first it is clear to all.\nLastly the sibyl of the realm of France prophesied: The twenty years being completed in the realm of France, the Dolphin shall sleep with his fathers. After him his firstborn son shall reign, now a boy of six years, who shall reign in ampler glory, honour and regal power than any of the kings of the Franks since the time of Charles the Great (in whom the sacred Empire was translated from the Greeks to the Latins, the election being directed into the Germans, about the year of the Lord DCCC, as in Gl. Ex. De electione, c. Venerabilem). She has, I say, the sibyl, a good spirit of prophesying, because of the good regimen of the republic, peace and concord, and the joyfulness of the times; which all in their kinds are good to the Church and reason. Wherefore it is argued that she has a good spirit in God.\nWith greater stupor, I say, the divine miracles are named worthy of admiration, when things of this kind are hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed to little ones. As sixteen years past, the sound went out into every land of a certain virgin in Brabant, by name Ludewigis, who shone with wondrous sanctity, and the Lord worked great prodigies through her, as I was then taught by the relation of those who saw her and narrated her signs; for who shall find a strong woman afar from the uttermost ends of the parts of the earth? For from the sun’s rising and setting, from the north and the south, the name of the Lord is preached admirable in these two little girls in the fortitude of the divine virtue, which exalts the humble and deposes the proud, that we may know that the Lord has chosen not many noble and powerful, wise and rich of this world, but the things which are infirm, that he may confound the strong; who in the perfect Trinity lives and reigns God in the ages of ages. Amen.\nTHIS SCROLL WAS FINISHED IN THE YEAR 1429, THE SEVENTEENTH OF THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, IN THE ROMAN SILVER INDICTION VII.\nThis second scroll, venerable lord and gracious favourer, master Pierre de Grumbach (150), custos of the church of St Germain without the walls of Speyer, vicar-general of the most reverend father in Christ our lord Raban, bishop of the Church of Speyer, under the best confidence without the will of any evil (but your missive extorted this same from me), I have cared to transmit; committing to consult, ruminate, correct and judge whether it be licit to communicate to many what cannot profit all. The little spark of my puerile reason has invested your mandatory authority with the insignia of the goddess Vesta, to execute the things which are known to be charred by the duty of the style. This little work I think to have offered into the temple of Vesta. It pleases the consecrated goddess that the little page rejoice in versified little letters (151). But if it shall be needful with a sharper reed as with a ploughshare (152), from a higher matter, the subject seems to be discoursed with the patent nail of knowledge, deeply fixed (153), that to wit (154) to the four parts of the wheel of Fortune I should extend the victory of wars, and the recovery of the realm of the Franks to be designated from the same. The faculty of Vesta is commended by Horace, II of the Epistles to Julius Florus. And not undeservedly; since it becomes not the empire to stand without reason, which plants authority, strengthens realms and augments republics:\nAt Rome it befel me to consult, and to be taught, etc. And let them be turned still within the penetralia of Vesta Obscured long. The good people shall be made, and shall Proffer into light the specious vocables of things, etc.\nThe same referring in the epistle to Cæsar, Since thou sustainest so many, etc.:\nOften by night I demand the reed, the papers and the cases. We write, untaught and taught, poems everywhere.\nLet simplicity excuse, where the poverty of letters reigns; let benignity catch what pure truth offers: between both charity shall germinate.\n(149) Secret committee, conventicle.\n(150) In the manuscript, Buumbach.\n(151) In the edition of Goldast, ut paupella litterula gaudeat carminantù.\n(152) In the manuscript: Sin autem arundine amieiori quia…\n(153) Or rather videbor?\n(154) Goldast sets stylum instead of scilicet.\n","date":"7 July 1456","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/jean-brehal/the-trial-of-rehabilitation-of-joan-of-arc/","section":"Writings","summary":"","title":"The Trial of Rehabilitation of Joan of Arc","type":"writings"},{"content":"Pierre Cauchon was a French bishop, canon lawyer and political figure, best known for presiding over Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s Trial of Condemnation at Rouen in 1431. His close ties to the Anglo-Burgundian cause during the Hundred Years\u0026rsquo; War, combined with the central role he played in the proceedings that led to Joan\u0026rsquo;s execution, made him one of the most controversial churchmen in fifteenth-century France.\n","date":"30 May 1431","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/pierre-cauchon/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Pierre Cauchon","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"Translated from Jules Quicherat (ed.), Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc, dite La Pucelle, tome I (Paris: Jules Renouard, Société de l’Histoire de France, 1841).\nStatement of the Case and Preliminaries # In the Name of the Lord, Amen # Here begin the proceedings in a matter of faith against a certain woman, Joan, now deceased, commonly called the Maid.\nTo all who shall inspect these present letters or this present public instrument, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Le Maistre, of the Order of Friars Preachers, a man of great piety and circumspection, by Master Jean Graverent, an eminent professor of sacred theology of the same order, Inquisitor of the faith and of heretical depravity in the whole kingdom of France, appointed by apostolic authority, in the diocese of Rouen, and specially appointed and committed by the same Lord Inquisitor for the present proceedings, greetings in the author and finisher of faith, our Lord Jesus Christ. It pleased divine providence that a certain woman, named Joan, who is commonly called the Maid, was captured and apprehended within the boundaries and limits of our diocese and jurisdiction, the aforesaid bishop, by illustrious military men. For a rumor had already spread in many places that this woman, entirely forgetful of that modesty which befits the female sex, having broken the reins of shame, and oblivious of all feminine modesty, wore deformed garments suitable for the male sex, with a strange and monstrous deformity; and moreover, her presumption was reported to have gone so far as to dare to do, say, and disseminate many things beyond and contrary to the Catholic faith, to the injury of the articles of the same orthodox faith. In these matters, she was said to have gravely erred, both in our aforesaid diocese and in many other places of this kingdom. When these things came to the knowledge of the venerable University of Paris and Brother Martin Billormi, Vicar General of the aforesaid Lord Inquisitor of heretical depravity, they immediately and more urgently requested the most illustrious prince, the Lord Duke of Burgundy, and the renowned Lord John of Luxembourg, knight, to whose dominion and power the aforesaid woman was at that time subject, adding a summons, under pain of law, by the already named vicar, that they should hand over and transfer the woman herself, as aforesaid, defamed and suspected of heresy, to us as ordinary judge. We, the aforesaid bishop, as our pastoral office requires, desiring with all our strength to attend to the exaltation and promotion of the Christian faith, wished to complete a due inquiry into matters so widely publicized, and, as justice and reason would persuade, to proceed with mature counsel to those things which seemed further incumbent upon us. For this reason, we also requested the aforesaid prince and the aforementioned Lord John, and under pain of law, that they remit the often-mentioned woman to our spiritual jurisdiction to be judged; and the same most serene and most Christian prince, our Lord the King of France and England, also requested them for the same purpose. Finally, the most renowned Lord Duke of Burgundy himself and the aforesaid Lord John of Luxembourg, benignly acquiescing to the aforesaid requests and desiring with Catholic minds that which seemed conducive to the increase of faith be fulfilled, handed over and transferred the woman herself to our said Lord the King and his commissioners. Thereafter, royal providence, inflamed with all desires in favor of the orthodox faith, delivered this woman to us, the aforesaid bishop, so that we might fully inquire into her deeds and words, and proceed further conformably and according to ecclesiastical sanctions. These things thus done, we requested the excellent and celebrated Chapter of the Church of Rouen, the archiepiscopal see being vacant, and holding the administration of all spiritual jurisdiction, to lend us territory in this city of Rouen for the purpose of conducting these proceedings; which they liberally and graciously granted. But before we would undertake any further proceedings against this woman, we decided to take great and mature deliberation with learned and skilled men in divine and human law, of whom, by the grace of God, there was a copious number in this city of Rouen.\n(1) Pierre Cauchon, doctor of theology, master of arts, licentiate in canon law, counsellor to the King of England, and Bishop of Beauvais in partibus after that city returned to the obedience of Charles VII. Born at Reims into a recently ennobled bourgeois family, he had attained political influence through university honours. Georges Chastellain calls him a great and solemn cleric, praise sufficiently justified by the votes of the University of Paris, which called him to the office of rector and employed him in the most important negotiations during the life of Charles VI. He finally became conservator of the privileges of that illustrious body. Duboulai (Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, vol. V, p. 912) does not hesitate to represent him as a magnificent and beneficent man; the correspondence of Nicolas de Clémanges is full of praise for him; and Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, bore him such affection that, after obtaining the bishopric of Beauvais for him, he did him the honour of accompanying him when he took possession. After withdrawing to Rouen, Cauchon became the willing instrument of the Lancastrian princes, who exploited his disordered ambition and resentment against Charles VII. They obtained his compliance in the affair of the Maid by giving him the expectation of the then vacant archbishopric of Rouen. The promise he had received from them is established by Sir Harris Nicolas\u0026rsquo;s recent publication, Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England (London, 1835). Volume IV, p. 10, records a deliberation of December 15, 1429: Likewise, it was agreed that letters under the privy seal be directed to the supreme pontiff for the translation of Lord Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, to the metropolitan church of Rouen, over which the lord cardinal of the title of Saint Lawrence in Lucina lately presided, now translated by the Apostolic See from that church of Rouen to the church of Besançon. Despite this powerful recommendation, the favoured prelate did not obtain the see he coveted. In 1432 he was compensated with the bishopric of Lisieux, which he retained until his sudden death on October 18, 1442, while he was being dressed.\n(1) Jean Le Maistre, bachelor of theology and prior of the Dominican convent of Saint-Jacques at Rouen, was appointed deputy inquisitor in his diocese by a commission of August 21, 1424. He is known only through the role he played in the trial. He sat as a judge only from March 13, and then on the express order of the Inquisition\u0026rsquo;s deputy. He afterwards disappeared, and nothing is known of what became of him.\n(2) Jean Graverent, Dominican and professor of theology, had succeeded a certain Jacques de Suzay as Grand Inquisitor of France; Suzay is named under the year 1422 in Duboulai\u0026rsquo;s History of the University of Paris (vol. V, p. 323). Graverent ordinarily resided in Paris. He was absent from that city during the trial but had returned a few weeks after the Maid\u0026rsquo;s execution, for on July 4, 1431, he preached against her memory in the church of Saint-Martin-des-Champs. (Journal of a Bourgeois of Paris.) He is not mentioned again in the rehabilitation trial.\n(1) Martin Bellorme (?), Dominican, deputy to the Grand Inquisitor, is otherwise wholly unknown. One act of the trial shows that he was a professor of theology and that he was residing at Coutances when judgment was given.\n(2) Philip the Good.\n(3) Jean de Luxembourg, lord of Beaurevoir and Choques, nephew of Constable Waleran de Luxembourg, was a captain of freebooters. The Maid was in his hands because she had been captured by a man of his company. He later became Count of Ligny and Guise and a knight of the Golden Fleece. He could never be detached from the English party. He died in 1441, refusing to recognise the Treaty of Arras. (Monstrelet, book II, ch. 252.)\n(4) The first page of Manuscript 5965 of the Bibliothèque Royale ends here. At the bottom of the leaf is written the engrossing clerk\u0026rsquo;s attestation, in these terms: And I, Guillaume Colles, otherwise called Boisguillaume, priest of the diocese of Rouen, public notary by apostolic authority and in the venerable archiepiscopal court of Rouen, and sworn clerk in this matter with the others, affirm that the collation of these proceedings, containing one hundred and fifty-eight folios, was duly made with the original register of the present case. I have therefore signed every folio with my own hand and subscribed at the end with the said notaries, here subscribing with my own hand. Boisguillaume. At the foot of the recto of each leaf this attestation is recalled by the formula: I affirm as above. Boisguillaume.\n(1) Henry VI, the minor King of England and France, under the guardianship of his uncles, the Dukes of Gloucester and Bedford.\nJanuary 9, 1431 — First Day of the Proceedings # And on Tuesday, the ninth day of the month of January, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, according to the rite and computation of the Gallican Church, in the ninth indiction, in the fourteenth year of the pontificate of the most holy father in Christ and lord Martin, by divine Providence Pope the Fifth, in the house of the Royal Council near the castle of Rouen, we, the aforesaid bishop, caused doctors and masters to be convened, namely: Lords Giles of the Holy Trinity of Fécamp, in sacred theology, Nicholas de Gemeticiis, in canon law, abbots of monasteries; Peter, prior of Longueville, in theology; Ralph Roussel, treasurer of the church of Rouen, doctors of both laws; — Nicholas de Venderes, archdeacon of Eu, in canon law; Robert Barbier, in both laws, licentiates; — Nicholas Coppequesne, bachelor in theology; and Nicholas Loiselleur, master of arts. Therefore, while so many and so celebrated men had convened at the aforesaid place and time, we requested from their prudence the manner and order of proceeding, explaining the diligence already exercised in the matters recited above. When these doctors and masters fully understood everything, they first deliberated that information should be obtained concerning the deeds and words of this woman that were being publicized; and having duly received their counsels, we narrated that some information had already been completed by our order, and likewise we decreed that other information should again be obtained; all of which, on a certain day to be determined by us, would be reported in the presence of the council, so that it might be more clearly established what further proceedings should be conducted in the matter itself. Furthermore, in order that the aforesaid information and other things to be done in these matters might be better and more conveniently executed, it was deliberated on the same day by the aforesaid lords and masters that certain officials were needed who would specially take care of the matters to be done and diligently attend to the execution of the aforesaid; and it was then concluded and ordered by us, the aforesaid bishop, by the counsel and deliberation of those assisting, that the venerable and discreet man, Lord John de Estivet, canon of the churches of Bayeux and Beauvais, should exercise the office of promoter or procurator general in the cause itself. Also, the learned man Master Jean de La Fontaine, master of arts and licentiate in canon law, was appointed as counselor, commissioner, and examiner. For the office of notaries and scribes, prudent and honest men were appointed, William Colles, also known as Boisguillaume, and William Manchon, priests, notaries by apostolic and imperial authority and of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen; and Lord John Massieu, priest, dean of Christianity of Rouen, was appointed executor of the mandates and convocations to be made by our authority. As all these things are more fully contained in the letters drawn up concerning the creation of such offices. We have ordered the tenors of all letters, both closed and open, concerning which provision is made among the aforesaid acts, to be reduced in order and transcribed here, so that the series of the aforesaid matters might appear more clearly.\n(1) That is, according to the old style, in which the year began at Easter. The stated date corresponds to January 9, 1431, in modern reckoning.\n(2) Gilles de Duremort, doctor of theology, counsellor to the King of England, and Abbot of Fécamp. He died as Bishop of Coutances in 1444.\n(1) Nicolas Le Roux, doctor of canon law and Abbot of Jumièges, died at Rouen on July 16, 1431, six weeks after the Maid\u0026rsquo;s execution.\n(2) Pierre Miget or Migiel (Migecii, de Migecio; Rymer, vol. X, p. 160: Petrum Migecii, alias dictum Glenessus), doctor of theology and prior of the convent of Longueville-Giffard in the Pays de Caux, was heard as a witness in the rehabilitation trial. He was denounced to the Cardinal of Winchester as a supporter of the Maid and compelled to justify himself.\n(3) Raoul Roussel of Vernon, doctor of civil and canon law and treasurer of Rouen Cathedral, served as rapporteur in the trial. He became Archbishop of Rouen in 1443 and was of great assistance to Charles VII during the recovery of Normandy. He died on December 31, 1452.\n(4) Nicolas de Venderès, licentiate in canon law, canon of Rouen Cathedral, Archdeacon of Eu, and chaplain to the Bishop of Beauvais. In 1423 he had nearly become Archbishop of Rouen through the manoeuvres of a party he had formed within the chapter. When the see again became vacant in 1429, some maintained that it belonged to him by right, without any need for a new election. This was his position when the trial began; but on January 17 his hopes were disappointed when the Pope transferred the Bishop of Chalon to the see of Rouen. (Gallia Christiana, vol. XI, cols. 87–88.) He was dead by the time of the rehabilitation.\n(5) Robert Barbier, licentiate in civil and canon law and canon of Rouen Cathedral.\n(6) Nicolas Coppequesne, bachelor of theology and canon of Rouen Cathedral.\n(7) Nicolas Loyseleur (otherwise Aucupia), master of arts, bachelor of theology, and canon of Rouen Cathedral. He acted as the Bishop of Beauvais\u0026rsquo;s spy upon the Maid, gaining her confidence by presenting himself as a prisoner of the French party. On the day of the execution he repented of so infamous a betrayal, but the remorse he expressed too openly nearly cost him his life. He fled to Basel, where he died suddenly.\n(1) Jean d\u0026rsquo;Estivet or d\u0026rsquo;Étivet, canon of Beauvais and Bayeux and former procurator-general of the diocese of Beauvais. He was closely connected with Pierre Cauchon, an exile like him and even more violently hostile to the Maid. He drowned in a bog shortly after his victim\u0026rsquo;s execution.\n(2) Jean de La Fontaine, master of arts and licentiate in canon law. He incurred Pierre Cauchon\u0026rsquo;s threats by trying to enlighten the accused. After March 27 he no longer appears at the sessions. What became of him is unknown.\n(1) Guillaume Colles, called Boisguillaume, parish priest of Notre-Dame-la-Ronde at Rouen and later of La Couture de Bernay in the diocese of Lisieux (Rymer, vol. X, p. 224), and Guillaume Manchon, parish priest of Saint-Nicolas-le-Painteur at Rouen, were both clerks of the officiality of Rouen. Both initialled the engrossments of the trial and were heard as witnesses by the judges of the rehabilitation.\n(2) Jean Massieu, priest and dean of the Christianity of Rouen, otherwise rural dean—that is, representative of the parish priests of the division of his diocese called the Deanery of the Christianity. He testified in the rehabilitation trial.\nAnd first follows the tenor of the letters of the venerable University of Paris, transmitted to the most illustrious prince, the Lord Duke of Burgundy.\nMost high and most powerful prince and our most redoubted and honored lord, we most humbly commend ourselves to your noble highness. Although we have heretofore written to your highness and most humbly supplicated that this woman called the Maid, being, by the grace of God, in your subjection, should be placed in the hands of the justice of the Church to have proceedings against her duly made concerning the idolatries and other matters touching our holy faith, and to repair the scandals occasioned by her in this kingdom; together with the innumerable damages and inconveniences that have ensued therefrom: nevertheless, we have received no response concerning this, and we have not known that any provision has been made to make a suitable discussion of the deeds of this woman; but we greatly fear that by the falsehood and seduction of the enemy of hell, and by the malice and subtlety of evil persons, your enemies and adversaries, who, as it is said, apply all their care to wanting to deliver this woman by exquisite means, she may be removed from your subjection in some manner, which God forbid; for in truth, in the judgment of all good Catholics knowledgeable in this, so great an injury to the holy faith, so enormous a peril, inconvenience, and damage for the entire public good of this kingdom have not occurred within the memory of man, as would be, if she were to depart by such damned ways, without suitable reparation; but this would in truth be greatly to the prejudice of your honor and of the most Christian name of the house of France, of which you and your most noble progenitors have been and are continually loyal protectors and most noble principal members. For these reasons, our most redoubted and honored lord, we most humbly supplicate you again that, in favor of the faith of our Savior, for the preservation of his holy Church and the protection of divine honor, and also for the great utility of this most Christian kingdom, it may please your highness to place this woman in the hands of the inquisitor of the faith, and to send her safely hither, as we have heretofore supplicated, or to deliver or cause to be delivered this woman to the reverend father in God, my lord the Bishop of Beauvais, in whose spiritual jurisdiction she was apprehended, to conduct proceedings against her in the faith, as shall be fitting by reason, to the glory of God, to the exaltation of our said holy faith, and to the profit of good and loyal Catholics, and of the entire public good of this kingdom, and also to the honor and praise of your said highness, whom our Savior may maintain in good prosperity and finally give his glory. Written\n(1) This first letter, which the University recalls to the Duke of Burgundy, is not recorded in the engrossments of the trial.\nAlso follows the tenor of the copy of the letters of the said venerable University of Paris, transmitted to the noble and powerful man, Lord John of Luxembourg, knight.\nMost noble, honored, and powerful lord, we most affectionately commend ourselves to your high nobility. Your noble prudence well knows and recognizes that all good Catholic knights ought to employ their strength and power first in the service of God; and thereafter for the profit of the public good. In particular, the first oath of the order of knighthood is to guard and defend the honor of God, the Catholic faith, and his holy Church. You have well remembered this sacrament, when you employed your noble power and personal presence to apprehend this woman who calls herself the Maid; by means of whom the honor of God has been immeasurably offended, the faith excessively wounded, and the Church too greatly dishonored; for by her occasion, idolatries, errors, evil doctrines, and other inestimable evils and inconveniences have ensued in this kingdom. And in truth, all loyal Christians ought to thank you greatly for having rendered so great a service to our holy faith and to this entire kingdom; and as for us, we thank God with all our hearts and your noble prowess, as much as we can. But it would be little to have made such a capture, if what is fitting did not follow to satisfy the offense perpetrated by this woman against our sweet Creator, and his faith, and his holy Church, with her other innumerable misdeeds, as it is said. And it would be a greater inconvenience than ever before, and a greater error would remain among the people than before, and so strongly intolerable an offense against divine majesty, if this matter were to remain at this point, or if it should happen that this woman were delivered or lost, as it is said some of the adversaries wish to strive to do and apply all their efforts to this by all exquisite means, and what is worse, by money or falsehood. But we hope that God will not permit so great an evil to come upon his people, and that also your good and noble prudence will not suffer it, but will know well how to provide for it suitably; for if such a deliverance of her were made, without suitable reparation, it would be an irreparable dishonor to your great nobility and to all those who would have intervened in this; but to the end that such a scandal may cease as soon as possible, as is necessary. And because in this matter delay is very perilous and very prejudicial to this kingdom, we most humbly and with cordial affection supplicate your powerful and honored nobility, that, in favor of divine honor, for the preservation of the holy Catholic faith and for the good and exaltation of this entire kingdom, you would be pleased to place this woman in justice and send her hither to the inquisitor of the faith, who has requested and urgently requests her to make a discussion of her great charges, so that God may be content with it and the people duly edified in good and holy doctrine; or you would be pleased to cause her to be rendered and delivered to the reverend father in God, and our most honored lord the Bishop of Beauvais, who has likewise requested her, in whose jurisdiction she was apprehended, as it is said. Which prelate and inquisitor are her judges in the matter of faith; and every Christian, of whatever state he may be, is bound to obey them, in this present case, under the great penalties of law. In doing this you will acquire the grace and love of the high Divinity; you will be a means of the exaltation of the holy faith, and also you will increase the glory of your most high and noble name, and especially of the most high and most powerful prince, our most redoubted lord and yours, my lord of Burgundy. And everyone will be bound to pray to God for the prosperity of your most noble person; whom God our Savior may by his grace guide and keep in all his affairs, and finally reward with joy without end. Written\u0026hellip; (in Paris the fourteenth day of July one thousand four hundred thirty.)\n(1) This date is supplied by the Orléans manuscript published by M. Buchon. It does not appear in the engrossments of the trial.\nAlso follows the tenor of the letters of the Vicar General of the Inquisitor, transmitted to the said Lord Duke of Burgundy.\nTo the most high and most powerful prince Philip, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders, Artois, Burgundy, and Namur, and to all others whom it may concern, Brother Martin, Master in Theology, and General Vicar of the Inquisitor of the Faith in the Kingdom of France, greetings in Jesus Christ our true Savior. As all loyal Christian princes and all other true Catholics are bound to extirpate all errors coming against the faith, and the scandals that follow among the simple Christian people; and at present there is a voice and common renown that, by a certain woman named Joan, whom the adversaries of this kingdom call the Maid, several and diverse errors have been and, on her occasion, in several cities, good towns, and other places of this kingdom, sown, dogmatized, published, and caused to be published and dogmatized, and still are at present, from which several great injuries and scandals against divine honor and our holy faith have ensued and are ensuing, to the perdition of the souls of several simple Christians; which things cannot, nor ought to be dissimulated, nor passed over without good and suitable reparation; and it is so that, by the grace of God, the said Joan is at present in your power and subjection, or that of your noble and loyal vassals: For these reasons, we supplicate with good affection to you, most powerful prince, and pray your said noble vassals that the said Joan be sent to us safely hither and briefly by you or them, and we have hope that you will do so as true protectors of the faith and defenders of the honor of God, and to the end that no impediment or delay be made concerning this (which God forbid). We, using the rights of our office by the authority committed to us by the Holy See of Rome, urgently request and enjoin, in favor of the Catholic faith, and under the penalties of law, the aforesaid, and all other Catholic persons of whatever state, condition, preeminence, or authority they may be, that as soon as safely and conveniently possible, they and each of them send and bring the said Joan, vehemently suspected of several crimes savoring of heresy, as a prisoner before us, to stand trial before us against the procurator of the holy Inquisition; to answer and proceed as reason shall require with the good counsel, favor, and aid of the good doctors and masters of the University of Paris, and other notable counselors being here. Given in Paris under our seal of the office of the holy Inquisition, in the year one thousand four hundred thirty, the twenty-sixth day of May. Thus signed: LE FOURBEUR. HÉBERT.\nAlso follows the tenor of the summons made by us, the aforesaid bishop, to the said lords, the Duke of Burgundy and John of Luxembourg.\nThis is what the Bishop of Beauvais requests of my lord the Duke of Burgundy, and of my lord John of Luxembourg, and of the Bastard of Vendôme, on behalf of the King our Lord, and on his own behalf as Bishop of Beauvais:\nThat this woman commonly called Joan the Maid, a prisoner, be sent to the King to deliver her to the Church, to conduct proceedings against her, because she is suspected and defamed of having committed several crimes, such as sorceries, idolatries, invocations of enemies, and several other cases touching our faith and against it. And although she ought not to be a prize of war, as it seems, considering what has been said; nevertheless, for the remuneration of those who have taken and detained her, the King wishes liberally to give them up to the sum of six thousand francs, and for the said bastard who took her, to give and assign him a rent to maintain his estate, up to two or three hundred livres.\nItem. And the said bishop requests on his own behalf of the aforesaid and of each of them, as this woman was taken in his diocese and under his spiritual jurisdiction, that she be returned to him to conduct proceedings against her as is fitting. To which he is entirely ready to attend with the assistance of the inquisitor of the faith; if need be, with the assistance of doctors in theology and in decree, and other notable persons expert in matters of judgment, as the matter requires, so that it may be done maturely, holily, and duly for the exaltation of the faith and for the instruction of many who have been deceived and abused in this matter on account of this woman.\nItem. And finally, if by the manner aforesaid, they or any of them are unwilling or do not wish to be content or obey what is said above; although the capture of this woman is not comparable to the capture of a King, princes, and other people of great estate (whom, however, if they or any of such estate, whether King, Dauphin, or other princes, were taken, the King could have them, if he wished, by giving to the captor ten thousand francs, according to the law, usage, and custom of France), the said bishop summons and requests the aforesaid in the name as above, that the said Maid be delivered to him by giving security for the said sum of ten thousand francs, for all things whatsoever. And the said bishop on his own behalf, according to the form and penalties of law, requests her to be given and delivered to him as above.\n(1) Also written Vendonne, Wendonne in contemporary documents, and Vendomme, and today Wandonne, a town and castle in Artois in the department of Pas-de-Calais. Every historian, even M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy, has fallen into a strange confusion by taking this man for a descendant of the house of Vendôme. He was of anything but royal blood. His name was Lionel, and he served as a man-at-arms in Jean de Luxembourg\u0026rsquo;s company. One of his archers had laid hands on the Maid as she left Compiègne; he was therefore entitled to part of the ransom. Jean de Luxembourg later made him captain of Nesle and Beaulieu in Vermandois, offices of which he was deprived at his patron\u0026rsquo;s death. (Monstrelet, book II, chs. 86 and 252.)\n[Also follows the instrument of summons made for the delivery of the Maid.]\nIn the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, on the twelfth day of the month of July, in the eighth indiction, in the thirteenth year of the pontificate of our most holy lord Pope Martin V, in the bastille of the most illustrious prince, the Lord Duke of Burgundy, in his battle line stationed before Compiègne: in the presence of the noble men, Lords Nicholas de Mailly, bailiff of Vermandois, and John de Pressy, knights, with many other nobles in a copious multitude of witnesses, etc., there was presented by the reverend father in Christ, Lord Peter, by the grace of God Bishop and Count of Beauvais, to the aforesaid most illustrious prince, the Lord Duke of Burgundy, a certain paper schedule, containing word for word the five articles written above: which schedule the said Lord Duke actually delivered to the noble man Nicholas Raulin, knight, his chancellor, present there, and ordered the same to be delivered by the same chancellor to the noble and powerful man, Lord John of Luxembourg, knight, Lord of Beaurevoir; as the same chancellor actually expedited and delivered the same schedule, by the aforesaid mandate, to the said Lord John of Luxembourg, who arrived there; who, as it seemed to me, read through the same schedule. Thus signed: Done above, in my presence, Triquellot, public notary by apostolic authority.\n(1) Colart de Mailly belonged to the Mailly de l\u0026rsquo;Orsignol branch. The Duke of Burgundy made him bailiff of Vermandois on February 25, 1425. He joined Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s party at the end of 1430.\n(1) Pressy in Artois. This lord is mentioned in the evidence as having held several conversations with the Maid during her stay at Arras in November 1430.\n(2) Nicolas Raulin or Rolin, Chancellor of Burgundy and lord of Aimeries, died on February 10, 1463.\nAlso follows the tenor of the letters of the said venerable University of Paris, transmitted to us, the bishop.\nTo the Reverend Father in Christ and Lord, Lord Bishop and Count of Beauvais. We wonder, reverend father and lord, especially that the expedition of that woman, whom the common people call the Maid, to the injury of the faith and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, is protracted with such expectation; especially since she is said to be already in the hands of our lord the King. For Christian princes have been accustomed to prosecute ecclesiastical matters and the orthodox faith with such favors that, if anyone\u0026rsquo;s temerity happened to oppose the dogmas of the same Catholic faith, they would immediately remit her to ecclesiastical judges to be corrected and punished. And, if perhaps your paternity had shown greater diligence in the prosecution of this matter, now the cause of the aforesaid woman would be conducted in ecclesiastical judgment. It is not a small matter for your interest, while you hold a celebrated prelacy in the holy Church of God, that scandals perpetrated against the Christian religion be removed from the midst; especially where their adjudication happens to fall within the lot of your jurisdiction. Therefore, lest, in the aforesaid matter, the authority of the Church suffer a graver injury by longer delay, may the zeal of your paternity deign to labor with utmost diligence, so that the often-mentioned woman may be quickly presented to your dominion and that of the Inquisitor of heretical depravity. Which if it be done, you would wish to give effort that she be brought maturely to this city of Paris, where there is a copious number of wise and learned men, so that her cause may be more diligently examined and more certainly judged; for the sound edification of the Christian people and the honor of God; who may deign to direct your paternity, reverend father, in all things with special help. Written in Paris, in our general congregation, solemnly celebrated at Saint-Mathurin, on the twenty-first day of November, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred thirty. Your, Rector and University of Paris. Thus signed: Hébert, j;\nAlso follows the tenor of the letters of the said venerable University of Paris, transmitted to our lord the King of France and England.\nTo the most excellent prince, the King of France and England, our most redoubted and sovereign lord and father. Most excellent prince, our most redoubted and sovereign lord and father, we have newly understood that this woman called the Maid, is now rendered into your power, for which we are very joyful, trusting that by your good ordinance, this woman will be brought to justice to repair the great misdeeds and scandals notoriously occurred in this kingdom on her occasion, to the great prejudice of divine honor, of our holy faith and of all your good people. And because it belongs to us singularly, according to our profession, to extirpate such manifest iniquities, especially when our Catholic faith is touched in this, we cannot dissimulate in the matter of this woman the long delay of justice which ought to displease every good Christian, and especially your royal majesty more than anyone else, for the great obligation you owe to God, recognizing the high goods, honors and dignities he has granted to your excellence. And although we have written several times concerning this and still do at present, our most redoubted and sovereign lord and father, always proposing a most humble and loyal recommendation so that we may not be noted for any negligence in so favorable and necessary a matter: We most humbly supplicate, and in the honor of our savior Jesus Christ, most earnestly implore your high excellence, that you would be pleased to order this woman to be briefly placed in the hands of the justice of the Church, that is to say, of the reverend father in God our honored lord the bishop and count of Beauvais, and also the inquisitor appointed in France, to whom the knowledge of her misdeeds specially belongs in what touches our said faith, so that by way of reason a suitable discussion may be made concerning her charges, and such reparation as shall be fitting in the case, preserving the holy truth of our faith, and removing all false error and scandalous opinion from the hearts of your good, loyal and Christian subjects. And it seems to us very fitting, if it were the pleasure of your highness, that the said woman be brought to this city to conduct proceedings against her notably and safely; for by the masters, doctors and other notable persons being here in great number, the discussion of her would be of greater reputation than in another place; and it is also quite fitting that reparation for the said scandals be made in this place, where her deeds have been excessively divulged and notorious. And in doing this your royal majesty will keep his great loyalty towards the sovereign and divine majesty; whom may grant to your excellence, prosperity continually, happiness without end. Written in Paris, in our general congregation solemnly celebrated at Saint-Mathurin, the twenty-first day of November in the year one thousand four hundred thirty. Your most humble and devoted daughter the University of Paris. Thus signed: Hébert.\nAlso follows the tenor of the royal letters, concerning the rendition of the said woman to us, the aforesaid Bishop of Beauvais.\nHenry, by the grace of God King of France and England, to all those who shall see these present letters, greetings. It is quite notorious and common how, for some time now, a woman who calls herself Joan the Maid, abandoning the habit and attire of the female sex, has, against divine law, as a thing abominable to God, reproved and forbidden by all law, clothed, dressed, and armed herself in the state and habit of a man; has committed and exercised cruel acts of homicide, and, as it is said, has given the simple people to understand, to seduce and abuse them, that she was sent by God, and had knowledge of his divine secrets; together with several other very perilous dogmatizations, and very prejudicial and scandalous to our holy Catholic faith. In pursuing these abuses and exercising hostility against us and our people, she was taken armed before Compiègne, by some of our loyal subjects, and since then brought prisoner before us. And because she has been reputed suspected, noted, and defamed by many for superstitions, false dogmatizations, and other crimes of divine lèse-majesté, as it is said, we have been most urgently requested by the reverend father in God, our beloved and faithful counselor the Bishop of Beauvais, ecclesiastical and ordinary judge of the said Joan, because she was taken and apprehended within the terms and limits of his diocese; and likewise exhorted on behalf of our very dear and very beloved daughter the University of Paris, that we would be pleased to cause the said Joan to be rendered, given, and delivered to the said reverend father in God, to interrogate and examine her on the said cases, and to proceed against her according to the ordinances and dispositions of divine and canonical laws; calling those who are to be called. Therefore, it is that we, who for reverence and honor of the name of God, defense and exaltation of his said holy Church and Catholic faith, wish devoutly to obey as true and humble sons of holy Church, the requests and instances of the said reverend father in God, and the exhortations of the doctors and masters of our said daughter the University of Paris: order and consent that as often as it shall seem good to the said reverend father in God, the said Joan be given and delivered to him really and in fact by our people and officers, who have her in their custody, to interrogate and examine her and conduct proceedings against her, according to God, reason, and divine laws and holy canons, by the said reverend father in God. So we give in mandate to our said people and officers, who have her in custody, that they give and deliver really and in fact, without any refusal or contradiction, the said Joan to the said reverend father in God, as often as they shall be requested by him; we further command all our justices, officers, and subjects, both French and English, that they give no impediment or disturbance, in fact or otherwise, to the said reverend father in God and to all others who are and shall be appointed to assist, attend to, and hear the said proceedings; but, if requested by the said reverend father in God, they shall give them guard, aid, and defense, protection and comfort, under pain of grave punishment. Nevertheless, it is our intention to have and retake the said Joan before us, if it should happen that she were not convicted or accused of the aforesaid cases, or of any of them, or of others touching or concerning our said faith. In witness whereof, we have caused our ordinary seal to be affixed to these presents, in the absence of the great seal. Given at Rouen, the third day of January, in the year of grace one thousand four hundred thirty, and of our reign the ninth. Thus signed: By the King. By the report of his Great Council, J. de Rivel.\nAlso follows the tenor of the letters of territory, granted to us, the bishop, by the venerable Chapter of the church of Rouen, the archiepiscopal see being vacant.\nTo all who shall inspect these present letters, the Chapter of the church of Rouen, the archiepiscopal see being vacant, holding the administration of all spiritual jurisdiction, the see itself being vacant, greetings in the Lord. Whereas on the part of the reverend father in Christ and lord, Lord Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, it has been shown to us that by his ordinary authority and otherwise, as is lawful and pertains to him by right, against a certain woman, commonly called Joan the Maid, conducting herself inordinately, beyond and contrary to the female state and sex, having abandoned all modesty, and behaving shamelessly; nay, as it is reported, disseminating, uttering, and doing many things beyond, besides, and contrary to the Catholic faith and to the denigration of some articles of the orthodox faith; and concerning these things, being ill-disposed, suspected, and defamed, he had proposed and wished to inquire and proceed in formal proceedings against her, then existing in his diocese and committing the aforesaid; it happened, as it pleased God, that she was captured, detained, and arrested in his said diocese and within the limits of his spiritual jurisdiction; and finally transferred to other places. Which being brought to the knowledge of the reverend father himself, both in person and otherwise, he requested and admonished the meritorious prince, the Lord Duke of Burgundy, and the noble man, Lord John of Luxembourg, knight, and the other detainer of the same woman, delivering to the same reverend father, as her ordinary judge, the woman herself, as aforesaid, suspected of heresy and offending, captured, detained, and arrested in his said spiritual jurisdiction, so that he might inquire and proceed against her and concerning some things pertaining to the said Catholic faith, perpetrated by her, as justice and reason would persuade. Which lords and other detainers of the said woman, also requested for the same purpose on behalf of the most Christian prince and our lord Henry, by the grace of God King of France and England, and also of the venerable University of Paris, acquiescing to such requests, admonitions, and summonses, as faithful Catholics and in favor of the faith, delivered and freed the same Joan to our said lord the King, or his commissioners in this matter, afterwards brought to the city of Rouen, and committed to safe custody, by the ordinance and consent of the same our lord the King, delivered, expedited, and freed to the aforesaid reverend father at present. In which city of Rouen, many things being considered and attended to, and especially the current times to be attended to and considered, he proposed to inquire into the aforesaid according to theological and canonical sanctions, and to make or cause to be made due information or informations concerning these things; to interrogate the said suspected woman, and, if necessary, to commit her to prison, and to do other things which touch or may touch the business of such inquiry, with its dependencies and annexes: not intending, however, to put his sickle into our harvest, without our consent, requesting us for the aid of law, that we would be willing to grant him territory for doing these and other matters concerning this. Hence it is that, favorably assenting to the request of the same reverend father, as consonant with law, in favor of the Catholic faith, we have granted, given, and assigned, and by these presents grant, give, and assign to the same reverend father, both in this city of Rouen and elsewhere wherever it shall seem expedient to him, within the limits of the diocese of Rouen, territory for doing, knowing, deciding, and terminating with due end all and singular the aforesaid and things concerning them; admonishing all and singular our subjects, existing in the said city and diocese of Rouen, also of both sexes and of whatever condition they may be, and enjoining each of them, by virtue of holy obedience, that, for the purpose of bearing testimony, having consultation, or otherwise in any way, they obey, comply with, and attend to the said reverend father in this matter and its dependencies, and exhibit aid and favor; granting and consenting that such business of inquiry may freely and absolutely, entirely, definitively, and with effect, as if it were in his own diocese of Beauvais, according to and in accordance with the order of law, be able and validly to proceed and finally conclude, by himself or by commissioners and deputies, or to be committed or deputed by him, or with the Inquisitor of heretical depravity or his commissioner or to be committed, jointly or separately; giving and granting to him authority and faculty, if and in as much as is necessary, and as best we can with God, saving always, however, the right of the archiepiscopal dignity of the diocese of Rouen in other matters. Given under the great seal of the court of Rouen, together with the signets which we use at present. In the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, the twenty-eighth day of December. Thus signed: R. GUEROUDI.\n(1) Read without or with, etc.\nAlso follows the tenor of the letters of the promoter.\nTo all who shall inspect these present letters, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, greetings in the Lord. Whereas a certain woman commonly called Joan the Maid, captured and apprehended within the bounds and limits of our diocese of Beauvais since a year ago, has been rendered and restored to us, the Ordinary, on behalf of the most illustrious prince our lord the King, as publicly and notoriously defamed, scandalized, and suspected of several sorceries, incantations, invocations and allocutions of demons or evil spirits, and many other matters concerning our faith, to the end that we might make proceedings against her in due form of law in the matter of faith itself; and we, desiring to proceed maturely and according to the form of law in the matter of faith itself, by the deliberation and counsel of many, both in divine and canon and civil law, summoned before us for this purpose in this city of Rouen (the territory of the spiritual jurisdiction of Rouen having been previously accommodated to us for treating and deciding this matter), found it necessary and convenient to have a general promoter of our office in such a cause or matter, counselors and notaries or scribes, and also an executor of the mandates and convocations to be made in the matter itself. Therefore, we make known that we, wishing to follow such deliberation and counsel and the terms of law, and having full confidence in the Lord and being duly informed of the fidelity, probity, industry, sufficiency, and suitability of the person of the venerable man, Lord John de Estivet, priest, canon of the churches of Bayeux and Beauvais, have made, constituted, created, named, ordained, and deputed him; and by the tenor of these presents, we constitute, create, name, ordain, and depute him as general and special promoter or procurator of our office, for the purpose of conducting such a cause or matter; giving to the same promoter and procurator general, by the tenor of these presents, license, faculty, and authority to stand and appear in court and out of court, to make himself a party against the said Joan, to give, deliver, administer, produce, and exhibit articles, interrogatories, witnesses, letters, instruments, and other kinds of proofs, and to accuse and denounce the said Joan, to ask, cause, and require her to be examined and interrogated, to conclude in the cause, and to exercise what is known to pertain to the office of promoter or procurator by law or custom. Wherefore, we command all and singular whom it concerns, that they obey, comply with, and attend to the said Lord John in exercising such office, and that they give him aid, counsel, and assistance. In witness whereof, we have caused our seal to be affixed to these letters. Given and done in the dwelling house of Master John Ruhe, canon of Rouen. In the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, the ninth day of January. Thus signed: E. DE ROSIÈRES.\nAlso follows the tenor of the letters of the notaries.\nTo all who shall inspect these present letters, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, etc.. Therefore, we make known that we, wishing to follow such deliberation and counsel and the terms of law, and having full confidence in the Lord and being duly informed of the fidelity, probity, industry, sufficiency, and suitability of the persons of the discreet men, Lords William Colles, also known as Boisguillaume, and William Manchon, priests of the diocese of Rouen, public notaries sworn by apostolic and imperial authorities, and of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen; with the intervention also, as was then necessary, of the consent and authority of the venerable vicars of the archbishopric of Rouen, the see being vacant: we have retained, elected, and named, and by these presents retain, elect, and name them and each of them as notaries and scribes in such matter and cause; giving also to them and to each of them, license, faculty, and authority to approach the presence of the said Joan and other places, where and when and as often as shall be necessary; to interrogate her, or to hear her interrogated, to swear, examine, and reduce to writing the statements and confessions of the said Joan and the said witnesses, as well as the opinions of the doctors and masters, to report them to us orally or in writing, and to put into writing all and singular acts done and to be done in this matter, and to draw up the entire proceedings in due form and reduce it to writing, and to do other things, as pertains to the office of notaries by law, wherever and whenever it shall be opportune. In witness whereof, etc..\n(1) The recitals are the same as in the preceding instrument.\n(1) The remainder is as in the preceding instrument.\nAlso follows the tenor of the letters of the counselor.\nTo all who shall inspect these present letters, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, etc. Therefore, we make known that we, wishing to follow such deliberation and counsel and the terms of law, and having full confidence in the Lord and being duly informed of the fidelity, probity, industry, sufficiency, and suitability of the person of the venerable and circumspect man, Master Jean de La Fontaine, master of arts, licentiate in decrees, have made, ordained, committed, deputed, and retained him as our commissioner, counselor, and examiner of witnesses in such a deed and matter, to be produced on behalf of our promoter; giving and granting to the same Master John license, faculty, and authority to receive, swear, examine, absolve for caution, and reduce to writing or cause to be reduced to writing the statements and depositions of the said witnesses; and to do all and singular other things which a duly constituted counselor, commissioner, and examiner can and ought to do; and which we would do or could do concerning these matters, if we were present and personally involved. In witness whereof, etc..\nAlso follows the tenor of the letters of the executor of mandates.\nTo all who shall inspect these present letters, Peter, etc. Therefore, we make known that we, wishing to follow such deliberation and counsel and the terms of law, and having full confidence in the Lord and being duly informed of the sufficiency, fidelity, and prompt diligence of the discreet man Lord John Massieu, priest, dean of Christianity of Rouen, have made, constituted, retained, and ordained him as executor of the mandates and convocations to be made by us in the matter itself; we have granted him license concerning this, and by these presents grant it. In witness whereof, etc..\n(1) See above, p. 21.\nJanuary 13. Information made concerning the Maid is read. # Also on the following Saturday, namely the 13th of January, we, the aforesaid bishop, caused the lords and masters to be convened in our dwelling house in Rouen: Giles, abbot of Fécamp, doctor in theology; Nicholas de Venderes, licentiate in canon law; — William Haiton; Nicholas Coppequesne, bachelors in theology; — Jean de La Fontaine, licentiate in canon law; and Nicholas Loiselleur, canon of the church of Rouen. Before whom we explained what had been done in the previous session, asking their counsel concerning what remained to be done thereafter in the matter initiated by us. Moreover, in their hearing, we caused to be read the informations made in the native country of the said woman, and elsewhere, in several and diverse places, together with certain memorials, drawn up both concerning the contents of the said informations and concerning other things which public rumor reported. And all things seen and heard, it was deliberated by the said assistants that certain articles should be drawn up concerning these things in due form, so that the matter might be seen in order and more distinctly, and thereafter it might be more certainly deliberated whether there was sufficient matter for which someone ought to be justly cited and summoned in a cause of faith. And so, by the counsel of the aforesaid assistants, we concluded that we should proceed to compose these articles; for the composition of which we deputed certain notable men, excellently learned in divine and human law, with the aforesaid notaries. Who, diligently obeying our ordinance, proceeded to compose the said articles on the immediately following days, namely Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday.\n(1) See above, p. 24.\n(2) William Haiton (also Hecton or Heiton), an English cleric, bachelor of theology, and secretary of the commands of the King of England, was removed from that office on March 1, 1432. (Rymer, vol. X, p. 502.)\n(3) These informations are not in the trial record. The interrogatories of the rehabilitation trial show that they were not communicated to the assessors who later joined the tribunal.\nJanuary 23. Conclusion concerning preparatory information. # Also on Tuesday, the 23rd of the said month of January, the aforesaid lords and masters appeared in our said dwelling house, namely: Lord Giles, abbot of Fécamp, Nicholas de Venderes, William Haiton, Nicholas Coppequesne, Jean de La Fontaine, and Nicholas Loiselleur. Before whom we caused to be read the articles, drawn up by our ordinance, as is stated above, requesting from them what their most prudent counsels would dictate concerning these articles and also concerning further actions. And they indeed said that the often-mentioned articles were drawn up and composed in good and competent form, and that interrogatories corresponding to the aforesaid articles ought to be made; and they further decreed that we, the aforesaid bishop, could and ought to proceed to make preparatory information concerning the deeds and words of the aforesaid imprisoned woman. We also, acquiescing to their counsel, ordered and concluded that this preparatory information should be made. And since we were occupied with other matters, we deputed the venerable and discreet man Master Jean de La Fontaine, licentiate in canon law, named above, as commissioner for making such information.\nFebruary 13. Oaths of the officials appointed in the cause. # Also on Tuesday, the 13th of February, in the aforesaid year, the aforesaid lords and masters appearing in our said dwelling house in the morning: Giles, abbot of Fécamp, John Beaupère, James de Touraine, Nicholas Midi, Peter Morice, Gerard Feuillet, doctors; — Nicholas de Venderes and Jean de La Fontaine, licentiates in canon law; — William Heton, Nicholas Coppequesne, and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelors in theology; and Nicholas Loiselleur, canon of the church of Rouen; we caused the officials appointed and previously ordained by us in the present cause to be summoned, namely: Lord John de Estivet, promoter; Master Jean de La Fontaine, commissioner; William Boisguillaume and William Manchon, notaries; and Lord John Massieu, executor of the citations and convocations to be made by us. All and singular of whom we requested to take the due oaths for faithfully exercising their offices. And they, obeying our request, swore in our hands to faithfully manage and exercise the said offices.\n(1) Jean Beaupère (also Pulchripairis), of Nevers, doctor and professor of theology, master of arts, canon of Paris and Besançon, and one of the foremost members of the University of Paris. From 1410 onward he took part in all the major affairs with which that body had to deal. He was rector in 1413, later performed the duties of chancellor of the Church during Gerson\u0026rsquo;s absence, and attended the Council of Basel as a deputy of the Norman nation. (Du Boulay, Hist. Univ. Paris., passim.) He is found again as a canon of Rouen in 1449 and testifying in a manner unfavourable to the Maid in the inquiry which preceded the request for revision.\n(2) Jacques de Touraine, elsewhere called Texier or Textoris, doctor of theology of the University of Paris. He was dead by the time of the revision.\n(3) Nicolas Midi, doctor of theology of the University of Paris, was one of the assessors most hostile to the Maid and the man who preached to her on the day of her execution. He is suspected of having reduced the trial to the twelve assertions used to bring about the accused woman\u0026rsquo;s ruin. (See below, the session of April 6.) A witness at the revision said that he died of leprosy shortly after the judgment; nevertheless, the history of the University of Paris records that in 1438, at Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s entry into Paris, Master Nicolas Midi was commissioned by the assembled faculties to deliver an address to the King. (Du Boulay, vol. V, p. 442.)\n(1) Pierre Maurice, canon of Rouen, rector of the University of Paris in 1428, and ambassador of the King of England to the Council of Basel in 1434. (Rymer, vol. X, p. 596.) He was already dead by 1438, as appears from this clause in the will of Louis of Luxembourg, Archbishop of Rouen: I leave to the church of Rouen a breviary in two large volumes which I bought from the late Master Pierre Maurice, on condition that my successors as archbishops, whenever they are in Rouen, shall have and use them to say their office, and shall not be able to carry them outside. (Gallia christiana, vol. XI, Instr., col. 56.)\n(2) Gérard Feuillet, doctor of theology of the University of Paris.\n(3) Thomas de Courcelles, a native of Picardy, was a theologian of great distinction who later became one of the leading lights of the Gallican Church and the most renowned professor of the University of Paris. At the time of the trial he was thirty years old and already an emeritus rector and a canon of Amiens, Laon, and Thérouanne. His finest role was not the one he played in Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s case. He shared all the prejudices of the Bishop of Beauvais. His depositions at the revision show how embarrassed he was in 1456 by the conduct he had followed in 1431. Despite this fault of his youth, he won Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s favour through the zeal with which he defended the Pragmatic Sanction at the Council of Basel. For two successive years he was employed in the negotiations which ended the schism, and he contributed significantly to the pacification of 1449. He was an extremely modest and timid man, as appears from the portrait Aeneas Sylvius drew of him in his Commentaries on the Council of Basel: Thomas de Courcelles, distinguished among the doctors of sacred letters, than whom no one drafted more of the holy Council\u0026rsquo;s decrees; a man venerable and lovable for his learning, but with a certain modest reserve, always looking toward the ground and seeming almost to hide. He delivered the funeral oration of Charles VII. He died in 1469 as dean of the chapter of Notre-Dame in Paris. See Gallia christiana, vol. VII, col. 214; Du Boulay, Hist. Univers. Paris., vol. V, p. 918; Jean Chartier, Chron. de Charles VII, under the years 1447, 1448, 1449, and 1461.\nFebruary 14, 15, 16. Preparatory information is made. # Also on the immediately following Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, the aforesaid de Fonte, commissioner, taking with him the two aforementioned notaries, proceeded to the preparatory information, which we had previously ordered to be made.\nFebruary 19. It was concluded that the Inquisitor should be summoned. # Also on Monday after Brandons, the 19th of February, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred thirty: the lords and masters appearing around the eighth hour in the morning, in our said dwelling house, Giles, abbot of Fécamp, John Beaupère, James de Touraine, Nicholas Midi, Peter Morice, Gerard Feuillet, doctors of sacred theology; — Nicholas de Venderes, Jean de La Fontaine, licentiates in canon law; — William Haiton, Nicholas Coppequesne, Thomas de Courcelles, bachelors in theology, and Nicholas Loiselleur, canon of the church of Rouen: We, the aforesaid bishop, explained before them that, after certain articles concerning what was reported about the deeds and words of the aforesaid woman, handed over and transferred to us, as aforesaid, by our lord the King, we had ordered preparatory information, so that it might be seen whether there was sufficient reason to cite and summon the aforesaid woman in a cause of faith. And in their presence, we caused the aforesaid articles and the depositions of the witnesses contained in the aforesaid information to be read. Which lords and masters, having heard and fully considered the aforesaid, had a long and mature deliberation concerning these things, and finally we, having received their counsels and deliberations, decreed that we had sufficient matter, from the informations and other things, for which the aforesaid woman ought to be cited and summoned in a cause of faith; and we decreed that she should be cited and summoned in the matter of faith, to answer certain interrogatories to be proposed to her. Furthermore, in order that the matter itself might be more conveniently and salutarily conducted, out of reverence for the Holy Apostolic See, which specially deputed the lords inquisitors of heretical depravity for the correction of errors emerging against the orthodox faith: by the counsel of the same expert men, we concluded that the lord Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the kingdom of France should be summoned and requested in the matter of faith, so that, if it pleased his discretion or he believed it to be in his interest, he would join us in the proceedings. And since the aforesaid lord Inquisitor was then absent from this city of Rouen, we ordered that his vicar, existing in Rouen, should be summoned and, as aforesaid, called.\n(1) Brandons: the Sunday following Ash Wednesday.\nThe same day, after noon. Requests made to the vicar of the Lord Inquisitor. # Also on the same Monday, around the fourth hour after noon, at our request, the venerable and discreet man Brother Jean Le Maistre, of the Order of Preachers, vicar of the Lord Inquisitor in the kingdom of France, for the city and diocese of Rouen, appointed by him, appeared in our said dwelling house, the aforesaid bishop. Which vicar we summoned and requested to join us and proceed jointly in the matter declared above; offering to communicate to him all and singular things which had been done by us concerning these matters or would be done in the future. To these things, however, the aforesaid vicar responded that he was ready to show us the commission or vicariate delivered to him by the Lord Inquisitor; the tenor of which being seen, he would willingly do in the matter what he ought, for the office of the holy Inquisition; but because he was committed singularly for the diocese and city of Rouen, and we, although territory had been accommodated to us in this city, had nevertheless undertaken to conduct the present proceedings by reason of our jurisdiction of Beauvais, the aforesaid vicar doubted whether his aforesaid commission extended to the conduct of the same proceedings. To whom we responded that he should return to us tomorrow, and in the meantime we would have counsel concerning this.\nFebruary 20. The vicar of the Lord Inquisitor declares himself unfit for the cause. # Also on the following Tuesday, namely the 20th of February; the aforesaid, Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the Lord Inquisitor; Masters John Beaupère, James de Touraine, Nicholas Midi, Nicholas de Venderes, Peter Morice, Gerard Feuillet, Thomas de Courcelles, Nicholas Loiselleur, and Brother Martin Ladvenu, of the Order of Friars Preachers, appearing in our said dwelling house, the aforesaid bishop; before them we reported that we had seen the commission or vicariate delivered to the aforesaid Brother Jean Le Maistre by the Lord Inquisitor, and by the counsel of the experts to whom we had shown the vicariate, we had understood that the aforesaid vicar, by virtue of that commission, could join us and, in this city to which and to the entire diocese of Rouen his commission extended, jointly conduct the present proceedings with us. And nevertheless, for greater security of the aforesaid proceedings, we decided to summon and request the Lord Inquisitor in person by our open letters, to come personally to this city of Rouen for the purpose of conducting these proceedings, or to commit a vicar who would have fuller and more special power, as is more clearly evident from the tenor of the letters subscribed below.\n(1) Brother Martin Ladvenu, a Dominican and bachelor of theology. He was Joan\u0026rsquo;s confessor in her final moments; he administered the sacraments to her and accompanied her to the stake. He testified in the trial of revision.\nThese things thus explained by us, the aforesaid bishop, the aforementioned Brother Jean Le Maistre responded that, both for the serenity of his conscience and for the more secure conduct of the proceedings, he would not wish to involve himself in the present matter, unless and in as much as he had power concerning this. Nevertheless, in as much as he could and was permitted, it pleased him that we, the aforesaid bishop, should proceed further in the matter, until he had fuller counsel whether, by virtue of his often-mentioned commission, he should undertake to conduct the proceedings themselves. Whose consent thus obtained, we again offered to communicate to him the proceedings and what had already proceeded, or would be done in the future. And having received the deliberations of the assistants, we decreed that the aforesaid woman should be cited and summoned before us by our citation letters for the next Wednesday, namely the 21st of February; the tenor of which letters is noted below.\nFirst follows the tenor of the letters of vicariate of the said Brother Jean Le Maistre.\nBrother Jean Graverent, of the Order of Friars Preachers, professor of sacred theology, Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the kingdom of France, appointed by apostolic authority, to his beloved in Christ Brother Jean Le Maistre, of the same order, greetings in the author and confirmer of faith, our Lord Jesus Christ. Since the disease of heresy creeps like a cancer, and secretly kills the simple, unless it is cut off with the diligent examination of the inquisitorial pruning hook: hence it is that, trusting in your zeal for the faith, discretion, and probity, by the apostolic authority which we exercise in this matter, in the city and diocese of Rouen, we have made, created, and constituted, and by the tenor of these presents make, create, and constitute you our vicar; giving and granting to you in the said city and diocese, full power against all heretics or those suspected of heresy and their believers, supporters, defenders, and receivers, to inquire, cite, convene, excommunicate, capture, detain, correct, and otherwise proceed against them in opportune ways, up to and including the definitive sentence; and also to absolve and enjoin salutary penances; and generally to do and exercise all and singular other things which pertain to the said office of Inquisitor, both by law and by custom and special privilege, which we would do and could do if we were present. In witness of all these things, we have caused our seal, which we use in office, to be affixed to these presents. Given at Rouen, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred twenty-four, the twenty-first day of August.\nAlso follows the tenor of the letters which we, the aforesaid bishop, transmitted to the Lord Inquisitor of heretical depravity.\nPierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, to the venerable father Master Jean Graverent, doctor of sacred theology, Inquisitor of heretical depravity, greetings, and sincere love in Christ. Whereas our lord the King, inflamed with zeal for the orthodox faith and Christian religion, had handed over and transferred to us, as ordinary judge, a certain woman named Joan, who is commonly called the Maid, notoriously defamed for various crimes perpetrated against the faith and the Christian religion itself, and suspected of heresy, captured and apprehended in our diocese of Beauvais; and territory had been granted and assigned to us in this city and diocese of Rouen, for the purpose of conducting the proceedings in that matter, by the Chapter of the church of Rouen, the archiepiscopal see being vacant; desiring to drive away all impiety of error from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s flock, and that the integrity of Catholic truth may remain perpetually unharmed, so that the Christian people, especially in our diocese and other parts of this most Christian kingdom, may be continually edified unto salvation by sound doctrine; we have decided to examine the cause of the aforesaid woman with all diligence and care, and to inquire into her words and deeds concerning the orthodox faith; and having summoned several doctors of both sacred theology and canon law, and other experts, we have begun formal proceedings in this city, with great and mature counsel. But since the matter itself singularly concerns your office of inquisition, whose interest it is to seek out the clear truth in such suspicions of heresies, we request your venerable paternity, we summon and require you in favor of the faith, that, for the further conduct of the same proceedings, you come to this city without delay, to treat the matter itself, as pertains to your office, according to the form of law and apostolic sanctions, so that with a concordant sentence and a consistent procedure, we may jointly attend to the aforesaid matter. But if such occupation should detain you that you could allege a reasonable cause for some delay, at least commit the faculty to Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar in the city and diocese of Rouen appointed by you, or to another specially committed for this purpose, lest the slow delay of your absence, after due request, be imputed to the prejudice of the faith and the scandal of the Christian people. Whatever you shall decide to do concerning this, you shall take care to signify to us without delay by your open letters. Given at Rouen under our seal, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, the twenty-second day of February. Thus signed: G. BOISGUILLAUME. G. MANCHON.\nFebruary 21. First Public Session. # Likewise on Wednesday, namely the 21st day of the month of February, at about the eighth hour of the morning. We, the aforesaid bishop, went to the royal chapel of the castle of Rouen, to which chapel we had ordered the aforementioned woman to be cited to appear on the day and hour aforesaid; and there we sat as a tribunal, with the reverend fathers, lords, and masters assisting us: Gilles, abbot of the Holy Trinity of Fécamp; Pierre, prior of Longueville-Giffard; Jean de Châtillon [1], Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Jean de Nibat, Jacques Guesdon [2], Jean Lefèvre [3], Maurice du Quesnay [4], Guillaume Lebouchier [5], Pierre Houdenc, Pierre Maurice, Richard de Prat, and Gérard Feuillet, doctors of sacred theology; — Nicolas de Jumièges, Guillaume of Sainte-Katharine [6], and Guillaume de Cormeilles [7], abbots; Jean Garin [8], canon; Raoul Roussel, doctor of both laws;\n[1] Jean Hulot de Châtillon, doctor of theology, canon and archdeacon of Évreux. [2] Jacques Guesdon, of a noble family of Rouen, doctor of theology, of the Order of Friars Minor. [3] Jean Lefèvre of the convent of the Augustinians of Rouen, doctor and professor of theology. He later became bishop in partibus of Demetrias, and was charged with conducting the formal procedures at the end of the inquiry in the trial of rehabilitation. [4] Maurice du Quesnay, doctor and professor of theology. [5] Guillaume Lebouchier, doctor and professor of theology. [6] Guillaume de Conti, of a noble family of Picardy, abbot of the Trinity of the mount of Sainte-Catherine near Rouen. He was still living in 1449. (Gallia christiana, t. XI, col. 129.) [7] Guillaume Bonnel, doctor of civil and canon law, abbot of Cormeilles, in the diocese of Lisieux from the year 1408, died in 1437. (Gallia christiana, ibid., col. 848.) [8] Otherwise Johannes Guarini, Jean Garin, master of arts, doctor of canon law, canon of Rouen and archdeacon of the French Vexin, died May 19, 1433. (Histoire de l\u0026rsquo;Église cathéd. de Rouen, 1686, p. 386.) He is found in 1421 as dean of the Faculty of Decrees in Paris, and canon of Notre-Dame de Poissy. (Rymer, t. X, p. 41.) — Guillaume Heton, Nicolas Coppequesne, Jean Maistre, Richard de Grouchet [1], Pierre Minier [2], Jean Pigache, Raoul Sauvage [3], bachelors in theology; — Robert Barbier [4], Denis Gastinel [5], and Jean Ledoux [6]; Nicolas de Venderès, Jean Basset [7], Jean de la Fontaine, Jean Bruillot [8], Aubert Morel [9], Jean Colombel [10], Laurent Dubust [11], and Raoul Auguy [12], in canon law; — André Marguerie [13],\n[1] Richard de Grouchet, canon of the collegiate church of La Saussaye, in the diocese of Évreux, bachelor in theology. He testified in the trial of rehabilitation, where he is styled master of arts. [2] Pierre Minier, bachelor in theology. [3] Raoul Sauvage, Dominican, bachelor in theology. [4] Robert Barbier, licentiate in canon law, of the Faculty of Paris, canon of Rouen. [5] Denis Gastinel, master of arts, licentiate in civil and canon law, canon of Notre-Dame-la-Ronde and of the cathedral of Rouen. [6] Jean Ledoux, licentiate in civil and canon law, advocate at the ecclesiastical court of Rouen, canon of the cathedral. [7] Jean Basset, master of arts, licentiate in canon law, canon and official of Rouen. He had been promoter of the University of Paris in 1419; canon of the collegiate church of Mantes and beneficed rector of Cambernon in the diocese of Coutances in 1421. (Du Boulay, Histor. Univ. Paris., t. V, p. 346; Rymer, t. X, p. 41 and 70.) [8] Jean Bruillot, licentiate in canon law, canon and cantor of the cathedral of Rouen. [9] Aubert Morel, licentiate in canon law, advocate at the ecclesiastical court of Rouen, canon of the cathedral. [10] Jean Colombel, licentiate in canon law, advocate at the ecclesiastical court of Rouen, canon of the cathedral. [11] Laurent Dubust, licentiate in canon law. [12] Raoul Auguy, licentiate in canon law, advocate at the ecclesiastical court of Rouen, canon of the cathedral. [13] André Marguerie, licentiate in civil law, canon of Rouen, archdeacon of Petit-Caux, councillor to the King of England. (Rymer, t. X, p. 112.) He testified in the trial of rehabilitation. Jean Alespée [1], Geoffroi de Crotay [2], and Gilles Deschamps [3], licentiates in civil law. In whose presence there were first read the royal letters concerning the surrender and delivery of the oft-mentioned woman made to us, and next the letters of the Chapter of Rouen regarding the lending of territory: the tenors of which letters are set forth above. These having been read there, Master Jean d\u0026rsquo;Estivet, promoter appointed and deputed by us in this cause, recited before us that this woman, Joan by name, had been cited and summoned by the executor of our citations deputed in this cause, to appear in this same place, day, and hour aforesaid, to answer according to law to the interrogatories to be proposed to her, as was fully evident from the report of the aforesaid executor, annexed to our letters of citation.\n[1] Jean Alespée, licentiate in civil law, bachelor in canon law, canon of Évreux, of Bayeux, then of Rouen. He is found from the year 1409 styled with the title of canonicus praebendatus, and advocate at the ecclesiastical court of Rouen. (Hist. de la maison d\u0026rsquo;Harcourt, t. III, p. 485; Rymer, t. IX, p. 887; t. X, p. 17.) [2] Geoffroi de Crotay, licentiate in civil law, advocate at the ecclesiastical court of Rouen, canon of the cathedral. [3] Gilles Deschamps, licentiate in civil law and in canon law, canon and chancellor of the cathedral of Rouen. He was the nephew of the abbot of Fécamp, and taught theology in Paris from the year 1414. Almoner to Charles VI in 1415, he contested the bishopric of Thérouanne with Louis de Luxembourg. Later, the King of England secured for him numerous benefices in Normandy. He was elected dean of the chapter of Rouen on August 7, 1435. Died October 30, 1438. (Gallia christiana, t. XI, col. 119; t. IX, col. 1564; Rymer, t. X, p. 156.) The tenors of which letters of citation and report follow:\nPierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, having territory in the city and diocese of Rouen, lent to us by the venerable Chapter of the church of Rouen, the archiepiscopal see being vacant, for the purpose of conducting and concluding the matter written below, to the Dean of the Christian Community of Rouen, and to all and singular priests, with or without cure of souls, established in the city and diocese of Rouen, to whomsoever of them our present letters shall come to be executed, greeting in the author and finisher of our faith, our Lord Jesus Christ. Whereas a certain woman commonly called Joan the Maid, captured and apprehended in our diocese of Beauvais, and by the most Christian and serene prince, our lord the King of France and England, surrendered and dispatched, delivered and handed over to us as vehemently suspected of heresy, so that we might conduct a trial against her in a matter of faith; and we, having heard the report of the deeds and actions performed by her to the injury of our faith, which are notoriously publicized not only through the realm of France but indeed through all Christendom; and diligent inquiry and the deliberation of experts having been previously held; wishing to proceed in the said matter with maturity, have decreed that the said Joan is to be called, cited, and heard upon the articles and interrogatories to be given and made to her concerning the matter of faith: we therefore command you and each of you, that one of you being requested shall not wait for the other, nor shall one excuse himself for another. Cite peremptorily before us in the royal chapel of the castle of Rouen, on Wednesday the twenty-first of the present month of February, at the eighth hour of the morning, the said Joan whom we hold vehemently suspected of heresy, to answer the truth upon the said articles and interrogatories and other matters upon which we hold her suspected, and otherwise to do what shall be just and reasonable; with the intimation that we shall excommunicate her unless she appears before us on that day. What you shall have done in this matter, you who shall have executed these presents, shall faithfully write back to us. Given at Rouen under our seal, in the year of our Lord 1430, on Tuesday the twentieth of the said month of February. Thus signed: G. Boisguillaume. G. Manchon.\nReport of Execution. # To the reverend father in Christ and lord, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, having territory in the city and diocese of Rouen, lent to you by the venerable Chapter of the church of Rouen, the archiepiscopal see being vacant, for the purpose of conducting and concluding the matter written below, your humble Jean Massieu, priest, Dean of the Christian Community of Rouen, prompt obedience in commands with all reverence and honor. May your reverend paternity know that, by virtue of your mandate presented to me, to which this my present report is annexed, I have cited peremptorily before you in the royal chapel of the castle of Rouen, on Wednesday the twenty-first of the present month of February, at the eighth hour of the morning, a certain woman commonly called Joan the Maid, personally apprehended by me within the precincts of the said castle, whom you hold vehemently suspected of heresy, to answer the truth upon the articles and interrogatories to be given and made to her concerning the matter of faith, and other matters upon which you hold her suspected, and otherwise to do what shall be just and reasonable, with the intimation contained in your said letters. Which Joan indeed answered in effect that she would gladly appear before you, and would answer the truth upon the interrogatories to be made to her; and that she requested that in this matter you would be pleased to convoke, together with yourself, churchmen from these parts of France, just as well as from England; and further, she humbly supplicated your reverend paternity that on the morrow, before she appeared before your reverend paternity, she might hear mass, and that I should signify this to you; which I have done. Which premises thus performed by me, I signify to your reverend paternity by these presents, sealed and signed with my seal and sign manual. Given in the year of our Lord 1430, on the Tuesday preceding the said Wednesday. Thus signed: Johannes.\nPetition of the Promoter. Concluded that the accused shall not be present at divine offices. # Thereupon, after the exhibition of the aforesaid letters, the aforesaid promoter urgently requested that the aforesaid woman be ordered to come to that place, and to appear before us, as she had been cited to appear there, and be interrogated by us upon certain articles concerning the matter of faith: which we granted to him. And in the meantime, because the aforesaid woman had previously requested to hear mass, we explained before the aforesaid assistants how, by the counsel of notable lords and masters, we had determined that, in view of the crimes of which the said woman was defamed and the impropriety of the habit in which she persisted, we must refrain from granting her permission to hear mass and to be present at divine offices.\nJoan is brought to judgment. # While these things were being said by us, the same woman was brought in by the aforesaid executor of our citations. When she appeared in judgment before us, we began to explain that this Joan, having been captured and apprehended some time ago within the terms and limits of our diocese of Beauvais, whose many deeds to the injury of the orthodox faith, not only in our diocese but also in many other regions, public report had now spread through almost all the realms of Christians; had recently been surrendered and dispatched to us by our most serene and Christian prince, our lord the King, so that a trial in a matter of faith might be conducted against her, as should seem consonant with law and reason. We indeed, considering the common report and public rumors, together with certain inquiries of which we made mention above, having first taken mature counsel of experts in divine and human law, had ordered the said Joan to be cited and summoned in writing by our office, to answer the truth upon the interrogatories to be proposed to her in the matter of faith, and otherwise to do what should be of law and reason; as could appear from the aforesaid letters which the promoter had exhibited.\nFirst exhortation made to Joan. # Wherefore, desiring to fulfill the duty of our office for the preservation and exaltation of the Catholic faith, with the benign help of Jesus Christ, whose cause is being dealt with, we first charitably warned and requested the oft-mentioned Joan, then sitting before us, to speak the full truth upon those things about which she should be interrogated in the matter of faith, for the acceleration of the present business and the exoneration of her own conscience, not seeking subterfuges or cautions turning away from the confession of the truth itself.\nRequested to take the oath. # Furthermore, by our office, we judicially requested the said Joan to take the oath in due form, touching the Holy Gospels, to speak the truth, as is premised, upon those things about which she should be interrogated.\nWhich Joan indeed answered to this in this manner: I do not know upon what you wish to interrogate me. Perhaps you might ask such things of me as I will not tell you. When we indeed said to her: You will swear to speak the truth concerning those things which shall be asked of you, concerning the faith and which you shall know? she answered again that concerning her father and mother, and those things which she had done after she had taken her journey into France, she would gladly swear; but concerning revelations from God, she had never spoken or revealed them to anyone, except to Charles alone, whom she calls her king; nor would she reveal them even if her head were to be cut off; because she had this by visions or her secret counsel, not to reveal them to anyone; and that within the next eight days, she would well know if she ought to reveal this.\nAnd again, and repeatedly, we, the aforesaid bishop, warned and requested the same Joan that in those things which touched our faith, she would be pleased to take the oath to speak the truth. Which Joan indeed, on bended knees, with both hands placed upon the book, namely upon the Missal, swore that she would speak the truth upon those things which should be required of her, concerning the matter of faith which she knew, keeping silent under the condition aforesaid, namely, that she would speak or reveal to no one the revelations made to her.\nFirst interrogation after the oath. # Likewise, the oath having been thus taken, the same Joan was interrogated by us concerning her name and surname. To which she answered that in her own parts she was called Jeannette, and after she came into France she was called Joan. Concerning her surname, however, she said she did not know. Consequently, interrogated about her place of origin: she answered that she was born in the town of Domrémy, which is the same as the town of Greux; and in the place of Greux is the principal church.\n(1) Greux.\nLikewise, interrogated about the name of her father and mother: she answered that her father was called Jacques d\u0026rsquo;Arc, and her mother Isabeau.\nInterrogated in what place she was baptized: she answered that in the church of Domrémy.\nInterrogated who were her godfathers and godmothers: she says that one of the godmothers was called Agnes, another Joan, another Sibylle; of the godfathers indeed, one was called Jean Lingué, another Jean Barrey; and she had several other godmothers, as she heard from her mother.\nInterrogated what priest baptized her: she answered that Jean Minet, as she believes.\nInterrogated whether he is living: she answered that yes, as she believes.\nLikewise, interrogated of what age she was: she answered that, as it seems to her, she is about nineteen years old. She said furthermore that from her mother she learned the Pater noster, Ave Maria, and Credo; nor did she learn her belief from anywhere else than from her aforesaid mother.\nLikewise, requested by us to say the Pater noster: she answered that we should hear her in confession and she would gladly say it to us. And when we again requested her several times upon this: she answered that she would not say the Pater noster, etc., unless we heard her in confession. Then indeed we said that we would gladly deliver to her one or two notable men of the French tongue, before whom she might say the Pater noster, etc. To which the said Joan answered that she would not say it to them, unless they heard her in confession.\nProhibition not to depart from the prisons. # These things having been thus performed, we, the aforesaid bishop, prohibited the same Joan from departing from the prisons assigned to her within the castle of Rouen, without our permission, under penalty of being convicted of the crime of heresy. She indeed answered that she did not accept that prohibition, saying further that, if she escaped, no one could reproach her that she had broken or violated her faith, because she had never given her faith to anyone. Thereupon she complained that she was detained in iron chains and fetters. Then also we said to her that at other times she had attempted to escape from prisons several times, and therefore, so that she might be kept more safely and securely, she had been ordered to be fettered with iron chains. To which she answered saying: It is true that at other times I wished and would wish, as is lawful for any prisoner, to escape.\nAfterward indeed, we committed to the safe custody of the said Joan, the noble man John Grey, squire of the body of our lord the King, and with him John Berwoit and William Talbot, enjoining them that they should well and faithfully guard the said Joan, permitting no one to speak with her, except by our permission. Who solemnly swore to do this, touching the Holy Gospels.\nAt length and finally, all the premises having been completed, we assigned to the same Joan the morrow, immediately following Thursday, to appear at the eighth hour of the morning, in the ornament chamber, at the end of the great hall of the aforesaid castle of Rouen.\nFebruary 22. Second Session. # Likewise, on Thursday, February 22nd, immediately following, we, the aforesaid bishop, went to the ornament chamber, at the end of the great hall of the castle of Rouen, where there were likewise assembled with us the reverend fathers, lords, and masters: Gilles, abbot of the Holy Trinity of Fécamp; Pierre, prior of Longueville-Giffard; Jean de Châtillon, Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Jean de Nibat, Jacques Guesdon, Jean Lefèvre, Maurice du Quesnay, Guillaume Lebouchier, Pierre Houdenc, Pierre Maurice, Richard de Prat, and Gérard Feuillet, doctors of sacred theology; — Nicolas de Jumièges, Guillaume of Sainte-Katharine, Guillaume de Cormeilles, abbots; and Jean Garin, in canon law; Raoul Roussel, doctor of both laws; — Guillaume Heton, Nicolas Coppequesne, Jean Maistre, Richard de Grouchet, Pierre Minier, Jean Pigache, Raoul Sauvage, bachelors in sacred theology; — Robert Barbier, Denis Gastinel, Jean Ledoux, in both laws; — Jean Basset, Jean de la Fontaine, Jean Bruillot, Aubert Morel, Nicolas de Venderès, Jean Pinchon [1], Jean Colombel, Laurent Dubust, Raoul Auguy, in canon law; — André Marguerie, Jean Alespée, Geoffroi de Crotay, and Gilles Deschamps, licentiates in civil law; — the abbot of Préaux [2], brother Guillaume L\u0026rsquo;Hermite [3], Guillaume Desjardins [4], doctor in medicine, Robert Morellet, and Jean Le Roy [5], canons of the church of Rouen.\n[1] Jean Pinchon, licentiate in canon law, canon of Paris and of Rouen, archdeacon of Josas. [2] The abbot of Préaux, in the diocese of Lisieux. It was then Jean Moret, licentiate in civil and canon law, died about the year 1435. (Gallia christiana, t. XI, col. 840.) [3] He was rector of La Haye, in the diocese of Coutances, in 1420. (Rymer, t. IX, p. 886.) [4] Guillaume Desjardins, doctor in medicine, canon of Rouen, chancellor of the church of Bayeux, prebendary of the collegiate church of Neufmarché, in the diocese of Évreux. (Rymer, t. IX, p. 859, 885.) [5] Robert Morellet and Jean Le Roy, canons of the cathedral of Rouen. The first, master of arts, provided with his canonry by the King of England, April 24, 1421. (Rymer, t. X, p. 105.) In whose presence, we first explained how we had summoned and requested brother Jean Maistre, vicar of the lord Inquisitor, who was then present, to join himself to the present trial; offering to communicate to him all things which had been done hitherto in the matter, or which should be done in the future; and that the said vicar had answered that he had only been commissioned and deputed by the aforesaid lord Inquisitor for the city and diocese of Rouen; but this trial was being conducted by us by reason of our jurisdiction of Beauvais, in the lent territory. Wherefore, lest the trial should be rendered invalid, and also for the peace of his conscience, he had delayed to join himself, until he should have fuller counsel, and also should have fuller power or commission from the lord Inquisitor; yet the said vicar, as far as in him lay, had been content that we should proceed further in the matter continuously. Which hearing thus recited by us, the aforesaid vicar answered us saying: It is true what you say. I have ratified and do ratify, as much as I can and as far as in me lies, that you proceed.\nThereupon we requested and warned the said Joan, appearing before us in the aforesaid place, under the penalties of the law, to make the oath which she had taken on the preceding day, and that she should simply and absolutely swear to speak the truth to those things which should be interrogated in the matter of which she was accused and defamed. To which she answered that she had made the oath yesterday, and it ought to suffice.\nAgain we requested that she should swear; for anyone, even a prince, being requested in a matter of faith, could not refuse to make the oath. And she answered again: I made the oath to you yesterday; it ought well to suffice you. You burden me too much. Finally she made the oath to speak the truth in those things which should touch the faith.\nAfterward, the eminent professor of sacred theology, Master Jean Beaupère, by our command and direction, interrogated the said Joan upon those things which follow.\nAnd first he exhorted her that she should speak the truth to the things to be asked, just as she had sworn. Who answered: You might well ask me such a thing, about which I would answer you the truth, and about another I would not answer. And she added: If you were well informed about me, you ought to wish that I were out of your hands. I have done nothing except by revelation.\nInterrogated consequently about the age she was when she departed from her father\u0026rsquo;s house: she said that of her age she does not know how to depose.\nInterrogated whether in her youth she learned any art: she said yes, to sew linen cloths and to spin; nor did she fear any woman of Rouen in spinning and sewing. Further she confessed that, on account of the fear of the Burgundians, she departed from her father\u0026rsquo;s house and went to the town of Neufchâteau [1], in Lorraine, to a certain woman surnamed la Rousse, where she stayed for about fifteen days; adding further that, while she was in her father\u0026rsquo;s house, she was occupied with the family business of the house, nor did she go to the fields with sheep and other animals.\n[1] Neufchâteau, today in the department of Vosges. Likewise, interrogated whether she confessed her sins every year: she answers yes, and to her own curate; and when the curate was hindered, she confessed to another priest, by permission of the said curate. Sometimes also, twice or thrice, as she believes, she confessed to mendicant religious. And this was at the said town of Neufchâteau. And she received the sacrament of the Eucharist at the feast of Easter.\nInterrogated whether at other feasts than at Easter she received the same sacrament of the Eucharist: she told the interrogator that he should pass on. Further she confessed that, when she was of the age of thirteen years, she had a voice from God, to help her to govern herself. And the first time, she had great fear. And that voice came, at about the hour of noon, in the summer time, in her father\u0026rsquo;s garden; and the said Joan had fasted the preceding day. And she heard the voice on her right side toward the church, and she rarely hears it without a light. Which light indeed is on the same side on which the voice is heard, but there is commonly a great light there. And when the said Joan came into France, she often heard that voice.\nInterrogated how she saw the light which she said was present there, since that light was on the side: she answered nothing to this; but passed to other things. She said furthermore that, if she were in a wood, she would well hear the voices coming to her. She said also that it seemed to her to be a worthy voice, and she believes that the same voice was sent from God; and after she heard that voice three times, she knew that it was the voice of an angel. She said also that the voice always guarded her well, and that she well understood the voice.\nInterrogated what instruction that voice gave her for the salvation of her soul: she said that it taught her to govern herself well, to frequent the church, and it told the said Joan that it was necessary that she, Joan, should come into France. And the aforesaid Joan added that the interrogator should not have from her, for that time, in what form that voice had appeared to her. Further she confessed that the voice told her twice or thrice a week, that it behooved her, Joan, to depart and come into France; and that her father knew nothing of her departure. She said also that the voice told her that she should come into France, and she could no longer endure where she was; and that the voice told her that she should raise the siege placed before the city of Orleans. She said further that the aforesaid voice told her that she, Joan, should go to Robert de Baudricourt [1], at the town of Vaucouleurs [2], captain of the said place, and he would deliver to her people to go with her; and the said Joan then answered that she was a poor girl who did not know how to ride, nor to conduct war. She said further that she went to her uncle [3], and told him that she wished to stay with him for some short time; and there she remained for about eight days; and she then told her aforesaid uncle that it behooved her to go to the aforesaid town of Vaucouleurs; and her uncle himself conducted her there.\n[1] Robert de Baudricourt, then squire and captain of Vaucouleurs. He later became a knight, councillor and chamberlain to the King, and bailiff of Chaumont; died about the year 1454, before the trial of rehabilitation. [2] Vaucouleurs. [3] Named Durand Laxart in the trial of rehabilitation. Likewise she said that, when she came to the oft-mentioned town of Vaucouleurs, she recognized Robert de Baudricourt, although she had never seen him before; and she recognized the aforesaid Robert through that voice, for the voice told her that it was he; and the said Joan said to the same Robert, that it behooved her to come into France. But Robert twice refused and rejected her, and on the third time he received her, and delivered men to her; and so also the voice had told her that it would happen.\nLikewise she confessed that the Duke of Lorraine [4] ordered that she should be brought to him: to whom she also went; and she told him that she wished to go into France. And the duke himself interrogated her about the recovery of his health; but she told him that she knew nothing thereof; and she declared few things of her journey to the same duke. She told the duke, however, that he should deliver to her his son and men, to conduct her to France, and she would pray to God for his health. And the same Joan had been under safe conduct to the aforesaid duke; from whom she returned to the town of Vaucouleurs aforesaid.\n[4] Charles of Lorraine, died January 25, 1431, during the instruction of the trial. Likewise she confessed that, in departing from the aforesaid town of Vaucouleurs, she being in male attire, carrying a sword which the said Robert de Baudricourt had delivered to her, without other arms, accompanied by a knight, a squire [1], and four servants, proceeded to the town of Saint-Urbain [2], and there passed the night in the abbey.\n[1] The knight was Jean de Novelompont, called Jean de Metz; the squire was named Bertrand de Poulangy. Both testified in the trial of rehabilitation. The names of the four servants are found in the depositions of the same trial. [2] Saint-Urbain, today in the department of Haute-Marne, district of Vassy. Likewise she said that on that journey, she passed through the town of Auxerre, and there heard mass in the principal church; and then she frequently had her voices, with that of which mention is made above.\nLikewise requested to say by whose counsel she assumed male attire: she refused several times to answer to this. Finally she said that of this she did not lay the burden on any man; and she varied several times.\nLikewise she said that the aforesaid Robert de Baudricourt made those who conducted the said Joan swear that they would conduct her well and safely. And the same Robert said to Joan: Go, when she departed from him, go, and let come what may.\nLikewise the said Joan said further that she well knows that God loves the Duke of Orleans [1]; and also that she had had more revelations concerning him than concerning any living man, except him whom she calls her king. She said furthermore that it behooved her to change her attire into male attire. Likewise also she believes that her counsel told her well.\n[1] Charles of Orleans, held prisoner in England since the battle of Agincourt. Likewise she said that she sent letters to the English being before Orleans, containing that they should depart thence, just as is contained in the copy of the letters which was read to her in this town of Rouen; except however two or three words existing in the same copy, as for instance that which is said in that copy render to the Maid, ought to be put render to the King. There are also placed there those words, body for body, and head of war, which were not in the original letters [2].\n[2] The alterations that the Maid points out in this answer must not be imputed to her enemies. Render to the Maid, body for body, head of war, are found in the least suspect reproductions of her letter to the English. Doubtless the numerous copies which were distributed of it during the siege of Orleans all bore these words, and there is reason to believe that they existed in the original, whether Joan did not remember having dictated them, or her clerk had inserted them of his own accord, to give more effect to the summons. The author of the chronicle called of the Maid, and the councillor Thomassin, both contemporaries and writing for the French party, give the letter with the contested expressions. We shall publish for the first time, at the end of this work, a third text absolutely conforming, and whose authenticity is of a nature to render doubt impossible. She said further, the said Joan, that she went to him whom she calls her king, without hindrance; and, when she had arrived at the town of Sainte-Katharine de Fierbois [1], then she first sent to the town of Chinon [2], in which he whom she calls her king was. And she arrived there at about the hour of noon, and lodged in a certain inn; and, after dinner, she went to him whom she calls her king, who was in the castle. Likewise she says that, when she entered the chamber of her aforesaid king, she recognized him among others, by the counsel of her voice revealing this to her. And she said to her same king that she wished to go to make war against the English.\n[1] In Touraine; today in the department of Indre-et-Loire, district of Chinon. [2] Read Chinon. Interrogated whether, that time when the voice showed her her aforesaid king, there was any light in the aforesaid place: she answered: Pass on.\nInterrogated whether she saw any angel above her king himself: she answered: Spare me, pass on. She said, however, that before her king set her to work, he had many beautiful apparitions and revelations.\nInterrogated what revelations and apparitions her same king had: she answered: I will not tell you this. As yet there is no answer for you; but send to the king himself, and he will tell you.\nLikewise the same Joan said that the voice had promised her that, quite soon after she had come to her king, he would receive her. She said also that those of her party well knew that the voice had been sent to the said Joan from God, and that they saw and recognized the voice, the said Joan asserting that she well knows this. Further she said that her king and several others heard and saw the voices coming to the said Joan; and there was present Charles de Bourbon [1] and two or three others.\n[1] Charles de Bourbon, Count of Clermont, who governed the duchy of Bourbonnais and the county of Auvergne during the captivity of his father, held by the English since the battle of Agincourt. Likewise the said Joan said that there is no day but that she hears that voice, and indeed she has great need of it. She said also that she never requested from the aforesaid voice any other final reward, except the salvation of her soul. Further the said Joan confessed that the voice told her that she should remain at the town of Saint-Denis in France; and the said Joan wished to remain there [2]; but against her will the lords led her away. If however she had not been wounded, she would not have departed thence; and she was wounded in the trenches of Paris, when she had proceeded thither from the said town of Saint-Denis; but in five days she was healed. Further she confessed that she caused an assault to be made, in French escharmouche, before the city of Paris.\n[2] In September 1429. And when she was interrogated whether it was then a feast day: she answered that she well believes it was then a feast day.\nInterrogated whether this was well done: she answered: Pass on.\nWhich things being thus performed on this side and on that, because enough seemed to have been done for that day, we, the aforesaid bishop, continued the business until the Saturday immediately following, and the eighth hour of the morning of the same day.\nFebruary 24. Third Session. # Likewise, on the Saturday immediately following, which was the 24th day of the month of February aforesaid, we, the aforesaid bishop, went to the castle of Rouen and the chamber aforesaid, in which the said Joan appeared judicially before us, with very many reverend fathers, doctors, and masters assisting, namely: Gilles, abbot of the Holy Trinity of Fécamp; Pierre, prior of Longueville-Giffard; Jean de Châtillon, Érard Emengart, Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Jean de Nibat, Jacques Guesdon, Maurice du Quesnay, Jean Lefèvre, Guillaume Lebouchier, Pierre Houdenc, Pierre Maurice, Richard de Prat, Jean Charpentier [1], and Gérard Feuillet, Denis de Sabreuvras [2], in sacred theology; — Nicolas de Jumièges, Guillaume of Sainte-Katharine, Guillaume de Cormeilles, abbots; and Jean Garin, in canon law; Raoul Roussel, doctor of both laws; — Nicolas Coppequesne, Guillaume Heton, Thomas de Courcelles, Jean Maistre, Nicolas Loyseleur, Raoul Sauvage, Guillaume de Baudribosc [3], Nicolas Lemire [4], Richard\n[1] Jean Charpentier, doctor and professor of theology. M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy was mistaken when he advanced that this personage had been consulted without having figured as an assessor at the judgment. (Notice des Manuscrits, t. III, p. 153.) [2] Denis de Sabevras, Sabreuvras, Sabevrois or also Sabevret, de Sabevreto, doctor in theology, rector of the University of Paris in 1418, deputy of the nation of Normandy at the Council of Basel, and sent by that assembly on an embassy to the King of the Romans, in July 1431. (Du Boulay, Histor. Univ. Paris., t. V, p. 409, 423, 920.) [3] Guillaume de Baudrebois, bachelor in theology, canon of the cathedral of Rouen by exchange of a prebend which he had first at Notre-Dame-la-Ronde. (Rymer, t. X, p. 67.) [4] Nicole Lemire. Legaigneur [1], Jean Duval, Guillaume Maistre, and Guillaume de Saint-Jean, bachelors in sacred theology; — the abbot of Saint-Ouen [2], the abbot of Saint-Georges [3], of Préaux [4], the prior of Saint-Lô [5], and the prior of Sigy [6]; also Robert Barbier, Denis Gastinel, and Jean Ledoux, in both laws; — Nicolas de Venderès, Jean Pinchon, Jean de la Fontaine, Aubert Morel, Jean Duchemin [7], Jean Colombel, Laurent Dubust, Raoul Auguy, Richard de Saulx [8], in canon law; — André Marguerie, Jean Alespée, Geoffroi de Crotay, Gilles Deschamps, Nicolas Caval [9], Pierre Carrel, Bureau de Cormeilles [10], in civil law; —\n[1] Richard Legaigneur (?) but not Du Lucre or Du Gain as M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy translated. (Notice des Manuscrits, t. III, p. 154.) [2] The abbot of Saint-Ouen of Rouen. It was then Guillaume Du Mesle, previously professor of the University of Paris, then abbot of Sainte-Catherine, who had been substituted for Jean Richart, placed under interdict by the archbishop of Rouen, then by the pope in 1427. Guillaume Du Mesle must have died before the year 1434, for at that time one finds his competitor reinstated in the benefice. (Gallia christiana, t. XI, col. 152.) [3] Jean Labbé, called Jean de Rouen, licentiate in civil and canon law, abbot of Saint-Georges de Boscherville from the year 1417. His temporalities having been seized by the English, he was in suit before the court of Rome to have restored to him what had been taken from him. He abdicated in 1444 without having been able to obtain justice. (Gallia christiana, t. XI, col. 272.) [4] Supply Abbot. See above, p. 49. [5] Guillaume Lebourc, prior of the collegiate church of Saint-Lô of Rouen, licentiate in civil and canon law, died January 25, 1455. (Neustria Pia, p. 811.) [6] The prior of Sigy, convent of the Order of Saint Benedict, near Neufchâtel. The author of the Neustria Pia declares he could find no historical document on this religious house. [7] Jean Duquemin or Duchemin, licentiate in canon law, advocate at the ecclesiastical court of Rouen, canon of the cathedral. [8] Richard de Saulx, licentiate in canon law, advocate at the ecclesiastical court of Rouen, canon of the cathedral. [9] Nicolas Caval, licentiate in civil law, bachelor in canon law, canon of the collegiate church of Mortain and of the cathedral of Rouen. (Rymer, t. X, p. 41.) [10] Bureau de Cormeilles, licentiate in civil law, advocate at the ecclesiastical court of Rouen, canon of the cathedral. Robert Morellet and Jean Le Roy, canons of the church of Rouen, and Nicolas de Foville.\nIn whose presence, we first requested the aforesaid Joan, that she should simply and absolutely swear to speak the truth of those things about which she should be interrogated, without any condition to be placed by her in such oath; and of this we warned her three times. Which Joan indeed answered: Give me permission to speak. And then she said: By my faith, you might ask such things of me as I would not tell you. And again also she said: It may be that of many things which you might ask of me, I would not tell you the truth, [as for instance] of that which touches revelations; because perhaps you might compel me to say such a thing as I swore not to say, and so I should be perjured, which you ought not to wish. And she added: I tell you, take good heed of this, that you say you are my judge, because you assume a great burden, and you burden me too much. She says also that it seemed to be enough to have sworn twice in judgment.\nAgain interrogated whether she would simply and absolutely swear: she answered: You may well pass on; I have sworn enough in two times; saying further, that all the clergy of Rouen or Paris would not know how to condemn her, unless they had it in law. Likewise she said that of her coming she would gladly speak the truth; but she would not say all; and that a space of eight days would not suffice to say all.\nWe indeed, the aforesaid bishop, told her that she should take counsel from the assistants, whether she ought to swear or not. Who again answered that of her coming she would gladly speak the truth, and not otherwise; and that it was not necessary that we should speak to her further thereof.\nAfterward we told her that she would render herself suspected, if she would not swear to speak the truth. She answered as before. Again we requested her that she should swear precisely and absolutely. Then she answered that she would gladly say that which she knew, and yet not all. She said further that she came from God, and has nothing to transact here, requesting that she be sent back to God from whom she had come.\nAgain requested and warned to swear, under penalty of being burdened with that which was imputed to her: she answered: Pass on.\nFinally we still requested her to swear, and abundantly warned her to speak the truth upon that which touches the trial; telling her that she exposed herself to great danger by such refusal. Then indeed she answered: I am ready to swear to speak the truth of that which I shall know touching the trial. And in this manner she swore.\nThereupon, by our direction, she was interrogated by the eminent doctor, Master Jean Beaupère, named above, who first asked of her at what hour she had last eaten or drunk. Who answered that from yesterday after noon, she had not eaten or drunk.\nLikewise interrogated since what hour she had heard the voice which came to her: she answered: I heard yesterday and today.\nLikewise interrogated at what hour, yesterday, she had heard that voice: she answered that three times on that day she had heard it, once in the morning, once in the evening, and the third time when the Ave Maria was rung in the evening; and very often she hears it more times than she says.\nInterrogated what she was doing yesterday in the morning, when that voice came to her: she answered that she was sleeping, and the voice awakened her.\nInterrogated whether the voice awakened her by touching her arms: she answered that she was awakened by the voice without touch.\nInterrogated whether that voice was in her chamber: she answered that not that she knows, but it was in the castle.\nInterrogated whether she thanked that voice, and whether she bent her knees: she answered that she thanked it, being and sitting in her bed, and joined her hands; and this was after she had requested help. That voice indeed told the said Joan that she should answer boldly.\nLikewise interrogated what the voice said to her, when she was awakened: she answered that she asked of the same voice counsel of that which she ought to answer; telling the same voice that it should ask counsel of this from the Lord; and it told her that she should answer boldly, and that God would help her.\nInterrogated whether it said any words to her, before she requested it: she answered that the voice said some, but she did not understand all. Nevertheless, after she was awakened from sleep, the voice told her that she should answer boldly.\nLikewise she said to us, the aforesaid bishop: You say that you are my judge; take heed of what you do, because in truth I am sent from God, and you place yourself in great danger, in French engluant dangier.\nInterrogated whether that voice changed its determination at any time: she answered that she never found it in two contrary speeches. She said also that that night, she heard it telling her that she should answer boldly.\nInterrogated whether the voice prohibited her from saying all that should be asked of her: she said: I will not answer you about that. And I have revelations touching the king, which I will not tell you.\nInterrogated whether the voice prohibited her from telling her revelations: she answered: I am not consulted about this. Give me a delay of fifteen days, and I will answer you about this. And, when she had again requested a delay for answering, she said: If the voice prohibited me, what do you wish to say thereof?\nStill interrogated whether this was prohibited to her: she answered: Believe that men did not prohibit me. Likewise she said that on that day she will not answer, and she does not know if she ought to say or not, until it is revealed to her. Likewise she said that she believes firmly, and as firmly as she believes the Christian faith and that God redeemed us from the pains of hell, that this voice comes from God and by His direction.\nInterrogated whether that voice, which she said appeared to her, is an angel, or whether it is from God immediately, or whether it is the voice of a Saint, or of a Saintess: she answered: That voice comes from God; and I believe that I do not tell you plainly that which I know; and I have greater fear of failing, by saying something which displeases those voices, than I have of answering you. And as for this interrogatory, I pray you that I may have a delay.\nInterrogated whether she believes it displeases God that the truth be said: she answered: The voices told me that some things I should say to the king and not to you. Likewise she said that that night, it told her many things for the good of her king, which she would wish the king then to know, and that she would not drink wine until Easter: for he, as she said, would have been happier at his dinner.\nInterrogated whether she could do so much with that voice, that it would obey and carry a message to her king: she answered that she did not know if the voice would obey, unless it were the will of God, and that God consented. And if it please God, she said, He can well make it to be revealed to her king; and of this I should be well content.\nInterrogated why that voice does not now speak with her king, as it did when the said Joan was in his presence: she answered that she does not know if it is the will of God. And she added that, unless it were the grace of God, she would not know how to do anything.\nInterrogated whether her counsel revealed to her that she should escape from prisons: she answered: I have not to tell you this.\n(1) So in the Latin. The French compilation published by M. Buchon reads: I have nothing to tell you.\nInterrogated whether that night, the voice gave her counsel and advice of that which she ought to answer: she answered that, if the voice revealed it to her, she did not well understand.\nInterrogated whether, in the two last days in which she heard the voices, any light came there: she answered that in the name of the voice light comes.\nInterrogated whether with the voices she sees any other thing: she answered: I will not tell you all; I have not permission for this, nor does my oath touch that. The voice itself is good and worthy, nor am I bound to answer about this. Likewise she requested that those points in which she did not then answer should be given to her in writing.\nAnd then it was asked of her whether that voice from which she requested counsel, had sight and eyes. She answered: You will not have this yet. And she said that the saying of little children is that sometimes men are hanged for speaking the truth.\nInterrogated whether she knows that she is in the grace of God: she answered: If I am not, may God place me there; and if I am, may God keep me in it. I should be the most sorrowful in all the world, if I knew myself not to be in the grace of God. She said further, if she were in sin, she believes that the voice would not come to her; and she would wish that everyone understood as well as she. Likewise she said that she holds that she was of the age of thirteen years, or thereabouts, when the first voice came to her.\nInterrogated whether in her youth she went to walk in the fields with other girls: she answered that she well went sometimes, but she does not know at what age.\nInterrogated whether those of Domrémy held the party of the Burgundians or the opposite party: she answered that she knew there but one Burgundian whose head she would have wished to have cut off; yet, if this had pleased God.\nInterrogated whether at the town of Maxey [1] there were Burgundians, or adversaries of the Burgundians: she answered that they were Burgundians.\n[1] Today Maxey-sur-Meuse, village neighboring Domrémy, department of Vosges, district of Neufchâteau. Interrogated whether the voice told her, when she was young, that she should hate the Burgundians: she answered that, after she understood those voices to be for the King of France, she did not love the Burgundians. Likewise she said that the Burgundians will have war, unless they do what they ought; and this she knows through the aforesaid voice.\nInterrogated whether in her youthful age she had a revelation from the voice, that the English had to come to France: she answered that already the English were in France, when the voices began to come to her.\nInterrogated whether she was ever with the little boys who fought for that party which she holds: she answered that not that she has memory of; but she well saw that some of those of the town of Domrémy, who had fought against those of Maxey, came back thence sometimes well wounded and bloodied.\nInterrogated whether she, in her youthful age, had a great intention of pursuing the Burgundians: she answered that she had a great will or affection that her king should have his kingdom.\nInterrogated whether she would have well wished to be a male, when she had to come to France: she answered that at other times she had answered to this.\nInterrogated whether she led animals to the fields: she said that at other times she had answered about this; and that, after she was older, and that she had discretion, she did not guard animals commonly, but she well helped in conducting them to the meadows and to a castle which is named the Island, for fear of armed men; but she does not record whether in her youthful age she guarded them or not.\nLikewise she was interrogated about a certain tree existing near her town. To which she answered that quite near the town of Domrémy is a certain tree called the Ladies\u0026rsquo; Tree, and others call it the Tree of the Fairies, in French des Fées, near which is a spring; and she heard it said that sick persons feverish drink of that spring and go to seek of its water, for having health. And this she herself saw; but she does not know whether they are healed thence or not. Likewise she says that she heard that the sick, when they can raise themselves, go to the tree for walking. And it is a great tree called a Beech, whence comes the May, in French le beau may, and it was accustomed to belong to Lord Pierre de Bourlemont [1], knight. Likewise she said that sometimes she went to walk with other girls, and made at the tree garlands for the image of the Blessed Mary of Domrémy. And many times she heard from old people (not from those of her lineage), that the Fairy Ladies frequented there. And she heard it said by a woman named Joan, wife of the Mayor Aubry of that town, who was the godmother of this Joan speaking, that she had seen there the aforesaid Fairy Ladies; but she speaking does not know whether this was true or not. Likewise she said that she never saw the aforesaid Fairies at the tree, that she knows of; but if she saw them elsewhere, she does not know whether she saw them or not. Likewise she said that she saw garlands placed on the branches of the tree by girls, and she herself sometimes placed them there with other girls; and sometimes they carried them away with them, sometimes they left them. Likewise she said that, after\n[1] Pierre de Bourlemont was the head of a very ancient house of Bassigny, whose name became extinct with him; for he left but one daughter who carried his fiefs into the family of Anglure. (Simple crayon de la noblesse des duchez de Lorraine et de Bar, ap. Lebrun de Charmettes, Hist. de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, t. I, p. 266.) she knew that she had to come into France, she did little of games or walks, and as little as she could. And she does not know that, after she had discretion, she danced near that tree; but sometimes she might well have danced there with children; and she sang there more than she danced. Likewise she says that there is there a wood which is called the Oak Wood, in French le Bois-chesnu, which is seen from her father\u0026rsquo;s door; and it is not a distance of half a league. Likewise she does not know nor ever heard that the Fairy Ladies aforesaid frequented there; but she heard it said by her brother that it was said in the country, that the said Joan had taken her deed at the tree of the Fairy Ladies. But she says that she had not, and she told him the contrary. Likewise further she says that, when she came toward her king, some asked her whether in her country there was any wood which was called in French le Bois-chesnu, because there were prophecies saying that near that wood there should come a certain maid who should do wonders. But the said Joan said that in this she did not apply faith.\nInterrogated whether she would wish to have a woman\u0026rsquo;s dress: she answered: Deliver to me one: I will receive it and depart; otherwise I will not receive it. And I am content with this, since it pleases God that I wear it.\nAnd these things having been performed in this manner, we caused to cease from further interrogation for that day; and we assigned Tuesday next following, so that on that day, at the same hour and in the same place, all convoked for this should be present, for further interrogation to be made.\nFebruary 27. Fourth Session. # Likewise, on Tuesday, February 27th, we, the aforesaid bishop, went, as we had done on the preceding days, to the aforesaid chamber of the castle of Rouen, in which we had previously sat as a tribunal; and there assisted with us likewise the reverend fathers, lords, and masters: Gilles, abbot of the Holy Trinity of Fécamp; Pierre, prior of Longueville; Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, Gérard Feuillet, Jean de Nibat, Jacques Guesdon, Maurice du Quesnay, Jean Lefèvre, Guillaume Lebouchier, Pierre Houdenc, Jean de Châtillon, Érard Emengart, Jean de Favo, Denis de Sabreuvras, Nicolas Lemire, and Jean Charpentier, in sacred theology; — Nicolas de Jumièges, Guillaume of Sainte-Katharine, Guillaume de Cormeilles, abbots; Jean Garin, in canon law; — Raoul Roussel, doctor of both laws; — Guillaume Heton, Nicolas Coppequesne, Guillaume de Baudribosc, Richard de Grouchet, Pierre Minier, Thomas de Courcelles, Jean Maistre, and Jean de Vautier, bachelors in sacred theology; — the abbot of Préaux; Guillaume Desjardins, doctor in medicine; Robert Barbier, Denis Gastinel, Jean Ledoux, Nicolas de Venderès, Jean Pinchon, Jean Basset, Aubert Morel, Jean Duchemin, Jean de la Fontaine, Jean Colombel, Jean Bruillot, Raoul Auguy, in canon law; — Jean Alespée, Geoffroi de Crotay, Gilles Deschamps, Nicolas Caval, Pierre Carrel, Nicolas\nMaulin, in civil law; — Nicolas Loyseleur and Robert Morellet, canons of the church of Rouen.\nIn whose presence, we first requested the oft-mentioned Joan to take the oath to speak the truth in those things which touched the trial. To which she answered that she would gladly swear to speak the truth of those things which touch the trial, and not of all things which she knew.\nAgain we requested her that, of all things which should be asked of her, she should swear to speak the truth. And she answered as before, saying: You ought to be content, I have sworn enough.\nThen by our direction, Master Jean Beaupère, named above, began to interrogate her. And first he asked of her how, after Saturday last past, she had been. And she answered: You well see how I have been. I have been as well as I could.\nInterrogated whether she fasted every day of Lent: she answered by asking: Is this of your trial? And, when it was said to her that this belonged to the trial: she answered: Yes, truly. I have always fasted through this Lent.\nInterrogated whether, after Saturday, she had heard the voice which comes to her: she answered: Yes, truly, very often I heard it.\nInterrogated whether on Saturday she had heard it in that hall in which she was interrogated: she answered: This is not of your trial. And afterward she said that she had heard it there.\nInterrogated what that voice said to her on Saturday: she answered: I did not well understand the voice itself, nor did I understand anything which I could recite to you, until I returned to my chamber.\nInterrogated what the voice said to her in her chamber, when she returned: she answered: It told me that I should answer you boldly. And she said, that she asked counsel of that voice of those things which were asked of her. She said further that she will gladly say that of which she shall have permission for revealing from the Lord; but of that which touches revelations touching the King of France, she will not say without permission of her voice.\nInterrogated whether the voice prohibited her from saying all: she answered that she did not well understand this.\nInterrogated what the voice ultimately said to her: she answered that she asked counsel of some things of which she had been interrogated.\nInterrogated whether the voice had given her counsel of some things: she answered that of some points she had counsel, and of some she might be asked an answer, of which she will not answer without permission. And, if she should answer without permission, perhaps she would not have the voices for warrant, in French en garant; but when she shall have permission from the Lord, she will not fear to speak, because she will well have the warrant.\nInterrogated whether it was the voice of an angel which spoke to her, or whether it was the voice of a Saint, or of a Saintess, or of God without a medium: she answered that that voice was of Sainte Katharine and of Sainte Margarete. And their figures are crowned with beautiful crowns, very opulently and very preciously. And of this, she said, I have permission from the Lord. If indeed you make doubt of this, send to Poitiers where at other times I was interrogated.\n(1) In March and April 1429, when she presented herself to Charles VII.\nInterrogated how she knows that they are those two Saintesses; whether she well recognizes one from the other: she answered that she well knows that they are they, and she well recognizes one from the other.\nInterrogated how she well recognizes one from the other: she answered that she recognizes them by the salutation which they make to her. She said also that it is well seven years elapsed, since they took her to govern. She said also that she recognizes those Saintesses by this, that they name themselves to her.\nInterrogated whether the aforesaid Saintesses are clothed in the same cloth: she answered: I will not tell you now other thing; and I have not permission for revealing. If you do not believe me, go to Poitiers. She said also that there are revelations which go to the King of France, and not to those who interrogate her.\nLikewise interrogated whether those Saintesses are of the same age: she answered that of saying this she had not permission.\nInterrogated whether those Saintesses speak together, or one after another: she answered: I have not permission for saying of this; yet I always had counsel from them both.\nInterrogated which of them appeared to her first: she answered: I did not recognize them so quickly; and that I well knew at one time, but I have forgotten; and if I have permission, I will gladly say this; and it is placed in the register at Poitiers. Likewise she said that she had had confirmation from Saint Michael.\nInterrogated which of the aforesaid appearing to her came first to her: she answered that Saint Michael came first.\nInterrogated whether it is much time elapsed, since she first had the voice of Saint Michael: she answered: I do not name to you the voice of Saint Michael; but I speak of great comfort.\nInterrogated which was the first voice coming to her, when she was of the age of thirteen years or thereabouts: she answered that it was Saint Michael, whom she saw before her eyes; and he was not alone, but was well accompanied by angels from heaven. She said also that she did not come into France, except by the command of God.\nInterrogated whether she saw Saint Michael and those angels corporally and really: she answered: I saw them with my corporal eyes, as well as I see you; and when they departed from me, I wept, and would have well wished that they had taken me with them.\nInterrogated in what figure Saint Michael was: she answered: This is not answered to you yet, nor have I yet permission for saying.\nInterrogated what that first time Saint Michael said to her: she answered: You will not have the answer yet today. Likewise she said that the voices told her that she should answer boldly. Likewise she says that she well told her king once all that had been revealed to her, because she went to him. She says however that she has not yet permission for revealing that which Saint Michael said to her. She says further that she would well wish that the interrogator had a copy of that book which is at Poitiers, provided God be content of this.\nInterrogated whether the voices told her that she should not say her revelations, without their permission: she answered: As yet I do not answer you of that; and of that of which I shall have permission, I will gladly answer. If however the voices prohibited this, I did not well understand.\nInterrogated what sign she gives that she has that revelation from God, and that they are Sainte Katharine and Margarete who speak with her: she answered: I have told you enough that they are Sainte Katharine and Margarete; and believe me if you will.\nInterrogated whether to say this is prohibited to her: she answered: I have not yet well understood whether this is prohibited to me or not.\nInterrogated how she knows how to make distinction in answering of some points, and of others not: she answered that of some points she had asked permission, and of some she had it. Further she says that she would rather be torn apart with horses, than to have come into France without the permission of God.\nInterrogated whether it was commanded to her to assume male attire: she answered that of dress it is little, and is of the least; nor did she take male attire by the counsel of any man of the world; and she did not take the dress itself, nor did anything, except by the command of God and of the angels.\nInterrogated whether it seems to her that the command made to her, of assuming male attire, is lawful: she answered: All that I did is by the command of the Lord; and if He commanded to assume another, I would assume, since this should be by the command of God.\nInterrogated whether she did this by the direction of Robert de Baudricourt: she answered no.\nInterrogated whether she believes she did well of assuming male attire: she answered that all that which she did by the command of the Lord, she believes she did well, and thence she expects a good warrant and good help.\nInterrogated whether, in this particular case, taking male attire, she believes she did well: she answered that nothing of the world she did in those things which she performed, except by the command of God.\nInterrogated, when she saw that voice which came to her, whether there was light there: she answered that there was much of light on every side, and that this is well fitting. She said also to the interrogator that not all came to him.\nInterrogated whether there was any angel above the head of her king, when she saw him the first time: she answered: By Blessed Mary! if there was, I do not know; nor did I see him.\nInterrogated whether there was light there: she answered: There were there more than three hundred knights, and fifty torches, without counting spiritual light. And rarely have I revelations but that there is light there.\nInterrogated how her king applied faith to her sayings: she answered that he had good signs, and through the clergy.\nInterrogated what revelations her king had: she answered: You will not have them yet from me of this year. Likewise she said that for three weeks she was interrogated by the clergy, at the town of Chinon and Poitiers; and her king had a sign of her deeds, before he would believe her. And the clerics of her party were of this opinion that it seemed to them, in her deed, there was nothing but good.\nInterrogated whether she was at Sainte-Katharine de Fierbois: she answered yes, and there she heard three masses in one day; and thereupon she went to the town of Chinon. Likewise she says that she sent letters to her king, in which was contained that she was sending to know if she should enter the town where her aforesaid king was; and that she had well progressed through a hundred and fifty leagues for coming toward him, to his help, and that she knew many good things for him. And it seems to her that in the same letters was contained that she should recognize well her aforesaid king among all others. Likewise she says that she had a sword which she took at the town of Vaucouleurs. She said also, while she was at Tours or in Chinon, in French à Chinon, she sent to seek a sword existing in the church of Sainte-Katharine de Fierbois, behind the altar; and immediately after it was found all rusty.\nInterrogated how she knew that sword to be there: she answered that that sword was in the earth rusty, in which were five crosses; and she knew it to be there by the voices, nor had she ever seen the man who went to seek the aforesaid sword. And she wrote to the churchmen of that place that it might please them that she should have that sword; and they sent it. Nor was it much under the earth behind the altar, as it seems to her; yet she does not know properly whether it was before the altar or behind, but she estimates that she wrote then that the aforesaid sword was behind the altar. She says also that, immediately after the aforesaid sword was found, the churchmen of that place rubbed it, and immediately the rust fell off without violence; and it was an armor merchant of Tours who went to seek it; and the churchmen of that place gave a scabbard to Joan, and those also of Tours together with them, and they caused to be made two scabbards, one of red velvet, in French de velous vermeil; and another of cloth of gold. And she caused to be made another of very strong leather. She says however, when she was captured, she had not that sword. She says also that she continuously carried the oft-mentioned sword, after she had it, until she departed from Saint-Denis, after the assault of Paris.\nInterrogated what blessing she made, or caused to be made, upon the aforesaid sword: she answered that she never made there nor caused to be made any blessing, nor would she have known how to do anything. Likewise she says that she well loved that sword, because it was found in the church of Sainte Katharine whom she well loved.\nInterrogated whether she was at the town of Coulanges-la-Vineuse: she answered that she does not know.\n(1) Today Coulange-la-Vineuse, near Auxerre. According to the chroniclers, it was near Auxerre that Joan of Arc broke the sword of Fierbois across the back of a prostitute. The prosecution, which was only vaguely informed on this point, was doubtless trying to surprise the accused with a question that appeared innocuous.\nInterrogated whether she placed at any time her sword upon the altar, so that she placed it that it might be better fortuned: she answered no, that she knows of.\nInterrogated whether she ever made prayer to this that the sword should be better fortuned: she answered: It is good to know that I would have wished my harness, in French mon harnois, to have been well fortuned.\nInterrogated whether she had her sword, when she was captured: she answered no, but she had a certain sword which had been captured upon a Burgundian.\nInterrogated where that sword remained and in what town: she answered that she offered a sword in Saint-Denis and arms, but it was not that sword. Likewise she says that she had that sword in Lagny, and from Lagny she carried the sword of that Burgundian aforesaid to Compiègne, because it was a good sword of war and good for giving good slaps and good blows, in French de bonnes buffes et de bons torchons. But she says that to say where she left it, does not belong to the trial, and she will not answer of this for now. She says further that her brothers have her goods, horses, sword, as she believes, and other things which are worth more than twelve thousand crowns.\n(2) Lagny-sur-Marne.\nInterrogated whether, when she went to Orleans, she had a banner, in French estandart ou banière, and of what color it was: she answered that she had a banner whose field was sown with lilies; and there was the world figured and two angels at the sides; and it was of white color of white cloth or boucassin [1], and there were written there these names Jhesus Maria, as it seems to her; and it was fringed with silk.\n[1] In the vulgar tongue boucassin, a fine and transparent linen cloth. Interrogated whether these names Jhesus Maria were written above, or below, or at the side: she answered that at the side, as it seems to her.\nInterrogated which she preferred, either her banner, or her sword: she answered that much, namely forty times, she preferred the banner than the sword.\nInterrogated who caused her to make that painting on the banner: she answered: I have told you enough that I did nothing except by the command of God. She says also that she herself carried the aforesaid banner, when she attacked the adversaries, for avoiding lest she should kill anyone; and she says that she never killed a man.\nInterrogated what company her king delivered to her, when he set her to work: she answered that he delivered ten or twelve thousand men; and that first she went to Orleans to the bastille of Saint-Loup, and thereupon to the bastille of the Bridge.\nInterrogated at which bastille it was that she caused her men to retreat: she answered that she does not record. She says also that she was well secure that she should raise the siege of Orleans, by revelation made to her; and so she had told her king before she came thither.\nInterrogated whether, when the assault was to be made, she told her people that she herself would receive arrows, bolts, stones from machines or cannons, etc.: she answered no; indeed a hundred were wounded or more; but she well told her people that they should not doubt and should raise the siege. She says also that, in the assault given against the bastille of the Bridge, she was wounded by an arrow or bolt in the neck; but she had great comfort from Sainte Katharine, and was healed within fifteen days; but she did not leave off for this to ride and transact.\nInterrogated whether she well foreknew that she should be wounded: she answered that she well knew this, and had told her king; but that, this notwithstanding, she would not leave off further transacting. And this had been revealed to her by the voices of the two Saintesses, namely of Blessed Katharine and of Blessed Margarete. Saying further that she was the first who placed a ladder on high, in the said bastille of the Bridge; and raising the ladder itself she was, as above, wounded in the neck by the said bolt.\nInterrogated why she did not receive treaty with the captain of Jargeau: she answered that the lords of her party answered the English that they should not have the term of fifteen days, which they requested; but that they should depart, themselves and their horses, in the present hour. She says also that, as for herself, she said that those of Jargeau should depart in their doublets or tunics [1], their lives safe, if they would; otherwise they should be taken by assault.\nJargeau. [1] In French, in their little coat, that is to say without anything else than the garments worn under the armor. Interrogated whether she had then deliberation with her counsel, namely with her voices, for knowing whether she should give the said term to them or not: she answered that of this she does not record.\nAnd these things being performed, the further interrogation was immediately dismissed; and we assigned Thursday next following to appear there, for further examination or interrogation to be made.\nMarch 1. Fifth Session. # Likewise, on Thursday, March 1st, we, the aforesaid bishop, went to the accustomed place of the castle of Rouen; and the aforesaid Joan appeared before us in judgment, with the reverend fathers, lords, and masters assisting, namely: Gilles, abbot of the Holy Trinity of Fécamp; Pierre, prior of Longueville-Giffard; Jean de Châtillon, Érard Emengart, Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Denis de Sabreuvras, Pierre Maurice, Gérard Feuillet, Maurice du Quesnay, Guillaume Lebouchier, Pierre Houdenc, Jean de Nibat, Jean Lefèvre, Jacques Guesdon, in sacred theology; Nicolas de Jumièges, Guillaume of Sainte-Katharine, Guillaume de Cormeilles, abbots; Jean Garin, in canon law; Raoul Roussel, doctor of both laws; — the abbots of Saint-Ouen and of Préaux, and the prior of Saint-Lô; Guillaume Heton, Nicolas Coppequesne, Thomas de Courcelles, Guillaume de Baudribosc, Jean Charpentier, Raoul Sauvage, Richard de Grouchet, Pierre Minier, Jean Maistre, Jean de Vautier, bachelors in sacred theology; — Nicolas de Venderès, Jean Bruillot, Jean Pinchon, Jean Basset, Jean de la Fontaine, Raoul Auguy, Jean Colombel, Richard de Saulx, Aubert Morel, Jean Duchemin, Laurent Dubust, Philippe Maréchal, in canon law; — Denis Gastinel, Jean Ledoux, Robert Barbier, in both laws; — André Marguerie, Jean Alespée, Gilles Deschamps, Nicolas Caval, Geoffroi de Crotay, Pierre Cave, Nicolas Maulin, in civil law; — Robert Morellet and Nicolas Loyseleur, canons of the church of Rouen.\nIn whose presence, we summoned and requested the said Joan that she should make and take the oath simply and absolutely, to speak the truth upon those things which should be asked of her. She answered that she was ready to swear to speak the truth of all things which she knew, touching the trial, as at other times she said. Likewise she said that she knows many things which do not touch the trial, and it is not necessary to say them. Afterward she said again: Of all that of which I shall know truly, which touches the trial, I will gladly say. Likewise still summoned and requested, as before, to make the oath: she answered: That which I shall know of true to answer, I will gladly say which touches the trial. And so she swore, touching the Holy Gospels. Afterward she said: Of that which I shall know which touches the trial, I will gladly say the truth; and I will tell you as much as I would say, if I were before the Roman Pope.\nInterrogated what she says of our lord the Pope, and of whom she believes that he is the true Pope: she answered, by asking whether there were two. [1]\n[1] The schism had ceased July 26, 1429 by the abdication of Clement VIII (Gilles Muñoz); there was therefore but one pope; unless the judges wished here to make allusion to a pretended Benedict XIV who resided in an unknown place, with the assistance of a single cardinal, and of whom it is spoken in the letter of the Count of Armagnac to the Maid. See below, art. 37 of the act of accusation. Interrogated whether she had had letters from the Count of Armagnac, for knowing to which of the three supreme pontiffs she ought to obey: she answered that the count himself wrote to her certain letters upon that deed; to which she gave an answer; among other things that, when she should be in Paris or elsewhere in quiet, she would give an answer. And she was then wishing to mount her horse, when she gave that answer.\nAnd as for the copy of the letters of the said count and of Joan herself, which we then caused to be read in judgment, the same Joan was interrogated whether that was her answer, which was contained in the aforesaid copy. She answered, that she estimates she made that answer in part, not in whole.\nInterrogated whether she said she knew by the counsel of the King of kings, that which the aforesaid count ought to hold of this: she answered that of this she knows nothing.\nInterrogated whether she made doubt to whom the aforesaid count ought to obey: she answered that she did not know thence what to command to whom he ought to obey, because the count himself asked to know to whom God wished him to obey. But as for the said Joan, she holds and believes that we ought to obey our lord the Pope existing in Rome. She says also that she said another thing to the messenger of the aforesaid count, which is not contained in that copy of letters; and unless he had immediately departed, he would have been cast into the water, not however by Joan herself. Likewise she says that, of that which he asked to know to whom God wished that the count himself should obey, she answered that she did not know; but she sent to him several things which were not placed in writing. And as much as is of herself, she believes in the lord Pope who is of Rome.\nInterrogated why she wrote that she would give at another time an answer of this, since she believed in him who is of Rome: she answered that the answer given by her, was upon other matter than upon the deed of the three supreme pontiffs.\nInterrogated whether she had said that, upon the deed of the three supreme pontiffs, she would have counsel: she answered that she never wrote nor caused to be written upon the deed of the three supreme pontiffs. And this she swore by her oath, that she never wrote nor caused to be written.\nInterrogated whether she was accustomed to place in her letters these names Jhesus Maria, with a cross: she answered that in some she placed, and sometimes not; and sometimes she placed a cross in sign that he of her party to whom she wrote, should not do that which she wrote to him.\nThe tenors of the letters which the said count and Joan wrote to each other, are inserted below among the articles of the promoter.\n(1) We leave this notice by the clerks in the place it occupies in the manuscript, although it would have been better placed above, p. 82, line 14.\nThereupon there were read to the same Joan the letters which the said Joan sent to our lord the King, to the lord Duke of Bedford [1] and others.\n[1] John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford, uncle of Henry VI, charged with the government of France during the minority of his nephew. The tenor of which letters also is placed below among the articles of the promoter.\nAnd thereupon she was interrogated whether she recognized those letters: she answered yes, except three words, namely that which is said render to the Maid, where ought to be placed render to the King; another which is said head of war, and the third which is placed there body for body; which were not in those letters which she sent. She says also that never did any lord dictate those letters, but she herself dictated them before she sent them; well however they were shown to some of her party. Likewise she says that, before seven years are passed, the English will leave a greater pledge than they did before Orleans, and that they will lose all in France. She says also that the aforesaid English will have a greater loss than they ever had in France; and this will be by a great victory which God will send to the French.\n(2) See above, the note on p. 55.\n(3) The source reads dicta.\nInterrogated how she knows this: she answered: I well know this by revelation which was made to me, and that within seven years it will happen; and I should be well angry that it were so much deferred. She said also that she knows that by revelation, as well as she knew that we were then before her.\nInterrogated when this will happen: she answered that she does not know the day nor the hour.\nInterrogated in what year it will happen: she answered: You will not have this yet; well however I would wish that this were before the feast of Saint John.\nInterrogated whether she said that, within the winter feast of Blessed Martin, this will happen: she answered that she had said that, before the winter feast of Blessed Martin, many things should be seen; and it may be that there will be English who shall be cast down to the earth.\nInterrogated what she said to John Grey, her guard, of that feast of Blessed Martin: she answered: I have told you.\nInterrogated by whom she knows this future thing: she answered that she knows this through Sainte Katharine and Margarete.\nInterrogated whether Saint Gabriel was with Saint Michael, when he came to her: she answered that of this she does not record.\nInterrogated, whether after Tuesday last past, she spoke with Sainte Katharine and Margarete: she answered yes; but she does not know the hour.\nInterrogated on what day: she answered yesterday and today; nor is there a day but that she hears them.\nInterrogated whether she sees them always in the same habit: she answered that she sees them always in the same form; and their figures are crowned very opulently. Of other habits she does not speak. Likewise she says that of their tunics she knows nothing.\nInterrogated how she knows that the thing appearing to her is man or woman: she answered that she well knows and recognizes them by their voices, and that they revealed to her; nor does she know anything but that it is done by revelation and command of God.\nInterrogated what figure she sees there: she answered that she sees a face.\nInterrogated whether those Saintesses appearing have hair: she answered: It is good to know.\n(1) Supply that they have.\nInterrogated whether anything was medium between their crowns and their hair: she answered no.\nInterrogated whether their hair was long and hanging: she answered: I know nothing. She says also that she does not know whether there was anything of arms, or whether there were other members figured. Likewise she says that they spoke very well and beautifully, and she understood them very well.\nInterrogated how they spoke, since they had no members: she answered: I refer myself to God. Likewise she says that that voice is beautiful, sweet, and humble, and speaks the French language.\nInterrogated whether Sainte Margarete speaks the English language: she answered: How should she speak English, since she is not of the party of the English?\nInterrogated whether, in the aforesaid heads with crowns, there were rings in the ears or elsewhere: she answered: I know nothing of this.\nInterrogated whether she herself, Joan, had rings: she answered, speaking to us the aforesaid bishop: You have one of mine; render it to me. Likewise she says that the Burgundians have another ring. And she requested of us that, if we had the aforesaid ring, we should show it to her.\nInterrogated who gave her the ring which the Burgundians have: she answered that her father, or mother; and it seems to her that there were written there these names Jhesus Maria; she does not know who caused them to be written, nor was there any stone there, as it seems to her; and the same ring was given to her at the town of Domrémy. Likewise she says that her brother gave her another ring which we had, and that she charged us with giving it to the church. Likewise she says that she never healed any person by any of her rings.\nInterrogated whether Sainte Katharine and Margarete spoke with her under the tree, of which mention is made above: she answered: I know nothing.\nInterrogated whether, at the spring which is near the tree, the aforesaid Saintesses spoke with her: she answered yes, and that she heard them there; but what they said to her then, she does not know.\nInterrogated what the same Saintesses promised her, either there, or elsewhere: she answered that they made no promise to her, unless this were by permission of God.\nInterrogated what promises they had made to her: she answered: This is not of your trial in the whole. And of some things, they told her that her king should be restored to his kingdom, whether his adversaries will or will not. She says also that they promised to conduct Joan herself into paradise, and so she requested of them.\nInterrogated whether she had other promise: she answered that there is another promise, but she will not say it, and that this does not touch the trial. And she says that within three months, she will say the other promise.\nInterrogated whether the voices said that within three months she shall be delivered from prison: she answered: This is not of your trial; yet I do not know when I shall be delivered. And she said that those who wish to take her from this world, may well go before her.\nInterrogated whether her counsel told her that she shall be delivered from the present prison: she answered: Speak with me within three months; I will answer you of this. She said further: Ask of the assistants under their oath whether this touches the trial.\nAnd afterward, deliberation of the assistants having been held, who all deliberated that it touched the trial, she said: I always well told you that you did not know all. And it will behoove once that I be delivered. And I wish to have permission, if I shall say; therefore I ask a delay.\nInterrogated whether the voices prohibited her from saying the truth: she answered: Do you wish that I say to you that which goes to the King of France? There are many things which do not touch the trial. She said also that she well knows that her king will gain the kingdom of France; and this she knows as well as she knew that we were before her in judgment. She said also that she would have been dead, unless there were the revelation which comforts her daily.\nInterrogated what she did with her mandrake [1]: she answered that she has no mandrake, nor ever had; but she heard it said that near her town there is one, and she never saw any. She said also that she heard it said that it is a dangerous thing and bad to keep; she does not know however of what it serves.\n[1] The instruction tended to establish that Joan was depository of a mandrake. On the subject of this superstition, here is what is found in the Journal d\u0026rsquo;un Bourgeois de Paris, at the year 1429: And at this time brother Richart (of whom it will be spoken below in the interrogatories of the Maid) caused to be burned several mandrakes which many sorts of people kept in places of rest; and they had so great faith in this filth that for true they believed firmly that, as long as they had it, provided it were very cleanly wrapped in beautiful cloths of silk or linen, that never a day of their lives should they be poor\u0026hellip; by the bad counsel of some old women, who believe they know too much when they thrust themselves into such wickedness, which are straight sorceries and heresies. Interrogated in what place that mandrake is, of which she heard speak: she answered that she heard it said that it is in the earth, near that tree of which it is said above; but she does not know the place. She says also that she heard it said that above that mandrake is a hazel.\nInterrogated of what she heard it said that that mandrake serves: she answered she heard that it makes money come; but she does not believe in this anything. And she says that her voices never said anything of this to her.\nInterrogated in what figure Saint Michael was, when he appeared to her: she answered that she did not see a crown on him; and of his clothes she knows nothing.\nInterrogated whether he was naked: she answered: Do you think that God has not wherewithal to clothe him?\nInterrogated whether he had hair: she answered: Why should it have been cut off? She says also that she did not see him, Blessed Michael, after she departed from the castle of Crotoy [1], nor does she see him very often. And lastly she says that she does not know whether he has hair.\n[1] Fortress of Ponthieu, where she had been imprisoned before she was transferred to Rouen. Interrogated whether he had a balance: she answered: I know nothing. Likewise she says that she has great joy when she sees him; and it seems to her that, when she sees him, she is not in mortal sin. Likewise she says that Sainte Katharine and Margarete gladly make her confess sometimes, and by turns. Likewise she says that, if she be in mortal sin, she does not know.\nInterrogated whether, when she confesses, she believes herself to be in mortal sin: she answered that she does not know if she has been in mortal sin, and she does not believe of this to have done works; nor may it please, she said, God that I ever was; nor also may it please Him that I do works or have done, by which my soul is burdened.\nInterrogated what sign she gave to her king that she came from God: she answered: I always answered you that you will not extract that from my mouth. Go to ask him.\nInterrogated whether she swore not to reveal that which should be asked of her, touching the trial: she answered: I at other times told you that I will not say to you that which shall touch that which goes to our king. And of that which goes to him, I will not speak.\nInterrogated whether she knows the sign which she gave to her same king: she answered: You will not know this from me. And then, because it was said to her that this touched the trial: she answered: Of that which I promised to keep well secret, I will not tell you that. And further she said: I promised in such a place, that I cannot tell you without perjury.\nInterrogated to whom she promised this: she answered that to Sainte Katharine and Margarete she promised, and this was shown to the king. Likewise she says that she promised this to the two Saintesses aforesaid, without that they required it. And she herself, Joan, at the request of her own self did this, because too many people would have asked this of her, unless she had promised it to the aforesaid Saintesses.\nInterrogated whether, when she showed the sign to the king, there was any other with him in his company: she answered that she estimates no other to have been there, although quite near were many people.\n(1) The Latin ab is used in the sense of cum (“with”), just as in French one said à lui or o lui for “with him.”\nInterrogated whether she saw a crown above the head of her king, when she showed him the sign: she answered: I cannot tell you without perjury.\nInterrogated whether her king had a crown, when he was at Reims: she answered that, as she estimates, the king himself received gratefully that crown which he found at Reims; but a much richer one was brought to him afterwards. And this he did for hastening his deed, at the request of those of the city of Reims, for avoiding the burden of armed men; and, if he had waited, he would have had a crown a thousand times richer.\nInterrogated whether she saw that crown which is richer: she answered: I cannot tell you this, without incurring perjury. And, if I have not seen, I heard it said that it is so rich or opulent.\nWhich things being thus performed, we made an end for that day; and we assigned for those things which were further to be done, Saturday and the eighth hour of the same day in the morning, requiring the bystanders that, on the same day and hour, in the same place they should be present.\nMarch 3. Sixth session. # Also, on Saturday, the third day of March, immediately following, in the place designated above, the aforesaid Joan appeared before us, with the following fathers, lords, and masters assisting: Giles, Abbot of Sainte-Trinité of Fécamp; Peter, Prior of Longueville; Jean de Châtillon, Erard Emengart, Jean Pulchripatris, Jacques de Tournon, Nicolas Midi, Denis de Saheiiçras, Nicolas Amici, Guillaume Evrard (1), Pierre Maurici, Gérard Fueillet, Maurice de Quesnejo, Pierre Houdenc, Jean de Nihat, Jacques Guesdon, in sacred theology; — Guillaume, Abbot of Sainte-Marie de Cormeilles, in canon law; — Guillaume Desjardins, Giles Quenivety, Roland Scriptoris, and Guillaume de Caméra, doctors of medicine; — the Abbot of Saint-Georges, the Abbot of Préaux, the Prior of Saint-Laud; and also Nicolas Coppequesne, Thomas de Courcelles, Guillaume (2) Magistri, Guillaume de Baudribosco, Jean Pigache, Raoul Silvestris, Richard de Groucheto, Pierre Minerii, bachelors in sacred theology; — Jean Ledoux, in both laws; Jean de Que.iaino, Jean Columbelli, Raoul Auguj, Aubert Morelli, in canon law; — Geoffroy de Crotejo, Burell de Cormeilles, Nicolas Maulini, licentiates in civil law, — and Nicolas Loiselleur, canon of the church of Rouen.\n(1) Guillaume Evrard or Erard, doctor of theology, treasurer and canon of Langres Cathedral, canon of Laon and Beauvais. Born in Langres, he had pursued brilliant studies at the Collège de Navarre in Paris, and had passed through all university degrees. Procurator, then emeritus rector, he was preparing, at the time of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, to represent the French nation at the Council of Basel. It was he who delivered the violent sermon of May 24 which preceded Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s abjuration. In 1432 he was in Basel. Stripped of his benefices by the successive conquests of the French party, he received as compensation from the King of England a prebend in Rouen, then the title of King\u0026rsquo;s chaplain, with a manor in the county of Southampton, and an annual pension of twenty pounds sterling (1437). The following year, he was made dean of the chapter of Rouen, and he died in 1444 in the exercise of that dignity. (DIBOULAI, Hist. Univ. Pari\u0026lt;:., t. V, p. 417; RYMER, t. X, p. 678).\n(2) Sic, Mss. 5965 and 5966. Read Jean (?)\nIn their presence, we asked Joan to swear simply and absolutely to tell the truth about the things that would be asked of her. To which she replied: As I have done before, I am ready to swear. And so she swore, touching the holy Gospels.\nThen, because she had said that Saint Michael had wings, and with this she had not spoken of the bodies or members of Saints Catherine and Margaret; she was asked what she wished to say about these things. To which she replied: I have told you what I know, and I will not answer you otherwise. She also said that she saw Saint Michael himself and those Saints so well that she well knows them to be saints in paradise.\nAsked if she saw anything of them other than their faces: she replied: I have told you all that I know about this; and as for telling all that I know, I would prefer that you cut off my neck. She also said that she would willingly tell all that she knew concerning the proceedings.\nAsked if she believes that Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel have natural heads: she replied: I saw them with my own eyes, and I believe that they are, as firmly as God is.\nAsked if she believes that God formed them in those manner and form in which she sees them: she replied that yes.\nAsked if she believes that God created them in those manner and form from the beginning: she replied: You will have nothing else for the present, besides what I have answered.\nAsked if she knew by revelation that she would escape: she replied: This does not concern these proceedings. Do you want me to speak against myself?\nAsked if her voices told her anything about it: she replied: This is not part of these proceedings. I refer myself to the proceedings. And, if it all concerned you, I would tell you everything. She further said that, by her faith, she knows neither the day nor the hour when she will escape.\nAsked if the voices told her anything about this in general: she replied: Yes, truly; they told me that I would be delivered, but I know neither the day nor the hour; and that I should boldly put on a cheerful face.\nAsked whether, when she first came to her king, he asked her if she had a revelation that she should change her attire: she replied: I have answered you about this; however, I do not recall if this was asked of me. And that is written in the city of Poitiers.\nAsked if she remembers that the masters who examined her in the other obedience, some for one month, others for three weeks, asked her about changing her attire: she replied: I do not remember; however, they asked me where I had taken up this male attire; and I told them that I had taken it up at the town of Vaucouleurs.\nAsked whether the aforesaid masters asked her if she had taken up that attire by her voices: she replied: I do not remember.\nAsked whether her queen (1) asked her about changing her attire, when she first visited her: she replied: I do not remember.\n(1) Marie d\u0026rsquo;Anjou, wife of Charles VII.\nAsked if her king, queen, and others of her party ever asked her to lay aside male attire: she replied: This is not part of these proceedings.\nAsked whether, at the castle of Beaurevoir (1), she was asked about this: she replied: Yes, truly. And I replied that I would not lay it aside, without God\u0026rsquo;s permission.\nShe also said that the Demoiselle de Luxembourg (2) and the Lady of Beaurevoir (3) offered her women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, or cloth to make it, asking Joan to wear such clothing. And she replied that she did not have God\u0026rsquo;s permission, and that it was not yet time. Asked if Lord Jean de Pressy and others at Arras offered her women\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she replied that he and many others had often asked her to accept such clothing.\nHere begins what remains of the minute taken at the hearing by Guillaume Manchon, clerk of the trial. (4)\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe also said that the Demoiselle de Luxembourg and the Lady of Beaurevoir offered her women\u0026rsquo;s clothing or cloth to make it, and asked her to wear it; and she replied that she did not have permission from Our Lord, and that it was not yet time.\nAsked if Lord Jean de Pressy and others at Arras offered her women\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she replied that he and many others had often asked her to accept such clothing.\n(1) Castle of Jean de Luxembourg, located at the sources of the Scheldt, not far from Saint-Quentin.\n(2) Jeanne de Luxembourg sister of Count Waleran, says Monstrelet, very ancient, who was in the castle of Beaurevoir, under the governance of Lord Jean de Luxembourg, her nephew\u0026hellip;. whom she loved very cordially (book II, ch. 93). For some months, she had become Countess of Saint-Pol and Ligny, by the death of Philip of Brabant.\n(3) Jeanne de Béthune, Viscountess of Meaux, married to Jean de Luxembourg. (DUCHESNE, Hist. de la Mais. de Béth., book V, ch. 3.)\n(4) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 17 et seq.\nOfficial Latin record (continued):\nAsked whether she believed that she had transgressed or sinned mortally by taking women\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she replied that she acts better by obeying and serving her supreme lord, namely God. She also said that, if she had been obliged to take such women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, she would have done so sooner at the request of the two aforesaid ladies, than of other ladies in France, except her queen.\nAsked whether, when God revealed to her that she should change her attire to male attire, this was by the voice of Saint Michael, or by the voice of Saint Catherine or Saint Margaret: she replied: You will have nothing else now.\nAsked whether, when her king put her to work, and she had her banner made, other men-at-arms had pennons made in the manner and example of Joan\u0026rsquo;s pennon: she replied: It is good to know that the lords maintained their arms. She also says that some of the companions of war had some of those pennons made, as it pleased them, and others did not.\nAsked of what material they had them made, whether it was of linen or woolen cloth: she replied that it was of white satin, in French de blans satins, and on some there were lilies; nor did Joan have of her company more than two or three lances; but the companions of war sometimes had pennons made in the likeness of hers, and they did that only to distinguish their men from others.\nAsked if the said pennons were renewed very often: she replied: I do not know. When the lances were broken, new ones were made.\nAsked whether she ever said that the pennons made in the likeness of hers were fortunate: she replied that sometimes she would tell her men: Enter boldly through the midst of the English, and she herself would enter.\nAsked if she told them to carry those pennons boldly, and that they would have good fortune: she replied that she told them well what had happened, and what was yet to happen.\nAsked whether she placed or had placed holy water on the pennons, when they were newly taken up: she replied: I know nothing of this. And if this was done, it was not by my command.\nAsked if she saw them sprinkled with holy water: she replied: This is not part of these proceedings. And if I saw this done, I am not now advised to answer.\nAsked if the companions of war had the names Jesus Maria placed on their pennons: she replied: By my faith, I do not know.\nAsked if she turned or had cloths turned, in the manner of a procession, around an altar or a church, to make pennons from them: she replied that no, nor did she see anything done.\nAsked, when she was before the town of Jargeau, what it was that she carried behind her helmet or casque, and if there was anything round there: she replied: By my faith, there was nothing there.\nAsked if she ever knew Brother Richard (1): she replied: I had never seen him when I came to the town of Troyes.\nAsked what kind of face Brother Richard made for her: she replied that the people of Troyes, as she believes, sent him to her, saying that they doubted whether Joan was a thing coming from God; and when the same brother approached her, he made the sign of the cross and sprinkled holy water. And then she said to him: Approach boldly, I will not fly away.\nAsked if she had seen or had made any images or paintings of herself and in her likeness: she replied that she saw in Arras a painting in the hand of a certain Scot; and there was a likeness of Joan fully armed, presenting certain letters to her king, with one knee bent. And she said that she never saw or had made any other image or painting of herself.\n(1) This man, whom the English sought to make a source of scandal and with whom they consistently tried to associate the Maid, was a mendicant friar of the Augustinian observance or, according to others, a Franciscan. He claimed to have come from Jerusalem with news that the year 1430 would bring the most marvellous events ever seen, citing in support of his prediction the Apocalypse and the testimony of a certain Brother Bernard, who at the same time was bringing about numerous conversions in Italy. Brother Richard came to Paris at the beginning of April 1429 and began preaching on 16 April at Sainte-Geneviève, then on the following days at the Innocents, at the site of the Dance of Death. The Bourgeois of Paris calls him a man of very great prudence, learned in prayer, a sower of good doctrine for the edification of his neighbour.… He began his sermon at about five in the morning and continued until between ten and eleven; and there were always some five or six thousand people at his sermon.… And truly, the ten sermons he preached in Paris, and one at Boulogne, turned the people more towards devotion than all the preachers who had preached in Paris during the previous hundred years. On the evening of 30 April, part of the population went to Montmartre, where he was to preach the following morning, but Brother Richard did not appear: the English authorities had ordered him to leave. He departed for Auxerre and travelled through part of Burgundy and Champagne. After the submission of Troyes, he joined the Maid’s company and accompanied her on her campaigns, benefiting from the generosity of the towns towards him. The accounts of the city of Orléans record several gifts that Brother Richard received for preaching to the people of Orléans during Lent 1430: To Jehan Moreau, bookseller, for binding Brother Richard’s book, four Paris sous. — Item, to Phelippot d’Orléans, for carving a copper Jesus for Brother Richard, six saluts, each costing eighteen Paris sous, making 108 Paris sous. — Item, to Master Guillaume Greslier, to pay the expenses incurred by Brother Richard in the house of Jehan Greslier, his father, from the eve of Palm Sunday until the Wednesday after Low Sunday, in all nine livres and six Paris sous. (Journal d’un Bourgeois de Paris, under the year 1429; Chronique dite de la Pucelle; Monstrelet, book II, ch. 63; Lottin, Recherches sur la ville d’Orléans, vol. I, p. 262; manuscript bundle of warrants relating to the expenses of the city of Orléans during 1429–1430, Bibliothèque d’Orléans.)\nAsked whether, in the house of her host, in the city of Orléans, there was a tablet where three women were depicted, and on it inscribed, Justice, peace, union: she replied that she knows nothing of this.\nAsked whether she knows that those of her party had services, masses, and prayers (1) said in her honor: she replied that she knows nothing; and, if they had any service said, it was not by her command; however, if they prayed for her, it seems to her that they do no wrong.\nAsked whether those of her party firmly believe that she is sent by God: she replied: I do not know whether they believe it, and I refer myself to their minds; but if they do not believe it, nevertheless I am sent by God.\nAsked whether she believes that they have good belief, believing her to be sent by God: she replied: If they believe that I am sent by God, they are not mistaken about this. (2)\n(1) Prayers of this kind were indeed said in the churches of France. We will report them at the end of the work.\n(2) In the margin of the manuscript: Joan is sent by God, as she says.\nAsked whether she knew the minds of those of her party, when they kissed her feet, hands, and clothes: she replied that many gladly saw her, and yet they kissed her hands as little as she could allow; but poor people gladly came to her, because she did not displease them, but rather helped to support them.\nAsked what reverence the citizens of Troyes showed her upon entering the town: she replied that they showed her no reverence. She further says that, as it seems to her, Brother Richard entered the town of Troyes with her and her people; but she does not remember if she saw him at the entrance.\nAsked if Brother Richard preached a sermon upon Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival at the aforesaid town: she replied that she did not stay there long, nor did she lie down in the town; and she knows nothing of the sermon.\nAsked whether she was in the city of Reims for many days: she replied that, as she believes, she and her people were there for five or six days.\nAsked whether she lifted any child from the sacred font there: she replied that she lifted one at Troyes; but she does not remember having lifted any at Reims or at Château-Thierry. She lifted two at Saint-Denis in France. And she gladly gave the name Charles to sons, in honor of her king, and the name Joan to daughters; and sometimes she imposed a name as it pleased the mothers.\nAsked whether the women of that town had their rings touch the ring that Joan wore on her finger: she replied that many women touched my hands and my rings; but I do not know their mind or intention.\nAsked who were those of her company who took butterflies on her banner before Château-Thierry (1): she replied that it was never done on their part; but those of this party invented it.\n(1) No explanation of this fact is found anywhere. The accusation abandoned it.\nAsked what she did at Reims with the gloves in which her king was consecrated: she replied that there was a delivery of gloves there, to be given to the knights and nobles who were present; and there was one who had lost his gloves; but she did not say that she would have them found. She also said that her banner was in the church of Reims; and it seems to her that it was quite near the altar, while her king was being consecrated, and she herself held it there for a while. However, she does not know whether Brother Richard held it there.\nAsked whether, when she traveled through the country, she often received the sacrament of the Eucharist and penance, when she was in good towns: she replied that yes, sometimes.\nAsked if she received the aforesaid sacraments in male attire: she replied that yes; but she does not remember having received them in armor.\nAsked why she took the palfrey, in French la haquenée, of the Bishop of Senlis: she replied that the same palfrey was bought for two hundred saluts. She does not know whether he received them or not; however, she had an assignment for this, or it was paid; and she also wrote to the same bishop that he would have his aforesaid palfrey back, if he wished, and that she did not want it, nor was it worth anything for enduring punishment.\nAsked what age the child was whom she revived at Lagny: she replied that the child was three days old; and it was brought before the image of the Blessed Mary in Lagny, and it was said to Joan that the girls of the town were before the said image, and that she would go to pray to God and the Blessed Virgin, that life might be given to the infant. And then she went with the other girls and prayed, and finally life appeared in that child, who made three gasps and was baptized afterwards; and immediately he died and was buried in blessed ground. And three days had passed, as it was said, during which no life had appeared in the child; and he was as black as Joan\u0026rsquo;s tunic. But when he gasped, his color began to return. And Joan was with the girls, praying on bended knees, before Our Lady.\nAsked whether it was said throughout that town that she had caused that resuscitation to happen, and that this was done at her prayer: she replied that she did not inquire about this.\nAsked whether she knew or had seen Catherine de La Rochelle (1); she replied that yes, at the towns of Jargeau and Montfaucon, in the Duchy of Berry.\nAsked whether the same Catherine showed her a certain lady, clothed in white, whom she sometimes said appeared to her: she replied that no.\nAsked what that Catherine told her: she replied that that Catherine told her that a certain white lady, clothed in cloth of gold, came to Catherine, telling her to go through the good towns, and that her king should give her heralds and trumpeters to proclaim that whoever had gold, silver, or treasure hidden, should immediately bring it forth; and that those who had it hidden and did not bring it forth, would be well known by the same Catherine, and she would well know how to find the said treasures; and that she would pay Joan\u0026rsquo;s men-at-arms from these. To which, the said Joan replied to the same Catherine that she should return to her husband, and manage her household, in French son mesnage, and raise her children. And to know the certainty of this Catherine\u0026rsquo;s matter, Joan spoke to Saint Catherine or Saint Margaret; who told her that, concerning the matter of the said Catherine de La Rochelle, it was nothing but foolishness, and that it was all nothing. And she wrote to her king what he should do about this; and when she came to him, she told him that it was foolishness, and all nothing concerning that Catherine\u0026rsquo;s matter; nevertheless, Brother Richard wanted that Catherine to be put to work, and because of this, the aforesaid Brother Richard and Catherine were very displeased with Joan.\nAsked whether she spoke with the aforesaid Catherine, about going to La Charité-sur-Loire (1): she replied that the said Catherine did not advise her to go there, and that it was too cold; and she told the same Joan not to go. Also, the same Joan told the aforesaid Catherine, who wanted to go to the Duke of Burgundy to make peace: that it seemed to her that peace would not be found, except by the point of the lance. Also she said that she asked Catherine whether that white lady who appeared to her, came every night to her, saying that she wanted to lie with her in the same bed for this reason. And in fact she lay down and Joan watched until midnight, and saw nothing there; then she fell asleep. And when morning came, she asked the same Catherine whether that white lady had come to her. To which she replied that yes, while Joan was sleeping, and that she had not been able to wake her. And then Joan asked if that lady would come the next night; and the same Catherine replied that yes; for which reason Joan slept during the day, so that she could watch all the following night. And she lay down that night with the said Catherine, and watched all night; but saw nothing, although she often asked Catherine whether that lady would come, and the said Catherine replied: Yes, immediately.\n(1) La Charité-sur-Loire, today in the department of Nièvre. It was in the winter of 1429 that the Maid presented herself before this place.\nConsequently, the same Joan was asked what she did in the ditches of the town of La Charité: she replied that she had an assault made there, but she did not throw or have thrown holy water there, by way of sprinkling.\nAsked why she did not enter the aforesaid town of La Charité, after she had a command from God: she replied: Who told you that I had a command from God?\nAsked if she had counsel from her voice: she replied that she wanted to come to France (1); but the men-at-arms told her that it was better to go first before the town of La Charité.\nAsked if she was long in the tower of Beaurevoir:\n(1) After the reduction of Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier in Nivernais.\nshe replied that she was there for four months, or thereabouts. And she said that, when she knew the English were coming to take her, she was very angry; and yet the voices often forbade her to jump from that tower; and finally, for fear of the English, she jumped and commended herself to God and the Blessed Mary, and was injured by that jump; and after she jumped, the voice of Saint Catherine told her to put on a cheerful face, and that she would recover, and that the people of Compiègne would receive help. She also said that she always prayed for the people of Compiègne, together with her counsel.\nAsked what she said, after she jumped: she replied that some said she was dead; and, immediately after it appeared to the Burgundians that she was alive, they told her that she had jumped.\nAsked whether she then said that she would rather die than be in the hands of the English: she replied that she said she would rather render her soul to God than be in the hands of the English.\nAsked whether she was then angry, and whether she blasphemed the name of God: she replied that she never cursed any Saint, male or female, and that she was never accustomed to swearing.\nAsked about the matter of the town of Soissons and the captain who had surrendered it, whether she denied God that, if she held the aforesaid captain, she would have him cut into four parts: she replied that she never denied any Saint, male or female, and that those who said or reported this, misunderstood.\nManchon’s French minute (continued):\nAsked whether she believed that she had transgressed or sinned mortally by taking women\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she replied that she acts better by obeying and serving her supreme lord, namely God. She also said that, if she had been obliged to take such women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, she would have done so sooner at the request of the two aforesaid ladies, than of other ladies in France, except her queen.\nAsked whether, when God revealed to her that she should change her attire to male attire, this was by the voice of Saint Michael, or by the voice of Saint Catherine or Saint Margaret: she replied: You will have nothing else now.\nAsked whether, when her king put her to work, and she had her banner made, other men-at-arms had pennons made in the manner and example of Joan\u0026rsquo;s pennon: she replied: It is good to know that the lords maintained their arms. She also says that some of the companions of war had some of those pennons made, as it pleased them, and others did not.\nAsked of what material they had them made, whether it was of linen or woolen cloth: she replied that it was of white satin, in French de blans satins, and on some there were lilies; nor did Joan have of her company more than two or three lances; but the companions of war sometimes had pennons made in the likeness of hers, and they did that only to distinguish their men from others.\nAsked if the said pennons were renewed very often: she replied: I do not know. When the lances were broken, new ones were made.\nAsked whether she ever said that the pennons made in the likeness of hers were fortunate: she replied that sometimes she would tell her men: Enter boldly through the midst of the English, and she herself would enter.\nAsked if she told them to carry those pennons boldly, and that they would have good fortune: she replied that she told them well what had happened, and what was yet to happen.\nAsked whether she placed or had placed holy water on the pennons, when they were newly taken up: she replied: I know nothing of this. And if this was done, it was not by my command.\nAsked if she saw them sprinkled with holy water: she replied: This is not part of these proceedings. And if I saw this done, I am not now advised to answer.\nAsked if the companions of war had the names Jesus Maria placed on their pennons: she replied: By my faith, I do not know.\nAsked if she turned or had cloths turned, in the manner of a procession, around a castle or a church, to make pennons from them: she replied that no, nor did she see anything done.\nAsked, when she was before the town of Jargeau, what it was that she carried behind her helmet or casque, and if there was anything round there: she replied: By my faith, there was nothing there.\nAsked if she ever knew Brother Richard (1): she replied: I had never seen him when I came to the town of Troyes.\nAsked what kind of face Brother Richard made for her: she replied that the people of Troyes, as she believes, sent him to her, saying that they doubted whether Joan was a thing coming from God; and when the same brother approached her, he made the sign of the cross and sprinkled holy water. And then she said to him: Approach boldly, I will not fly away.\nAsked if she had seen or had made any images or paintings of herself and in her likeness: she replied that she saw in Arras a painting in the hand of a certain Scot; and there was a likeness of Joan fully armed, presenting certain letters to her king, with one knee bent. And she said that she never saw or had made any other image or painting of herself.\nAsked whether, in the house of her host, in the city of Orléans, there was a tablet where three women were depicted, and on it inscribed, Justice, peace, union: she replied that she knows nothing of this.\nAsked whether she knows that those of her party had services, masses, and prayers (1) said in her honor: she replied that she knows nothing; and, if they had any service said, it was not by her command; however, if they prayed for her, it seems to her that they do no wrong.\nAsked whether those of her party firmly believe that she is sent by God: she replied: I do not know whether they believe it, and I refer myself to their minds; but if they do not believe it, nevertheless I am sent by God.\nAsked whether she believes that they have good belief, believing her to be sent by God: she replied: If they believe that I am sent by God, they are not mistaken about this. (2)\nAsked whether she knew the minds of those of her party, when they kissed her feet, hands, and clothes: she replied that many gladly saw her, and yet they kissed her hands as little as she could allow; but poor people gladly came to her, because she did not displease them, but rather helped to support them.\nAsked what reverence the citizens of Troyes showed her upon entering the town: she replied that they showed her no reverence. She further says that, as it seems to her, Brother Richard entered the town of Troyes with her and her people; but she does not remember if she saw him at the entrance.\nAsked if Brother Richard preached a sermon upon Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival at the aforesaid town: she replied that she did not stay there long, nor did she lie down in the town; and she knows nothing of the sermon.\nAsked whether she was in the city of Reims for many days: she replied that, as she believes, she and her people were there for four or five days.\nAsked whether she lifted any child from the sacred font there: she replied that she lifted one at Troyes; but she does not remember having lifted any at Reims or at Château-Thierry. She lifted two at Saint-Denis in France. And she gladly gave the name Charles to sons, in honor of her king, and the name Joan to daughters; and sometimes she imposed a name as it pleased the mothers.\nAsked whether the women of that town had their rings touch the ring that Joan wore on her finger: she replied that many women touched my hands and my rings; but I do not know their mind or intention.\nAsked who were those of her company who took butterflies on her banner before Château-Thierry (1): she replied that it was never done on their part; but those of this party invented it.\nAsked what she did at Reims with the gloves in which her king was consecrated: she replied that there was a delivery of gloves there, to be given to the knights and nobles who were present; and there was one who had lost his gloves; but she did not say that she would have them found. She also said that her banner was in the church of Reims; and it seems to her that it was quite near the altar, while her king was being consecrated, and she herself held it there for a while. However, she does not know whether Brother Richard held it there.\nAsked whether, when she traveled through the country, she often received the sacrament of the Eucharist and penance, when she was in good towns: she replied that yes, sometimes.\nAsked if she received the aforesaid sacraments in male attire: she replied that yes; but she does not remember having received them in armor.\nAsked why she took the palfrey, in French la haquenée, of the Bishop of Senlis: she replied that the same palfrey was bought for two hundred saluts. She does not know whether he received them or not; however, she had an assignment for this, or it was paid; and she also wrote to the same bishop that he would have his aforesaid palfrey back, if he wished, and that she did not want it, nor was it worth anything for enduring punishment.\nAsked what age the child was whom she revived at Lagny: she replied that the child was three days old; and it was brought before the image of the Blessed Mary in Lagny, and it was said to Joan that the girls of the town were before the said image, and that she would go to pray to God and the Blessed Virgin, that life might be given to the infant. And then she went with the other girls and prayed, and finally life appeared in that child, who made three gasps and was baptized afterwards; and immediately he died and was buried in blessed ground. And three days had passed, as it was said, during which no life had appeared in the child; and he was as black as Joan\u0026rsquo;s tunic. But when he gasped, his color began to return. And Joan was with the girls, praying on bended knees, before Our Lady.\nAsked whether it was said throughout that town that she had caused that resuscitation to happen, and that this was done at her prayer: she replied that she did not inquire about this.\nAsked whether she knew or had seen Catherine de La Rochelle (1); she replied that yes, at the towns of Jargeau and Montfaucon, in the Duchy of Berry.\nAsked whether the same Catherine showed her a certain lady, clothed in white, whom she sometimes said appeared to her: she replied that no.\nAsked what that Catherine told her: she replied that that Catherine told her that a certain white lady, clothed in cloth of gold, came to Catherine, telling her to go through the good towns, and that her king should give her heralds and trumpeters to proclaim that whoever had gold, silver, or treasure hidden, should immediately bring it forth; and that those who had it hidden and did not bring it forth, would be well known by the same Catherine, and she would well know how to find the said treasures; and that she would pay Joan\u0026rsquo;s men-at-arms from these. To which, the said Joan replied to the same Catherine that she should return to her husband, and manage her household, in French son mesnage, and raise her children. And to know the certainty of this Catherine\u0026rsquo;s matter, Joan spoke to Saint Catherine or Saint Margaret; who told her that, concerning the matter of the said Catherine de La Rochelle, it was nothing but foolishness, and that it was all nothing. And she wrote to her king what he should do about this; and when she came to him, she told him that it was foolishness, and all nothing concerning that Catherine\u0026rsquo;s matter; nevertheless, Brother Richard wanted that Catherine to be put to work, and because of this, the aforesaid Brother Richard and Catherine were very displeased with Joan.\nAsked whether she spoke with the aforesaid Catherine, about going to La Charité-sur-Loire (1): she replied that the said Catherine did not advise her to go there, and that it was too cold; and she told the same Joan not to go. Also, the same Joan told the aforesaid Catherine, who wanted to go to the Duke of Burgundy to make peace: that it seemed to her that peace would not be found, except by the point of the lance. Also she said that she asked Catherine whether that white lady who appeared to her, came every night to her, saying that she wanted to lie with her in the same bed for this reason. And in fact she lay down and Joan watched until midnight, and saw nothing there; then she fell asleep. And when morning came, she asked the same Catherine whether that white lady had come to her. To which she replied that yes, while Joan was sleeping, and that she had not been able to wake her. And then Joan asked if that lady would come the next night; and the same Catherine replied that yes; for which reason Joan slept during the day, so that she could watch all the following night. And she lay down that night with the said Catherine, and watched all night; but saw nothing, although she often asked Catherine whether that lady would come, and the said Catherine replied: Yes, immediately.\nConsequently, the same Joan was asked what she did in the ditches of the town of La Charité: she replied that she had an assault made there, but she did not throw or have thrown holy water there, by way of sprinkling.\nAsked why she did not enter the aforesaid town of La Charité, after she had a command from God: she replied: Who told you that I had a command from God?\nAsked if she had counsel from her voice: she replied that she wanted to come to France (1); but the men-at-arms told her that it was better to go first before the town of La Charité.\nAsked if she was long in the tower of Beaurevoir:\nshe replied that she was there for four months, or thereabouts. And she said that, when she knew the English were coming to take her, she was very angry; and yet the voices often forbade her to jump from that tower; and finally, for fear of the English, she jumped and commended herself to God and the Blessed Mary, and was injured by that jump; and after she jumped, the voice of Saint Catherine told her to put on a cheerful face, and that she would recover, and that the people of Compiègne would receive help. She also said that she always prayed for the people of Compiègne, together with her counsel.\nAsked what she said, after she jumped: she replied that some said she was dead; and, immediately after it appeared to the Burgundians that she was alive, they told her that she had jumped.\nAsked whether she then said that she would rather die than be in the hands of the English: she replied that she said she would rather render her soul to God than be in the hands of the English.\nAsked whether she was then angry, and whether she blasphemed the name of God: she replied that she never cursed any Saint, male or female, and that she was never accustomed to swearing.\nAsked about the matter of the town of Soissons and the captain who had surrendered it, whether she denied God that, if she held the aforesaid captain, she would have him cut into four parts: she replied that she never denied any Saint, male or female, and that those who said or reported this, misunderstood.\nAll these things thus done, Joan was led back to the place assigned to her as a prison. And then we, the aforesaid bishop, said that, continuing the proceedings and without discontinuing it, we would call some doctors and experts in both divine and human law, who would collect what needed to be collected concerning what had been confessed by the same Joan, her responses being reduced to writing; and, these being examined and collected, if there were any matters on which the same Joan seemed to need further interrogation, she would be interrogated by some persons to be appointed by us, without our troubling the whole multitude of the aforesaid assistants; and all things would be reduced to writing, so that, as often as it was opportune, the aforesaid doctors and expert men could deliberate on them, and give their opinions and counsels. And we told them that from then on they should study and consider among themselves, concerning the matter and concerning what they had already heard of the proceedings, what seemed to them to be done, and report it to us or to those appointed or to be appointed on our part, or keep it to themselves, so that they could deliberate more maturely and salutarily at the opportune place and time, and render their opinions. We forbade, however, all and singular of the assistants from leaving this city of Rouen, before the end of the proceedings, without our permission. (1)\n(1) In the margin of the manuscript: End of the public sessions for the first time.\nMarch 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. In the house of the Lord Bishop of Beauvais. It was concluded that Joan should be further interrogated. # Also, on the immediately following Sunday, the fourth day of the said month of March, and on the other immediately following days of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday; we, the aforesaid bishop, having convened in our dwelling house in Rouen, several solemn doctors, masters, and men learned in both divine and canon law (2), caused all that had been confessed and answered by the aforesaid Joan in judgment to be collected, and also those points to be extracted in which she seemed to have answered insufficiently, and on which she seemed to need further interrogation. These having been thus collected and diligently extracted, by the counsel and deliberation of the experts, we concluded that further interrogation of the aforesaid Joan should proceed. And since, because of our various occupations, we could not always attend to the aforesaid interrogation in our own person, we appointed the venerable and discreet man, Master Jean de La Fontaine, Master of Arts and licentiate in canon law, named above, to interrogate the aforesaid Joan judicially on our behalf; and we committed him to this on Friday, the ninth day of the aforesaid month of March, in the presence of the doctors and masters, Jean Pulchripatris, Jacques de Tournon, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurici, Thomas de Courcelles, Nicolas Loiselleur, and Guillaume Manchon, named above.\n(2) Read human.\nMarch 10. First time in prison. # Also, on the immediately following Saturday, the tenth day of the said month of March, we, the aforesaid bishop, went to a certain chamber in the Castle of Rouen, which had been assigned to the aforesaid Joan as a prison; and there, with the said Master Jean de La Fontaine, commissioner appointed by us, as aforesaid, and the venerable doctors and masters of sacred theology, Nicolas Midi and Gérard Fueillet; in the presence of witnesses for this purpose, Jean Fecardi, advocate, and Lord Jean Massieu, priest; we asked the aforesaid Joan to make and take an oath to tell the truth about the things that would be asked of her. To which she replied, saying: I promise you that I will tell the truth about what concerns these proceedings; and the more you compel me to swear, the later I will tell you.\nManchon’s French minute:\nSaturday after Oculi mei, the tenth of March. (1) She was asked to make and swear to the truth. She replied: I promise you that I will tell the truth about what concerns these proceedings; and the more you compel me to swear, the later I will tell you. (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 18, v°.\nOfficial Latin record (continued):\nQuestioned afterwards by Master Jean de La Fontaine, by the order and command of the Lord Bishop of Beauvais: By the oath you have taken, when you last came to Compiègne, from what place had you departed? She replied that she had departed from Crépy in Valois.\nAsked whether she had been in the town of Compiègne for many days, before she made any sortie or sally from there: she replied that she came in the morning, at a secret hour; and entered the town, without her enemies knowing much about it, as she believes; and on that same day, towards evening, she made that sally, in French la saillie, from which she was captured.\nAsked if, when she sallied forth, the bells were rung: she replied that, if they were rung, it was not by her command or knowledge; nor did she think of it, nor does she remember whether she had said that they should be rung.\nAsked whether she made that sally by command of her voice: she replied that in the week of Easter just past, while she was on the ditches of the town of Melun, it was told to her by her voices, namely by the voices of Saints Catherine and Margaret, that she would be captured before the feast of Saint John; and that it had to happen so; and that she should not be astonished by it, but accept it gladly, and that God would help her.\nAsked whether, after that place of Melun, it was told to her by her aforesaid voices that she would be captured: she replied that yes, many times, and almost daily. And she asked her voices that, when she was captured, she should die immediately, without long vexation of prison; and those voices told her to accept everything gladly and that it had to happen so; but they did not tell her the hour. And if she had known the hour, she would not have gone there. And she had asked them many times to know the hour of her capture, but they did not tell her.\nAsked if her voices had commanded her to sally forth from Compiègne, signifying to her that she would be captured, whether she would have gone there: she replied that, if she had known the hour and that she was to be captured, she would not have gone willingly; nevertheless, she would have obeyed the command of those voices, whatever might have happened to her.\nAsked whether, when she sallied forth from Compiègne, she had a voice or revelation about departing and making that sally: she replied that on that day, she did not know of her capture, nor did she have any other command to go out; but it had always been told to her that she had to be a prisoner.\nAsked whether, when she made that sally, she crossed the bridge of Compiègne: she replied that she crossed the bridge and the boulevard, in French boulevart, and went with the company of people of her party against the people of Lord Jean de Luxembourg, and repulsed them twice as far as the Burgundians\u0026rsquo; camps or lodgings, and on the third occasion halfway. The English who were there then cut off the way for Joan and her people; as she retreated, she was captured in the fields on the Picardy side, near the said boulevard. The river lay between the place where she was captured and Compiègne, together with the boulevard and its ditch; there was nothing else between them.\nAsked whether on the banner she carried, there was a world depicted, and two angels, etc.: she replied that yes, and she never had but one.\nAsked what was the meaning of depicting God holding the world and two angels there: she replied that Saints Catherine and Margaret told her that she should take the banner, and carry it boldly, and that she should have the King of Heaven depicted on it. And she told this to her king, though very unwillingly; and she knows nothing else of the meaning.\nAsked whether she had a shield and arms: she replied that she never had any; but her king gave arms to her brothers, namely an azure shield, on which were two golden lilies and a sword in the middle; and in this town, she described these arms to a certain painter, because he had asked her what arms she bore. She also said that this was given by her king to her brothers, without Joan\u0026rsquo;s request, and without revelation.\nAsked whether she had a horse, when she was captured, either a courser or a palfrey: she replied that she was then on a horse, and it was a half-courser, in French ung demi coursier.\nAsked who had given her this horse: she replied that her king, or her king\u0026rsquo;s people, gave it to her from her king\u0026rsquo;s money; and she had five coursers from her king\u0026rsquo;s money, besides the trotters, which were more than seven.\nAsked whether she ever had other riches from her king than those horses: she replied that she asked nothing from her king, except good arms, good horses, and money to pay her household people.\nAsked whether she had treasure: she replied that she had ten or twelve thousand which she values, but it was not a great treasure for waging war; indeed, this is little; and her brothers have these, as she believes. She also says that what she has, is from her king\u0026rsquo;s own money.\nAsked what is that sign which she gave to her king, when she came to him: she replied that it is good, and honorable, and well credible, and good, and the richest that is in the world.\nAsked why she is not as willing to tell and show that sign, as she was willing to have Catherine de La Rochelle\u0026rsquo;s sign: she replied that, if Catherine\u0026rsquo;s sign had been shown as well, before notable ecclesiastical men and others, archbishops and bishops, namely before the Archbishop of Reims (1) and other bishops whose names she does not know (and Charles de Bourbon, the Lord de La Trémoille (2), the Duke of Alençon (3) and many other knights were there, who saw and heard as well as Joan sees the lords speaking to her and standing before her today), as the aforesaid sign of Joan was shown; then she would not have asked to know the sign of the aforesaid Catherine. And yet she knew beforehand through Saints Catherine and Margaret that, concerning the matter of the said Catherine de La Rochelle, there was absolutely nothing.\n(1) Regnault de Chartres, then Archbishop of Reims and Chancellor of France, for Charles VII.\n(2) Georges de la Trémoille, Count of Guines and Boulogne, Baron of Sully, Craon, Sainte-Hermine and Île-Bouchard, Grand Chamberlain of France, head of the council, and more king than Charles VII, during the time of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s mission.\n(3) Jean d\u0026rsquo;Alençon, Count of Perche, whom the Maid called the handsome duke.\nAsked whether the aforesaid sign of Joan still endures: she replied that it is good to know; and it will endure for a thousand years and more. She also says that the said sign is in her king\u0026rsquo;s treasury.\nAsked whether it is gold, silver, a precious stone, or a crown: she replied: I will not tell you; nor could any man describe a thing so rich as the sign; and yet the sign that you need is that God deliver me from your hands, and it is the most certain that He can send you. She also says that, when she was to depart to go to her king, it was told to her by her voices: Go boldly; when you are before the king, he will have a good sign to receive you and believe you.\nAsked, when the sign came to her king, what reverence she made to it, and whether it came from God: she replied that she thanked God for having delivered her from the pain inflicted on her by the clerics of that party, who argued against her; and she knelt many times. She also says that an angel from God, and not from another, delivered the sign to her king, and she thanked God for this many times. She further says that the clerics ceased to argue with her when they had the aforesaid sign.\nAsked whether the ecclesiastical men of that party saw the aforesaid sign: she replied that, when her king and those who were with him saw the aforesaid sign, and the angel himself who delivered it, she asked her king if he was content; to which he replied that yes. And then she departed and went to a small chapel quite near, and then heard it said that after her departure, more than three hundred persons saw the aforesaid sign. She further says that, for her love and so that men would cease to question her, God wanted to permit that those of her party who saw the aforesaid sign, should see it.\nAsked whether her king and she showed any reverence to the angel, when he brought the aforesaid sign: she replied that she did show reverence, and knelt, and uncovered her head.\nManchon’s French minute (continued):\nThen, by the aforesaid Master Jean de La Fontaine, specially commissioned and appointed by us for this purpose, the same Joan was interrogated. And he asked her, by the oath she had taken, when she last came to Compiègne, from what place she had departed. She replied that she had departed from the town of Crépy in Valois.\nAsked whether she had been in the town of Compiègne for many days, before she made any sortie or sally from there: she replied that she came in the morning, at a secret hour; and entered the town, without her enemies knowing much about it, as she believes; and on that same day, towards evening, she made that sally, in French la saillie, from which she was captured.\nAsked if, when she sallied forth, the bells were rung: she replied that, if they were rung, it was not by her command or knowledge; nor did she think of it, nor does she remember whether she had said that they should be rung.\nAsked whether she made that sally by command of her voice: she replied that in the week of Easter just past, while she was on the ditches of the town of Melun, it was told to her by her voices, namely by the voices of Saints Catherine and Margaret, that she would be captured before the feast of Saint John; and that it had to happen so; and that she should not be astonished by it, but accept it gladly, and that God would help her.\nAsked whether, after that place of Melun, it was told to her by her aforesaid voices that she would be captured: she replied that yes, many times, and almost daily. And she asked her voices that, when she was captured, she should die immediately, without long vexation of prison; and those voices told her to accept everything gladly and that it had to happen so; but they did not tell her the hour. And if she had known the hour, she would not have gone there. And she had asked them many times to know the hour of her capture, but they did not tell her.\nAsked if her voices had commanded her to sally forth from Compiègne, signifying to her that she would be captured, whether she would have gone there: she replied that, if she had known the hour and that she was to be captured, she would not have gone willingly; nevertheless, she would have obeyed the command of those voices, whatever might have happened to her.\nAsked whether, when she sallied forth from Compiègne, she had a voice or revelation about departing and making that sally: she replied that on that day, she did not know of her capture, nor did she have any other command to go out; but it had always been told to her that she had to be a prisoner.\nAsked whether, when she made that sally, she crossed the bridge of Compiègne: she replied that she crossed the bridge and the boulevard, in French boulevart, and went with the company of people of her party against the people of Lord Jean de Luxembourg, and repulsed them twice as far as the Burgundians\u0026rsquo; camps or lodgings, and on the third occasion halfway. The English who were there then cut off the way for Joan and her people; as she retreated, she was captured in the fields on the Picardy side, near the said boulevard. The river lay between the place where she was captured and Compiègne, together with the boulevard and its ditch; there was nothing else between them.\nAsked whether on the banner she carried, there was a world depicted, and two angels, etc.: she replied that yes, and she never had but one.\nAsked what was the meaning of depicting God holding the world and two angels there: she replied that Saints Catherine and Margaret told her that she should take the banner, and carry it boldly, and that she should have the King of Heaven depicted on it. And she told this to her king, though very unwillingly; and she knows nothing else of the meaning.\nAsked whether she had a shield and arms: she replied that she never had any; but her king gave arms to her brothers, namely an azure shield, on which were two golden lilies and a sword in the middle; and in this town, she described these arms to a certain painter, because he had asked her what arms she bore. She also said that her king gave these arms to her brothers, as they pleased, without her request and without revelation.\nAsked whether she had a horse, when she was captured, either a courser or a palfrey: she replied that she was then on a horse, and it was a half-courser, in French ung demi coursier.\nAsked who had given her this horse: she replied that her king, or her king\u0026rsquo;s people, gave it to her from her king\u0026rsquo;s money; and she had five coursers from her king\u0026rsquo;s money, besides the trotters, which were more than seven.\nAsked whether she ever had other riches from her king than those horses: she replied that she asked nothing from her king, except good arms, good horses, and money to pay her household people.\nAsked whether she had treasure: she replied that she had ten or twelve thousand which she values, but it was not a great treasure for waging war; indeed, this is little; and her brothers have these, as she believes. She also says that what she has, is from her king\u0026rsquo;s own money.\nAsked what is that sign which she gave to her king, when she came to him: she replied that it is good, and honorable, and well credible, and good, and the richest that is in the world.\nAsked why she is not as willing to tell and show that sign, as she was willing to have Catherine de La Rochelle\u0026rsquo;s sign: she replied that, if Catherine\u0026rsquo;s sign had been shown as well, before notable ecclesiastical men and others, archbishops and bishops, namely before the Archbishop of Reims (1) and other bishops whose names she does not know (and Charles de Bourbon, the Lord de La Trémoille (2), the Duke of Alençon (3) and many other knights were there, who saw and heard as well as Joan sees the lords speaking to her and standing before her today), as the aforesaid sign of Joan was shown; then she would not have asked to know the sign of the aforesaid Catherine. And yet she knew beforehand through Saints Catherine and Margaret that, concerning the matter of the said Catherine de La Rochelle, there was absolutely nothing.\nAsked whether the aforesaid sign of Joan still endures: she replied that it is good to know; and it will endure for a thousand years and more. She also says that the said sign is in her king\u0026rsquo;s treasury.\nAsked whether it is gold, silver, a precious stone, or a crown: she replied: I will not tell you; nor could any man describe a thing so rich as the sign; and yet the sign that you need is that God deliver me from your hands, and it is the most certain that He can send you. She also says that, when she was to depart to go to her king, it was told to her by her voices: Go boldly; when you are before the king, he will have a good sign to receive you and believe you.\nAsked, when the sign came to her king, what reverence she made to it, and whether it came from God: she replied that she thanked God for having delivered her from the pain inflicted on her by the clerics of that party, who argued against her; and she knelt many times. She also says that an angel from God, and not from another, delivered the sign to her king, and she thanked God for this many times. She further says that the clerics ceased to argue with her when they had the aforesaid sign.\nAsked whether the ecclesiastical men of that party saw the aforesaid sign: she replied that, when her king and those who were with him saw the aforesaid sign, and the angel himself who delivered it, she asked her king if he was content; to which he replied that yes. And then she departed and went to a small chapel quite near, and then heard it said that after her departure, more than three hundred persons saw the aforesaid sign. She further says that, for her love and so that men would cease to question her, God wanted to permit that those of her party who saw the aforesaid sign, should see it.\nAsked whether her king and she showed any reverence to the angel, when he brought the aforesaid sign: she replied that she did show reverence, and knelt, and uncovered her head.\nMarch 12. The Inquisitor\u0026rsquo;s Vicar requested according to the tenor of the new commission. # Also, on Monday, the 12th day of March, immediately following, there appeared in our dwelling house in Rouen, the religious and discreet man, Brother Jean Le Maistre, of the Order of Friars Preachers, named above, vicar of the said Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the kingdom of France; in the presence of the venerable and discreet men, lords and masters, Thomas Fiefvet (1) and Pasquier de Vaux (2), doctors of decrees, and Nicolas de Hubento, apostolic letter writer (3), and Brother Ysambard de La Pierre, of the Order of Friars Preachers. To this vicar, we, the aforesaid bishop, explained that previously, from the beginning of the proceedings initiated by us in a matter of faith against a certain woman called Joan, commonly known as the Maid, we had summoned and requested the same vicar to join the present proceedings, offering to communicate to him the acts, documents, and whatever else we had pertaining to the matter and the proceedings. The vicar, however, at that time had raised some difficulty about joining the proceedings, because he was only commissioned in the city and diocese of Rouen; while the proceedings were being conducted before us by reason of our Beauvais jurisdiction, in an appropriate territory. Therefore, for greater security of the business, and out of abundant caution, by the advice of experts, we had concluded to write to the Lord Inquisitor himself, requesting him to come to this city of Rouen, or to specially appoint a vicar in this case, who would have full power on the part of the Lord Inquisitor for the conduct and termination of the proceedings, as these things are more fully contained above. After the aforesaid Lord Inquisitor received our letters, graciously acceding to our request, for the honor and exaltation of the orthodox faith, he specially commissioned and appointed the oft-mentioned Brother Jean Le Maistre to conduct and terminate this case, by his letters patent sealed and strengthened with his seal, the tenor of which follows below. For these reasons, we summoned and requested the same Brother Jean Le Maistre to join us in these proceedings, according to the tenor of his commission. To this, the same brother replied to us that he would gladly see the aforesaid commission addressed to him, the proceedings marked with notorious signs, and whatever else we wished to communicate to him; which having been seen and examined, he would give us an answer, and would do his duty for the office of the Holy Inquisition. We then told him that he had already been present for a large part of the proceedings, where he could hear many of Joan\u0026rsquo;s responses; and we were content and well willing to communicate to him the proceedings and all that had been done in the matter, so that he might know and see it.\n(1) Thomas Fievé, doctor of civil and canon law, appointed ambassador of the University of Paris to the Council of Basel (DIBOULAI, t. V, p. 432, where Fiene is incorrect).\n(2) Pasquier de Vaux, doctor of canon law, canon of Rouen, Paris, and Amiens, president of the Chamber of Accounts of Normandy, later chancellor of the King of England in France, and bishop of Meaux. At the time of the reduction of that city, he preferred to lose his temporal possessions rather than swear allegiance to Charles VII. In 1439 he was transferred to the see of Évreux, from which the French again drove him in 1441. He died a faithful subject of Henry VI, who, in the end, had him provided with the bishopric of Lisieux (Gallia christiana t. VIII, col. 1639).\n(3) Apostolic secretary.\nNow follows the tenor of the letters of commission, transmitted by the Lord Inquisitor, of which mention is made above:\nTo our beloved brother in Christ, Jean Le Maistre, of the Order of Friars Preachers, Brother Jean Graverent, of the same order, humble professor of sacred theology and Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the kingdom of France, appointed by apostolic authority, in the author and finisher of faith, the Lord Jesus Christ, greeting. Whereas the Reverend Father in Christ and Lord, the Lord Bishop of Beauvais, concerning the matter of a certain woman who is called Joan, but by common name the Maid, has written to us by his letters patent in the following manner: Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, to the venerable father Master Jean Graverent, etc. (1). And because we, legitimately impeded, cannot conveniently come to Rouen at present, therefore we have specially committed and do commit to you, in whose zeal and discretion we trust, as far as our office is concerned, the matter or business of that aforesaid woman, up to and including the definitive sentence, by the tenor of these presents; hoping that for the praise of God, the exaltation of the faith, and the edification of the people, you will proceed justly and holily. In testimony whereof, our seal which we use in office is affixed to these presents. Given at Coutances, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, on the fourth day of the month of March. Thus signed: N. Ogier.\n(1) This request is found among the first acts of the trial. See above, p. 36.\nThe same day, in prison. # Also, on the same Monday morning, we, the aforesaid bishop, went to the chamber assigned as prison to the aforesaid Joan, in the Castle of Rouen, where there were also present with us the venerable and discreet men, lords and masters: Jean de La Fontaine, commissioner appointed by us, as aforesaid; Nicolas Midi and Gérard Fueillet, doctors of sacred theology; present for this purpose Thomas Fiefvet and Pasquier de Vaux, doctors in canon law; and Nicolas de Hubento, apostolic letter writer, named above.\nIn their presence, we asked the aforesaid Joan to swear to tell the truth about the things that would be asked of her. To which she replied that concerning what concerned these proceedings, as she had said before, she would willingly tell the truth. And so she swore. Then, by our command, she was interrogated by the aforesaid Master Jean de La Fontaine. And first, whether the angel who brought the sign to her king, of whom mention is made above, had spoken: she replied that yes, and told her king that Joan should be put to work, and the country would immediately be relieved.\nAsked whether the angel who brought the sign to her king was the same angel who first appeared to Joan: she replied that it is always one and the same, and never failed her.\nAsked whether that angel failed her, as to the goods of fortune, in that she was captured: she replied that she believes, since it pleased God, that it is for the better that she is captured.\nAsked whether, in the goods of grace, that angel failed her: she replied: How could he fail me, when he comforts me daily? And she understands, as she says, that this comfort is from Saints Catherine and Margaret.\nAsked whether she calls those saints Catherine and Margaret, or whether they come without being called: she replied that they often come without being called; and at other times, if they did not come, she would very quickly ask God to send them.\nAsked whether the aforesaid Saints never came, when she called them: she replied that she never needed them, but that she had them.\nAsked whether Saint Denis ever appeared to her: she replied that no, as far as she knows.\nAsked whether she spoke to God, when she promised Him to keep her virginity: she replied that it should be sufficient to promise this to those who were sent by God Himself, namely Saints Catherine and Margaret.\nAsked what moved her to have a certain man summoned to the city of Toul, in a marriage case: she replied: I did not have him summoned, but it was he who had me summoned there; and there I swore before the judge to tell the truth. And finally she said that she had made no promise to that man. She also says that, the first time she heard her voice, she vowed to keep her virginity, as long as it pleased God; and she was about thirteen years old. She also says that her voices assured her of winning her aforesaid case in the city of Toul.\nAsked whether she spoke of these visions which she says she has, to her confessor or to any other ecclesiastical man: she replied that no (1), but only to Robert de Baudricourt and to her king. She further says that her voices did not compel her to conceal this, but she greatly feared to reveal it for fear of the Burgundians, lest they impede her from her journey; and she especially greatly feared her father, lest he impede her from making her journey.\n(1) In the margin of the manuscript: She concealed the visions from her confessor, father and mother, and everyone.\nAsked whether she believed she was doing well in leaving without the permission of her father and mother, since honor is due to father and mother: she replied that, in all other things, she well obeyed her father and mother, except for that departure; but afterwards she wrote to them about it, and they forgave her.\nAsked whether, when she left her father and mother, she believed she was sinning: she replied that, since God commanded it, it had to be done. She further says that, since God commanded it, if she had a hundred fathers and mothers, and she were the daughter of a king, she would nevertheless have departed.\nAsked whether she asked her voices if she should tell her father and mother of her departure: she replied that, as for her father and mother, the voices were well content that she tell them, had it not been for the pain they would have inflicted on her if she had told them of her departure; and, as for herself, she would not have told them for anything. She also says that the voices referred it to her whether to tell her father and mother, or to keep silent.\nAsked whether she showed reverence to Saint Michael and the angels, when she saw them: she replied that yes; and she kissed the ground over which they had passed, after their departure.\nAsked whether the aforesaid angels were with her for a long time: she replied that they often come among Christians, and are not seen; and she often saw them among Christians.\nAsked whether she had letters from Saint Michael or from her voices: she replied: I do not have permission to tell you this; and between now and eight days, I will gladly answer you about this what I know.\nAsked whether her voices called her daughter of God, daughter of the Church, daughter with a great heart: she replied that, before the lifting of the siege of Orléans, and thereafter every day, when they spoke to her, they frequently called her Joan the Maid, daughter of God.\nAsked, since she calls herself daughter of God, why she does not willingly say the Our Father: she replied that she would willingly say it; and at other times, when she refused to say it, she did so with the intention that we, the aforesaid bishop, would hear her in confession.\nThe same day in the afternoon. In prison # Also, on the same Monday in the afternoon, there being present in the aforesaid place of Joan\u0026rsquo;s prison, the oft-mentioned lords and masters: Jean de La Fontaine, commissioned by us; Nicolas Midi and Gérard Fueillet, doctors in sacred theology; Thomas Fiefvet and Pasquier de Vaux, doctors in canon law; and Nicolas de Hubento, apostolic letter writer.\nThe same Joan was interrogated by the aforesaid de La Fontaine by our command. And first concerning the dreams which her father was said to have had about her, before she left his house. To this she replied that, while she was still in her father\u0026rsquo;s and mother\u0026rsquo;s house, she was told many times by her mother that her father said he had dreamed that his daughter Joan was going to go with men-at-arms; and because of this, her aforesaid father and mother took great care to guard her, and kept her in great subjection; and she obeyed in all things, except in the proceedings she had in the city of Toul, concerning a marriage case. She also says that she heard her mother say that her father told her brothers: Truly, if I believed that thing would happen, which I fear about my daughter, I would want you to drown her; and if you would not do this, I myself would drown her (1). And the aforesaid father and mother almost lost their senses when she left to go to the town of Vaucouleurs. (1) In the margin of the manuscript: The father wanted her to be drowned by her brothers.\nAsked whether these thoughts or dreams came to her father, after she had these visions of hers: she replied that yes, more than two years after she heard the voices.\nAsked whether it was at the request of Robert de Baudricourt or Joan herself that she took male attire: she replied that it was by Joan herself, and not at the request of any living man.\nAsked whether the voice commanded her to take male attire: she replied: All that I have done for good, I have done by the command of my voices; and, as for the attire, I will answer another time; I am not advised at present; but tomorrow I will answer about this.\nAsked whether, by taking male attire, she believed she was doing wrong: she replied that no; and even now, if she were with those of the other party in this male attire, it seems to her that it would be one of the great goods of France, to do as she did before her capture.\nAsked how she would have delivered the Duke of Orléans: she replied that she would have captured enough English on this side of the sea, to get him back; and, if she had not captured enough on this side, she would have crossed the sea, to go seek him in England, with power.\nAsked whether Saints Catherine and Margaret had told her absolutely and unconditionally that she would capture sufficient men to get the Duke of Orléans who was in England, or otherwise that she would cross the sea to go seek him: she replied that yes, and that she told this to her king, and that he should let her deal with those lords of England who were then prisoners. She further says that, if she had lasted for three years, without having any impediment, she would have delivered the aforesaid duke. She also says that, for doing that, the term was shorter than three years, and longer than one; but she has no memory of it.\nAsked what was the sign that she gave to her king: she replied that she would have counsel from Saint Catherine about this.\nManchon’s French minute — Monday after Laetare Jerusalem, March 12, morning and afternoon:\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 19, v°.\nJoan was requested by the Lord Bishop of Beauvais to tell the truth about the matters that would be put to her. She replied: Concerning what touches your proceedings, as I have told you before, I will willingly tell the truth. And so she swore, in the presence of Masters Thomas Fievé, Nicolas de Hubento, and Jean Carbounier.\nThen, by our command, she was interrogated by the aforesaid Master Jean de La Fontaine. And first, whether the angel who brought the sign to her king, of whom mention is made above, had spoken: she replied that yes, and told her king that Joan should be put to work, and the country would immediately be relieved.\nAsked whether the angel who brought the sign to her king was the same angel who first appeared to Joan: she replied that it is always one and the same, and never failed her.\nAsked whether that angel failed her, as to the goods of fortune, in that she was captured: she replied that she believes, since it pleased God, that it is for the better that she is captured.\nAsked whether, in the goods of grace, that angel failed her: she replied: How could he fail me, when he comforts me daily? And she understands, as she says, that this comfort is from Saints Catherine and Margaret.\nAsked whether she calls those saints Catherine and Margaret, or whether they come without being called: she replied that they often come without being called; and at other times, if they did not come, she would very quickly ask God to send them.\nAsked whether the aforesaid Saints never came, when she called them: she replied that she never needed them, but that she had them.\nAsked whether Saint Denis ever appeared to her: she replied that no, as far as she knows.\nAsked whether she spoke to God, when she promised Him to keep her virginity: she replied that it should be sufficient to promise this to those who were sent by God Himself, namely Saints Catherine and Margaret.\nAsked what moved her to have a certain man summoned to the city of Toul, in a marriage case: she replied: I did not have him summoned, but it was he who had me summoned there; and there I swore before the judge to tell the truth. And finally she said that she had made no promise to that man. She also says that, the first time she heard her voice, she vowed to keep her virginity, as long as it pleased God; and she was about thirteen years old. She also says that her voices assured her of winning her aforesaid case in the city of Toul.\nAsked whether she spoke of these visions which she says she has, to her confessor or to any other ecclesiastical man: she replied that no (1), but only to Robert de Baudricourt and to her king. She further says that her voices did not compel her to conceal this, but she greatly feared to reveal it for fear of the Burgundians, lest they impede her from her journey; and she especially greatly feared her father, lest he impede her from making her journey.\nAsked whether she believed she was doing well in leaving without the permission of her father and mother, since honor is due to father and mother: she replied that, in all other things, she well obeyed her father and mother, except for that departure; but afterwards she wrote to them about it, and they forgave her.\nAsked whether, when she left her father and mother, she believed she was sinning: she replied that, since God commanded it, it had to be done. She further says that, since God commanded it, if she had a hundred fathers and mothers, and she were the daughter of a king, she would nevertheless have departed.\nAsked whether she asked her voices if she should tell her father and mother of her departure: she replied that, as for her father and mother, the voices were well content that she tell them, had it not been for the pain they would have inflicted on her if she had told them of her departure; and, as for herself, she would not have told them for anything. She also says that the voices referred it to her whether to tell her father and mother, or to keep silent.\nAsked whether she showed reverence to Saint Michael and the angels, when she saw them: she replied that yes; and she kissed the ground over which they had passed, after their departure.\nAsked whether the aforesaid angels were with her for a long time: she replied that they often come among Christians, and are not seen; and she often saw them among Christians.\nAsked whether she had letters from Saint Michael or from her voices: she replied: I do not have permission to tell you this; and between now and eight days, I will gladly answer you about this what I know.\nAsked whether her voices called her daughter of God, daughter of the Church, daughter with a great heart: she replied that, before the lifting of the siege of Orléans, and thereafter every day, when they spoke to her, they frequently called her Joan the Maid, daughter of God.\nAsked, since she calls herself daughter of God, why she does not willingly say the Our Father: she replied that she would willingly say it; and at other times, when she refused to say it, she did so with the intention that we, the aforesaid bishop, would hear her in confession.\nOn that same Monday afternoon, asked about her father\u0026rsquo;s dreams, she replied that, when she was still with her father and mother, her mother told her many times that her father said he had dreamed that Joan, his daughter, would go away with men-at-arms. Her father and mother therefore took great care to guard her and kept her under close restraint; and she obeyed in everything except the proceedings at Toul concerning a marriage. She also says that she heard her mother say that her father told her brothers: If I thought that what I dreamed of her would happen, I would want you to drown her; and if you did not do it, I would drown her myself. They came very close to losing their senses when she left to go to Vaucouleurs. Asked whether these thoughts or dreams came to her father after she had these visions: she replied that they did, more than two years after she heard the first voices.\nAsked whether she took male attire at Robert\u0026rsquo;s request or on her own initiative: she replied that it was on her own initiative, and not at the request of any man in the world.\nAsked whether the voice commanded her to take male attire: she replied: Everything good that I have done, I have done at the command of my voices. She added that, as for this attire, she would answer another time; she had not yet considered her answer, but would answer about it tomorrow.\nAsked whether, by taking male attire, she believed she was doing wrong: she replied that no; and even now, if she were with those of the other party in this male attire, it seems to her that it would be one of the great goods of France, to do as she did before her capture.\nAsked how she would have delivered the Duke of Orléans: she replied that she would have captured enough English on this side of the sea, to get him back; and, if she had not captured enough on this side, she would have crossed the sea, to go seek him in England, with power.\nAsked whether Saints Margaret and Catherine had told her absolutely and unconditionally that she would capture enough men to recover the Duke of Orléans, who was in England, or else cross the sea to seek him and bring him back within three years: she replied that they had, and that she told her king to let her deal with the prisoners. She further says of herself that, if she had lasted three years without impediment, she would have delivered him. She also says that the time allowed was shorter than three years and longer than one year, but at present she does not remember it.\nAsked what was the sign that she gave to her king: she replied that she would have counsel from Saint Catherine about this.\nMarch 13. The Vicar of the Inquisitor joins the proceedings. # Item, on the immediately following Tuesday, the 13th of the said month of March, we, the aforesaid bishop, went to the aforementioned place of imprisonment, where, at the same hour, the aforesaid venerable and religious man, Brother Jean Le Maistre, appeared, with the venerable and discreet men, the aforesaid lords and masters, Jean de La Fontaine, Nicolas Midi, and Gerard Fueillet, assisting; present for this purpose were Nicolas de Houppeville and Isambard de la Pierre, of the Order of Preaching Friars. This Brother Jean Le Maistre, having seen the letters sent to him by the lord Inquisitor, along with other matters to be considered, joined us in the said proceedings, ready to proceed with us to the further decision of the case, as would be right and reasonable. This we also charitably explained to Joan herself at that time, exhorting and admonishing her for the salvation of her soul, that she should speak the truth in this case, concerning all matters about which she would be questioned. And thereupon the aforesaid vicar of the lord Inquisitor, wishing to proceed further in the case, appointed Lord Jean d\u0026rsquo;Estivet, canon of the churches of Bayeux and Beauvais, as promoter of the Holy Inquisition; the noble man Jean Gris, esquire of the body of our lord the king, and Jean Baroust, as custodians of the prison; and Lord Jean Massieu, priest, as executor of citations and summonses, named above, and whom we, the aforesaid bishop, had also previously appointed and ordained to the said offices, as these matters are more fully contained in our letters, of us, the aforesaid bishop, above, and also in our letters, of us, the aforesaid vicar, below, confirmed by our seals; the tenors of our letters, of us, the aforesaid vicar, are described below. All the aforesaid officers took an oath to the said vicar to faithfully perform their offices.\nHere follows the tenor of the letters concerning the appointment of the promoter, by the aforesaid Lord Vicar.\nTo all who shall inspect these present letters, Brother JEAN LE MAISTRE, of the Order of Preaching Friars, vicar general of the reverend father, lord and master, Jean Graverent, of the same order, an eminent professor of sacred theology, and Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the kingdom of France, specially appointed by apostolic authority, greetings in the author and finisher of faith, our Lord Jesus Christ. Whereas the reverend father in Christ and lord, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, ordinary judge in this matter, and having territory in the city and diocese of Rouen, has requested and summoned and required the aforesaid reverend father the lord Inquisitor, by his open letters, in favor of the faith, to come to this city of Rouen, if he conveniently could, or to deign to commit his powers to us or to some other suitable person for this purpose, to treat with the aforesaid reverend father, the lord Bishop of Beauvais, the case of a certain woman commonly called Joan the Maid, in a matter of faith, previously summoned and apprehended by the said reverend father, the lord bishop; the same reverend father, the lord Inquisitor, being unable to come to this city of Rouen for this purpose, has committed his powers to us by letter in this regard, as these and other matters appear to be contained in the letters of the aforesaid lord Inquisitor, containing the form of the letters of summons and requisition of the aforesaid lord bishop, together with our commission of this kind; these letters of our commission being dated the fourth day of the month of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, and sealed with the seal of the said lord Inquisitor, and with the manual signet of the venerable man Lord Nicolas Ogier, public notary: we, humbly desiring and wishing to fulfill the commission of the aforesaid lord Inquisitor with all our strength for the praise of God and the exaltation of the orthodox faith, as we are bound, as far as we are able; having taken the counsel and advice of the aforesaid lord bishop and of several others, skilled both in sacred theology and in canon and civil law; we have found that for the definition of this case, a promoter of the causes of the office of the Holy Inquisition, and notaries and executors of our mandates, suitable and notable, ought to be constituted and ordained. Hence it is that we, by the apostolic authority and that of the said reverend father the lord Inquisitor, which we exercise in this matter, having full confidence in the Lord and being duly informed of the probity, industry, sufficiency, and suitability of the person of the venerable and discreet man, Lord Jean d\u0026rsquo;Estivet, priest, canon of the churches of Bayeux and Beauvais, and promoter of the causes of the office of the said lord bishop in this matter: we have made, constituted, created, named, ordained, and appointed him, and do make, constitute, create, name, ordain, and appoint him as promoter or procurator general and special of our office, for the purpose of conducting this case or matter; giving to the same promoter and procurator general, by the tenor of these presents, license, faculty, and authority to stand and appear in court and out of court, against the said Joan; to make himself a party, to give, deliver, administer, produce, and exhibit articles, interrogatories, witnesses, letters, instruments, and other kinds of proofs, and to accuse and denounce Joan herself, to demand, cause, and require her to be examined and questioned, to conclude in the case, and to do, promote, procure, manage, and exercise all and singular other things which are known to pertain to the office of promoter or procurator by law or custom. Wherefore, we command all and singular whom it concerns, that they obey, comply with, and attend to the said Lord Jean in exercising this office, and that they provide him with aid, counsel, and assistance. In testimony whereof, we have caused our seal to be affixed to these present letters. Given and acted at Rouen, in the year of our Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, on Tuesday, the thirteenth day of March. Thus signed: Boisguillaume. Manchon.\nItem, here follows the tenor of the letters by which the aforesaid Vicar of the Inquisitor appointed Lord Jean Massieu, priest, as executor of the summonses and citations to be made in the said case.\nTo all who shall inspect these present letters, Brother JEAN LE MAISTRE, of the Order of Preaching Friars, etc. (1). We, etc., having full confidence in the Lord and being duly informed of the probity, industry, sufficiency, and suitability of the person of the discreet man, Lord Jean Massieu, priest, dean of the Christian community of Rouen, committed and appointed as executor of the mandates of the aforesaid lord bishop in this case: we have made, constituted, retained, and ordained the said Lord Jean as executor of the mandates and summonses to be made by us in the matter itself; and we have granted him, and by these presents do grant him, license for this purpose. In testimony whereof, we have caused our seal to be affixed to these present letters. Given and acted at Rouen, in the year of our Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, on Tuesday, the thirteenth day of March. Thus signed: Boisguillaume. Manchon.\n(1) The rest as in the preceding act.\nThese things having been done as aforesaid in the aforementioned place, we, the aforesaid bishop and Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the Inquisitor, then proceeded in agreement to question and cause to be questioned the aforesaid Joan, as had been begun before.\nAnd first, by our order, Joan was questioned as to what sign it was that she gave to her king. To which she replied: Would you be content if I incurred perjury? Item, questioned whether she had sworn and promised to Saint Catherine not to reveal that sign: she replied: I have sworn and promised not to reveal that sign, and this of my own accord, because people pressed me too much to tell it. And then she herself promised that she would speak no more of this to any man. Item, she says that the sign was that an angel certified this to her king, bringing him a crown and telling him that he would have the entire kingdom of France in full, through the help of God and through Joan\u0026rsquo;s labor; and that he would put Joan herself to work, namely, that he would give her men-at-arms, otherwise he would not be crowned and consecrated so soon.\nManchon’s French minute:\nTuesday, the thirteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord 1430. (1) First questioned about the sign given to her king, what it was: she replies: Are you content that I should perjure myself?\nQuestioned by my lord the vicar of the Inquisitor whether she had sworn and promised to Saint Catherine not to reveal this sign: she replies: I have sworn and promised not to reveal this sign, and of my own accord, because they pressed me too much to tell it. And then she herself said: I promise that I will speak no more of it to any man. Item, she says that the sign was that the angel certified to her king by bringing him the crown, and telling him that he would have the entire kingdom of France completely with the help of God, and through her labor; and that he should put her to work, that is to say, that he should give her men-at-arms, otherwise he would not be crowned and consecrated so soon.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 20, v°.\nOfficial Latin record (continued):\nQuestioned whether she had spoken with Saint Catherine since yesterday: she replied that she heard her since yesterday; and yet she told her many times to answer the judges boldly concerning what they would ask her, touching proceedings against her.\nQuestioned how that angel brought the aforesaid crown, and whether he placed it on her king\u0026rsquo;s head: she replied that the aforesaid crown was delivered to an archbishop, namely the Archbishop of Reims, as it seems to her, in the presence of her king; and the said archbishop received it and delivered it to her said king; and Joan herself was present. And the aforesaid crown is placed in her king\u0026rsquo;s treasury.\nQuestioned in what place the said crown was brought: she replied that this was in her king\u0026rsquo;s chamber, in the Castle of Chinon.\nQuestioned on what day and at what hour: she replied that she knows nothing of the day; and as for the hour, it was late, otherwise she has no memory of the hour. And this was in the month of April or March, as it seems to her. And she said that in the next month of April or in this present month of March, two years would have passed; and that this was after Easter.\nQuestioned whether, on the same day that she saw that sign, her king also saw it: she replied that yes, and that her king himself had it.\nQuestioned of what material the aforesaid crown was: she replied that it is good to know that it was of pure gold; and the crown was so rich or opulent that she would not know how to count or appraise the riches in it; and that crown signified that her king would hold the kingdom of France.\nQuestioned whether there were precious stones there: she replied: I have told you what I know about this.\nQuestioned whether she held or kissed the aforesaid crown: she replied that no.\nQuestioned whether the angel who brought this crown came from above, or if he came by land: she replied that, when the same angel came before her king, he showed him reverence by bowing before him, and pronouncing the words which Joan herself said above about this sign. And with this, the angel reminded her king of the beautiful patience he had, according to the great tribulations that had befallen him. And from the door, the angel walked and went upon the ground, coming to her said king.\nQuestioned what distance there was from the door to the place where her said king then was: she replied that, as she believes, it was well the length of one lance; and by the same way the aforesaid angel had come, by that same way he returned. Item, she says that, when the same angel came, she accompanied him, and went with him up the steps to her king\u0026rsquo;s chamber; and the angel entered first, then she; and Joan herself said to her king: Lord, behold your sign; take it.\nQuestioned in what place the angel appeared to Joan herself: she replied: I was almost always in prayer, so that God would send the king\u0026rsquo;s sign, and I was in my lodging, in the house of a good woman, near the castle of Chinon, when the angel came; and afterwards he and I went together to the king; and the same angel was well accompanied by other angels with him, whom not everyone saw. And she said further that, if it had not been for her own love and for taking her out of the pain of the men who were arguing with her, she truly believes that many saw the aforesaid angel who would not have seen him.\nQuestioned whether all who were there with her king saw the aforesaid angel: she replied that, as she believes, the Archbishop of Reims, the lords of Alençon and La Trémoille, and Charles de Bourbon saw him. And as for the crown, many ecclesiastics and others saw it who did not see the angel.\nQuestioned of what figure and what size the said angel was: she replied that she does not have permission to say this, and that she would answer tomorrow.\nQuestioned whether all the angels who accompanied the aforesaid angel were of one figure: she replied that some of them were very similar to each other, and others were not, in the way she saw them; and some of them had wings, and some were also crowned; and in that company were Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, who were together with the said angel, and also other angels, all the way into the king\u0026rsquo;s chamber.\nQuestioned how that angel departed from her; she replied that he departed from her in a small chapel; and she was very angry at his departure; she also wept and would gladly have gone with him, that is, her soul would have gone.\nQuestioned whether, at that departure of the angel, she remained joyful: she replied that he did not leave her in fear, nor trembling; but she was angry at his departure.\nQuestioned whether it was by Joan\u0026rsquo;s own merit that God sent his angel to her: she replied that the angel came for a great matter; and she was in hope that her king would believe that sign and that men would stop arguing with Joan herself, and for giving succor to the good people of the city of Orléans, and also for the merits of her king and of the good Duke of Orléans.\nQuestioned why she had this more than another: she replied that it pleased God to do so through a simple maiden, to repel the king\u0026rsquo;s adversaries.\nQuestioned whether she had been told where the aforesaid angel had taken that crown: she replied that the crown was brought from God, and that there is no goldsmith in the world who would have known how to make it so beautiful or so rich; but where the angel took that crown, Joan herself refers this to God, and otherwise does not know where it was taken.\nQuestioned whether the same crown had a good smell, and whether it was shining: she replied that she has no memory of it, and that she will consider this. Afterwards, however, she says that it has a good smell, and will have, as long as it is well kept as it should be; and it was in the manner of a crown.\nQuestioned whether the angel had written letters to her: she replied that no.\nQuestioned what sign her king, and those who were with him and she herself, had to believe that it was an angel who had brought this crown: she replied that her king believed this by the instruction or teaching of the ecclesiastics who were there, and by the sign of the crown.\nQuestioned how the ecclesiastics knew that it was an angel: she replied that they knew this by their knowledge, and because they were clerics.\nQuestioned about a concubinarian priest and a lost chalice, which she was said to have indicated: she replied that she knows nothing of all this and never heard it spoken of.\nQuestioned whether, when she went to the city of Paris, she had revelations from her voices about going there: she replied that no, but she went at the request of the nobles who wanted to make an invasion, in French une escarmouche, or a feat of arms; and she certainly had the intention of going further and crossing the ditches of the city of Paris.\nQuestioned whether she also had a revelation about going before the city of La Charité: she replied that no, but she went at the request of the men-at-arms, as she answered previously.\nQuestioned whether she had any revelation about going to Pont-l\u0026rsquo;Évêque (1): she replied that, after she had a revelation above the ditches of Melun that she would be captured, she referred herself in most matters to the captains of the war; and yet she did not tell them that she had a revelation that she would be captured.\nQuestioned whether it was well done to go to attack the city of Paris on the day of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary, since it was a feast day: she replied that it is well done to observe the feasts of the Blessed Mary; and it seems to her in her conscience that it would be well done to observe the feasts of the Blessed Mary from beginning to end.\nQuestioned whether she said before the city of Paris: Surrender the city, Jesus!: she replied that no, but she said: Surrender it to the King of France.\n(1) In May 1430, during the siege of Compiègne. Pont-l\u0026rsquo;Évêque is on the Oise, next to Noyon.\nManchon’s French minute (continued):\nQuestioned whether she had spoken with Saint Catherine since yesterday: she replied that she heard her since yesterday; and yet she told her many times to answer the judges boldly concerning what they would ask her, touching proceedings against her.\nQuestioned how the angel brought the crown and whether he placed it on her king\u0026rsquo;s head: she replied that it was delivered to an archbishop, namely the Archbishop of Reims, as it seems to her, in the king\u0026rsquo;s presence; the archbishop received it and delivered it to the king, and she herself was present. It is kept in the king\u0026rsquo;s treasury.\nQuestioned where it was brought: she replied: It was in the king\u0026rsquo;s chamber, in the Castle of Chinon.\nQuestioned about the day and the hour: she replied: As for the day, I do not know; and as for the hour, it was late. Otherwise she has no memory of the hour. As for the month, it was in April or March, as it seems to her; in the coming April, or in this present month of March, it will have been two years. It was after Easter.\nQuestioned whether her king saw the sign on the first day that she saw it: she replied that yes, and that he himself received it.\nQuestioned what the crown was made of: she replied: It is well to know that it was of fine gold, and was so rich that I could not count its riches. The crown signified that he would hold the kingdom of France.\nQuestioned whether it had precious stones: she replied: I have told you what I know about it.\nQuestioned whether she handled or kissed it: she replied that no.\nQuestioned whether the angel who brought it came from above or by land: she replied: He came from above; by which she means that he came at Our Lord\u0026rsquo;s command, and entered through the chamber door.\nQuestioned whether the angel came along the ground and walked from the chamber door: she replied that, when he came before the king, he showed reverence to him by bowing before him and pronouncing the words she had stated concerning the sign. He also recalled to the king the noble patience he had shown amid the great tribulations that had befallen him. From the door he walked upon the ground as he came to the king.\nQuestioned what distance there was from the door to the king: she replied that, as she thinks, it was fully the length of a lance, and that he returned by the way he had come. Item, she says that, when the angel came, she accompanied him and went with him up the steps to the king\u0026rsquo;s chamber; the angel entered first, and then she herself said to the king: Sire, there is your sign; take it.\nQuestioned where the angel appeared to her: she replied: I was almost always at prayer so that God would send the king\u0026rsquo;s sign, and I was in my lodging, at the house of a good woman near the Castle of Chinon, when he came. Then we went together to the king, and he was well accompanied by other angels whom not everyone saw. She said further that, had it not been out of love for her and to free her from the pressure of those who disputed with her, she believes that many people who saw the angel would not have seen him.\nQuestioned whether all who were there with her king saw the aforesaid angel: she replied that, as she believes, the Archbishop of Reims, the lords of Alençon and La Trémoille, and Charles de Bourbon saw him. And as for the crown, many ecclesiastics and others saw it who did not see the angel.\nQuestioned of what figure and what size the said angel was: she replied that she does not have permission to say this, and that she would answer tomorrow.\nQuestioned whether all who were in the angel\u0026rsquo;s company had the same appearance: she replied that some rather resembled one another and others did not, in the manner in which she saw them; some had wings, and some were crowned while others were not. Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret were in that company, and they and the other angels accompanied the said angel into the king\u0026rsquo;s chamber.\nQuestioned how that angel departed from her; she replied that he departed from her in a small chapel; and she was very angry at his departure; she also wept and would gladly have gone with him, that is, her soul would have gone.\nQuestioned whether, at his departure, she remained joyful or was frightened and in great fear: she replied: He did not leave me afraid or frightened, but I was distressed at his departure.\nQuestioned whether it was by Joan\u0026rsquo;s own merit that God sent his angel to her: she replied that the angel came for a great matter; and she was in hope that her king would believe that sign and that men would stop arguing with Joan herself, and for giving succor to the good people of the city of Orléans, and also for the merits of her king and of the good Duke of Orléans.\nQuestioned why she had this more than another: she replied that it pleased God to do so through a simple maiden, to repel the king\u0026rsquo;s adversaries.\nQuestioned whether she had been told where the aforesaid angel had taken that crown: she replied that the crown was brought from God, and that there is no goldsmith in the world who would have known how to make it so beautiful or so rich; but where the angel took that crown, Joan herself refers this to God, and otherwise does not know where it was taken.\nQuestioned whether the crown smelled good and had a pleasant scent, and whether it shone: she replied that she has no memory of this and will consider it. Afterwards she said that it smells good and will continue to do so, provided that it is properly kept; and it was in the form of a crown.\nQuestioned whether the angel had written letters to her: she replied that no.\nQuestioned what sign her king, and those who were with him and she herself, had to believe that it was an angel who had brought this crown: she replied that her king believed this by the instruction or teaching of the ecclesiastics who were there, and by the sign of the crown.\nQuestioned how the ecclesiastics knew that it was an angel: she replied that they knew this by their knowledge, and because they were clerics.\nQuestioned about a concubinary priest and a lost cup: she replied: I know nothing about any of that and have never heard it spoken of.\nQuestioned whether, when she went before Paris, she had a revelation from her voices that she should go there: she replied that no, but that she went at the request of the gentlemen, who wished to make a skirmish or a feat of arms; and she fully intended to go farther and cross the ditches.\nQuestioned likewise whether she had a revelation to go before La Charité: she replied that no, but that she went at the request of the men-at-arms, as she had said before.\nQuestioned whether she had any revelation concerning Pont-l\u0026rsquo;Évêque (1): she replied that, after she received the revelation at Melun that she would be captured, she left most of the conduct of the war to the captains\u0026rsquo; judgment; nevertheless, she did not tell them that she had a revelation that she would be captured.\nQuestioned whether it was well done to go and attack Paris on the feast day of the Nativity of Our Lady: she replied that it is right to observe Our Lady\u0026rsquo;s feasts, and in her conscience it seems to her that it was and would be right to observe those feasts from beginning to end.\nQuestioned whether she said before the city of Paris: Surrender the city in Jesus\u0026rsquo; name!: she replied that no, but said: Surrender it to the King of France.\nMarch 14. A scribe is chosen on behalf of the Vicar of the Inquisitor. # Item, on the immediately following Wednesday, the 14th of the said month of March, we, the aforesaid Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the lord Inquisitor, trusting in the industry and probity of the venerable and discreet man, Lord Nicolas Taquel, priest of the diocese of Rouen, public by imperial authority, and sworn notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen (1), having full confidence in the Lord, retained, chose, and named him as notary and scribe in this case, as is more fully contained in our open letters, sealed with our seal, with the manual signs of public notaries; the tenor of which is written below. And thereupon, on the immediately following day, the aforesaid Lord Nicolas took an oath before us, in the prison of the said Joan, to which we had then gone, to faithfully perform his office, as we required of him, in the presence of Masters Jean de La Fontaine, Nicolas Midi, Gerard Fueillet, Guillaume Manchon, and many others.\nHere follows the tenor of the aforesaid letters of retention of the aforesaid notary.\nTo all who shall inspect these present letters, Brother JEAN LE MAISTRE, of the Order of Preaching Friars, etc. (1). Regarding the probity, industry, sufficiency, and suitability of the person of the discreet man, Lord Nicolas Taquel, priest of the diocese of Rouen, public by imperial authority and sworn notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, having full confidence in the Lord, we have retained, chosen, and named, and do retain, choose, and name the said Lord Nicolas, previously the sworn notary of the said lord Inquisitor and of us, as notary and scribe in this matter and case; also giving him license, faculty, and authority to approach the presence of the said Joan, and other places where, and when, and as often as it may be, to question her or to hear her questioned, to swear and examine witnesses to be produced in the matter itself, and to collect the statements and confessions of Joan herself and of the said witnesses, as well as the opinions of doctors and masters, verbally or to report them to us in writing; and to put into writing all and singular acts done and to be done in this matter, and to draw up the entire proceedings in due form and reduce it to writing, and to do other things which pertain to the office of a notary by law, wherever and whenever it may be opportune. In testimony whereof, we have caused our seal to be affixed to these present letters. Given and acted at Rouen, in the year of our Lord one thousand four hundred thirty, on the 14th day of March. Thus signed: Boisguillaume. G. Manchon.\n(1) Nicolas Taquel, public notary and clerk of the officiality of Rouen, was heard as a witness in the revision trial. He had then become parish priest of Basqueville-le-Martel.\n(1) See the rest of the formula above, pp. 135 and 136.\nOn the same day, in the prison.\nItem, on the same day, with Master Jean de La Fontaine, commissioner appointed by us, the aforesaid bishop, and us, the aforesaid Brother Jean Le Maistre, presiding in the prison of the said Joan in the Castle of Rouen; with the venerable and discreet men, lords and masters, Nicolas Midi and Gerard Fueillet, doctors in theology, assisting and present; as well as Nicolas de Houppeville, apostolic letter writer, and Brother Isambard de la Pierre, as witnesses; Joan herself was questioned.\nAnd first, what was the reason why she jumped from the tower of Beaurevoir. She replied that she had heard it said that all those of Compiègne, up to the age of seven years, were to be put to fire and blood, and that she would rather die than live after such a destruction of good people; and this was one of the reasons for her jump. Another was that she knew she had been sold to the English, and she would rather have died than be in the hands of the English, her adversaries. Manchon’s French minute:\nWednesday, the fourteenth day of March. (1) First questioned what was the reason why she jumped from the tower of Beaurevoir: she replies that she had heard it said that those of Compiègne, all up to the age of seven years, were to be put to fire and blood, and that she would rather die than live after such a destruction of good people; and this was one of the reasons. The other was that she knew she was sold to the English, and she would rather have died than be in the hands of the English, her adversaries.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 21, v°.\nOfficial Latin record (continued):\nQuestioned whether that jump was made by the counsel of her voices: she replied that Saint Catherine told her almost daily not to jump, and that God would help her and also those of Compiègne. And Joan herself said to Saint Catherine, that since God would help those of Compiègne, she wanted to be there. Then Saint Catherine told her: Without fail, you must accept it willingly; and you will not be delivered until you have seen the King of England. And the said Joan replied: Truly, I would not wish to see him, and I would rather die than be placed in the hands of the English.\nQuestioned whether she had said to Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret these words: Will God allow the good people of Compiègne to die so badly?: she replied that she did not say that word so badly, but she said to them in this manner: How will God allow these good people of Compiègne to die, who have been and are so faithful to their lord! Item, she says that, after she fell from the aforesaid tower, she was for two or three days unwilling to eat, and also she was so distressed by that jump that she could neither eat nor drink; and yet she was comforted by Saint Catherine, who told her to confess and ask forgiveness from God for having jumped, and that without fail those of Compiègne would receive succor before the winter feast of Saint Martin. And then she began to recover, and began to eat, and was immediately healed.\nQuestioned whether, when she jumped, she believed she would kill herself: she replied that no; but in jumping she commended herself to God. And she believed, by means of that jump, to escape being delivered to the English.\nQuestioned whether, when her speech returned, she denied God and His Saints, because it was said to her that this was found by information: she replied that she does not remember ever having denied God and the Saints or cursed, neither there nor elsewhere.\nQuestioned whether she wishes to refer herself to the information made or to be made concerning this: she replied: I refer myself to God and to no other, and to a good confession.\nQuestioned whether her voices ask her for a delay in answering: she replied that Saint Catherine sometimes answers her, and sometimes Joan herself fails to understand, because of the disturbance of the prisons and the tumult of her guards. And when she makes a request to Saint Catherine, then Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret make a request to God, and thereupon, by God\u0026rsquo;s command, they give an answer to Joan herself.\nQuestioned whether, when those Saints come to her, there is light with them, and whether she saw light that time when she heard a voice in the Castle, not knowing whether it was in her chamber: she replied that there is no day that they do not come to that castle, nor do they come without light. And concerning that voice about which she is asked, she does not remember whether she saw light, nor even whether she saw Saint Catherine. Item, she says that she asked three things of her voices; one was her deliverance; the other was that God would help the French and well preserve the cities under their obedience; and the third was the salvation of her soul. Item, she requested that if it so happens that she is taken to Paris, she should have a double of these interrogatories and her answers, so that she can give it to those in Paris, and can tell them: Behold how I was questioned at Rouen, and my answers; and so that she may no longer be troubled by so many requests.\nItem, because she had said that we, the aforesaid bishop, were putting ourselves in great danger, in French en grant dangier, by putting her in the case, she was questioned what this was, and in what danger or peril we were putting ourselves, both us and others. She replied that she had said to us, the aforesaid bishop: You say that you are my judge; I do not know if you are; but take good heed that you do not judge wrongly, because you would put yourselves in great danger. And I warn you to the end that, if God punishes you for it, I am doing my duty by telling you.\nQuestioned what that peril or danger is: she replied that Saint Catherine told her that she would have succor; and she does not know if this will be in being freed from prison, or, when she is in judgment, that some disturbance will come there by means of which she could be freed (1). And she estimates that it is one or the other of these. And, for the most part, the voices told her that she will be delivered by a great victory; and afterwards the voices themselves tell her: Take everything willingly; do not care about your martyrdom; you will finally come into the kingdom of paradise. And the voices told her this simply and absolutely, that is, without fail. And she calls that martyrdom, for the pain and adversity she suffers in prison; and she does not know if she will suffer any greater pain, but she refers this to God.\nQuestioned if, after her voices told her that she would finally go to paradise, she holds herself assured of being saved, and that she will not be damned in hell: she replied that she firmly believes what the voices told her, namely that she will be saved, as firmly as if she were already there.\nQuestioned if, after this revelation, she believes that she cannot commit mortal sin: she replied: I know nothing; but I refer myself entirely to God. And, when it was said to her that this answer is of great weight, she replied that she also holds it as a great treasure.\nOn the same day in the afternoon. [In the same place.]\nItem, on the said Wednesday in the afternoon, with the venerable and discreet men, the aforesaid lords and masters, Jean de La Fontaine, commissioner appointed by us, the aforesaid bishop, and us, Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the said lord Inquisitor, appearing in the aforesaid place; with Nicolas Midi and Gerard Fueillet, doctors in theology, assisting with us; present for this purpose were Brother Isambard de la Pierre and Jean Manchon (1).\n(1) In the margin of the manuscript: In judgment there may be a disturbance from which she [may be] freed.\n(1) This is the only time this person appears in the trial. He was a canon of the collegiate church of Mantes, and probably of the same family as the clerk Guillaume Manchon. (Rymer, vol. X, p. 41.)\n*The oft-mentioned Joan says first, as to the immediately preceding article concerning the certainty of her salvation, about which she had been questioned in the morning, that she understood that saying: provided that she keeps the oath and promise she made to God, namely that she would well preserve her virginity, both of body and soul.\nQuestioned whether it is necessary for her to confess, since she has a revelation from her voices that she will be saved: she replied that she does not know that she has sinned mortally; but if she were in mortal sin, she believes that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret would immediately abandon her. And in answering the aforesaid question, she says that she believes that one cannot cleanse one\u0026rsquo;s conscience too much.\nQuestioned whether, since she has been in this prison, she has denied or cursed God: she replied that no, and sometimes when she says in French: by God’s good will, Saint John, or Our Lady, those who may have reported her words, misunderstood.\nManchon’s French minute — Wednesday afternoon:\nWednesday afternoon. And as for this article [etc.]: provided that she keeps the oath and promise she made to our Lord, that is to say, that she should well preserve her virginity of body and soul.\nQuestioned whether it is necessary to confess, since she believes the report of her voices that she will be saved: she replies that she does not know that she has sinned mortally; but if she were in mortal sin, she believes that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret would immediately abandon her. And she believes, in answering the preceding article, that one cannot cleanse one\u0026rsquo;s conscience too much.\nQuestioned whether, since she has been in this prison, she has denied or cursed God: she replies that no; and that sometimes, when she says: By God\u0026rsquo;s grace or Saint John or Our Lady, those who may have reported it, misunderstood.\nQuestioned whether it is a mortal sin to take a man for ransom, and to cause him to die as a prisoner: she replied that she did not do this.\nAnd because mention was made to her of Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras (1), whom she had caused to die at Lagny: she replied that she consented to his death, if he deserved it, because he confessed himself to be a murderer, a thief, and a traitor. And she said that his trial lasted for 15 days, and the judge of this was the bailiff of Senlis, and the men of justice of Lagny. She also said that she requested to have that Franquet, in order to have a man from Paris, the master of the inn au Ours (2); and when she knew that that man was dead, and that the bailiff told her that she wanted to do great injustice to justice by freeing the aforesaid Franquet, then she said to the bailiff: Since my man is dead, whom I wanted to have, do with him what you ought to do by justice.\nQuestioned whether it is a mortal sin to take a man for ransom, and to cause him to die as a prisoner: she replies that she did not do it. And because she was spoken to about a man named Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras, whom they caused to die at Lagny: she replies that she consented to his death, if he deserved it, because he confessed to being a murderer, a thief, and a traitor. And she says that his trial lasted 15 days, and the judge was the bailiff of Senlis, and those of the justice of Lagny. And she says that she requested to have Franquet for a man from Paris, the lord of Lours; and when she knew that the lord was dead, and that the bailiff told her that she wanted to do great wrong to justice by freeing that Franquet, then she said to the bailiff: Since my man is dead, whom I wanted to have, do with him what you ought to do by justice.\n(1) Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras was a captain of Burgundian routiers whom the Maid took prisoner in an encounter at the beginning of May 1430. (Jean Chartier, p. 41; Monstrelet, book II, c. 84.)\n(2) That is, innkeeper at the sign of the Bear. The clerk who wrote seigneur de Lours (in the French minute) had misunderstood.\nQuestioned whether she gave money or caused it to be given for him who had captured the said Franquet: she replied that she is not a moneyer or treasurer of France, to give money.\nAnd when it was brought back to her memory that she had attacked the city of Paris on a feast day; that she had also had the horse of the lord Bishop of Senlis; that she had thrown herself from the tower of Beaurevoir; that she wears male attire; that she had consented to the death of Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras; asking her whether she believes she has committed any mortal sin: she replied to the first, concerning the attack on Paris, that she does not believe she is in mortal sin for this, and, if she has committed mortal sin, this is to be acknowledged to God and to the priest in confession.\nTo the second, concerning the horse, she replied that she firmly believes that she has no sin against God for this, because that horse was valued at the sum of two hundred gold saluts, for which the bishop himself had an assignment; and yet the same horse was sent back to the lord of La Trémoille, to return it to the bishop of Senlis; nor was the said horse suitable for her to ride. Also, she did not take it from the bishop himself. She also said that, on the other hand, she did not want to keep it, because she heard that the bishop was displeased that his horse had been captured; and with this, because that horse was worth nothing for men-at-arms. Finally, in conclusion, Joan herself does not know whether the same bishop was paid the assignment made to him, nor whether he had restitution of his horse; and she believes not.\nTo the third, however, concerning that fall from the tower of Beaurevoir, she replied: I did this not out of despair, but in the hope of saving my body and of going to succor many good people who were in need. And after the jump I confessed, and asked forgiveness from the Lord. And she also has forgiveness from the Lord, and believes that it was not well done to make that jump; but it was ill done. Item, she said that she knows she has had forgiveness by the revelation of Saint Catherine, after she confessed, and that she confessed by the counsel of Saint Catherine.\nQuestioned whether she had great penance for this: she replied that she bore a great part of the said penance, from the harm she suffered in falling.\nQuestioned whether she believes that that wrongdoing she committed in jumping was a mortal sin: she replied that she knows nothing, and that she refers this to God.\nTo the fourth, however, concerning wearing male attire: she replied: Since I do it by God\u0026rsquo;s command and in His service, I do not believe I am doing wrong; and when it pleases God to command, that attire will immediately be put aside.\nManchon’s French minute (continued):\nQuestioned whether that jump was made by the counsel of her voices: she replied that Saint Catherine told her almost daily not to jump, and that God would help her and also those of Compiègne. And Joan herself said to Saint Catherine, that since God would help those of Compiègne, she wanted to be there. Then Saint Catherine told her: Without fail, you must accept it willingly; and you will not be delivered until you have seen the King of England. And the said Joan replied: Truly, I would not wish to see him, and I would rather die than be placed in the hands of the English.\nQuestioned whether she had said to Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret these words: Will God allow the good people of Compiègne to die so badly?: she replied that she did not say that word so badly, but she said to them in this manner: How will God allow these good people of Compiègne to die, who have been and are so faithful to their lord! Item, she says that, after she fell from the aforesaid tower, she was for two or three days unwilling to eat, and also she was so distressed by that jump that she could neither eat nor drink; and yet she was comforted by Saint Catherine, who told her to confess and ask forgiveness from God for having jumped, and that without fail those of Compiègne would receive succor before the winter feast of Saint Martin. And then she began to recover, and began to eat, and was immediately healed.\nQuestioned whether, when she jumped, she believed she would kill herself: she replied that no; but in jumping she commended herself to God. And she believed, by means of that jump, to escape being delivered to the English.\nQuestioned whether, when her speech returned, she denied or cursed God and His Saints, because the questioner said this was established by the inquiry: she replied that she has no memory or recollection of ever having denied or cursed God or His Saints, there or elsewhere; and she has not confessed to it, because she has no memory of having said or done it.\nQuestioned whether she wishes to refer herself to the information made or to be made concerning this: she replied: I refer myself to God and to no other, and to a good confession.\nQuestioned whether her voices ask her for a delay in answering: she replied that Saint Catherine sometimes answers her, and sometimes Joan herself fails to understand, because of the disturbance of the prisons and the tumult of her guards. And when she makes a request to Saint Catherine, then Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret make a request to God, and thereupon, by God\u0026rsquo;s command, they give an answer to Joan herself.\nQuestioned whether, when those Saints come to her, there is light with them, and whether she saw light that time when she heard a voice in the Castle, not knowing whether it was in her chamber: she replied that there is no day that they do not come to that castle, nor do they come without light. And concerning that voice about which she is asked, she does not remember whether she saw light, nor even whether she saw Saint Catherine. Item, she says that she asked three things of her voices; one was her deliverance; the other was that God would help the French and well preserve the cities under their obedience; and the third was the salvation of her soul. Item, she requested that if it so happens that she is taken to Paris, she should have a double of these interrogatories and her answers, so that she can give it to those in Paris, and can tell them: Behold how I was questioned at Rouen, and my answers; and so that she may no longer be troubled by so many requests.\nItem, because she had said that we, the aforesaid bishop, were putting ourselves in great danger, in French en grant dangier, by putting her in the case, she was questioned what this was, and in what danger or peril we were putting ourselves, both us and others. She replied that she had said to us, the aforesaid bishop: You say that you are my judge; I do not know if you are; but take good heed that you do not judge wrongly, because you would put yourselves in great danger. And I warn you to the end that, if God punishes you for it, I am doing my duty by telling you.\nQuestioned what that peril or danger is: she replied that Saint Catherine told her that she would have succor; and she does not know if this will be in being freed from prison, or, when she is in judgment, that some disturbance will come there by means of which she could be freed (1). And she estimates that it is one or the other of these. And, for the most part, the voices told her that she will be delivered by a great victory; and afterwards the voices themselves tell her: Take everything willingly; do not care about your martyrdom; you will finally come into the kingdom of paradise. And the voices told her this simply and absolutely, that is, without fail. And she calls that martyrdom, for the pain and adversity she suffers in prison; and she does not know if she will suffer any greater pain, but she refers this to God.\nQuestioned if, after her voices told her that she would finally go to paradise, she holds herself assured of being saved and that she will not be damned in hell: she replied that she firmly believes what her voices told her—that she will be saved—as firmly as if she were already there. And when she was told that this answer carried great weight, she likewise replied that she held it as a great treasure.\nQuestioned if, after this revelation, she believes that she cannot commit mortal sin: she replied: I know nothing about it, but I leave myself entirely to Our Lord.\nQuestioned whether she gave money or caused it to be given for him who had captured the said Franquet: she replied that she is not a moneyer or treasurer of France, to give money.\nAnd when it was brought back to her memory that she had attacked the city of Paris on a feast day; that she had also had the horse of the lord Bishop of Senlis; that she had thrown herself from the tower of Beaurevoir; that she wears male attire; that she had consented to the death of Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras; asking her whether she believes she has committed any mortal sin: she replied to the first, concerning the attack on Paris, that she does not believe she is in mortal sin for this, and, if she has committed mortal sin, this is to be acknowledged to God and to the priest in confession.\nTo the second, concerning the horse, she replied that she firmly believes that she has no sin against God for this, because that horse was valued at the sum of two hundred gold saluts, for which the bishop himself had an assignment; and yet the same horse was sent back to the lord of La Trémoille, to return it to the bishop of Senlis; nor was the said horse suitable for her to ride. Also, she did not take it from the bishop himself. She also said that, on the other hand, she did not want to keep it, because she heard that the bishop was displeased that his horse had been captured; and with this, because that horse was worth nothing for men-at-arms. Finally, in conclusion, Joan herself does not know whether the same bishop was paid the assignment made to him, nor whether he had restitution of his horse; and she believes not.\nTo the third, however, concerning that fall from the tower of Beaurevoir, she replied: I did this not out of despair, but in the hope of saving my body and of going to succor many good people who were in need. And after the jump I confessed, and asked forgiveness from the Lord. And she also has forgiveness from the Lord, and believes that it was not well done to make that jump; but it was ill done. Item, she said that she knows she has had forgiveness by the revelation of Saint Catherine, after she confessed, and that she confessed by the counsel of Saint Catherine.\nQuestioned whether she had great penance for this: she replied that she bore a great part of the said penance, from the harm she suffered in falling.\nQuestioned whether she believes that that wrongdoing she committed in jumping was a mortal sin: she replied that she knows nothing, and that she refers this to God.\nTo the fourth, however, concerning wearing male attire: she replied: Since I do it by God\u0026rsquo;s command and in His service, I do not believe I am doing wrong; and when it pleases God to command, that attire will immediately be put aside.\nMarch 15. In prison. # Item, on the immediately following Thursday, the fifteenth of the aforesaid month of March, in the morning, in the aforesaid place of Joan\u0026rsquo;s prison, with the said Master Jean de La Fontaine, commissioner appointed by us, the aforesaid bishop, and us, Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the Inquisitor, presiding; with the venerable men, lords and masters Nicolas Midi and Gerard Fueillet, doctors in sacred theology, assisting; present for this purpose were Nicolas de Houppeville, apostolic letter writer, and Brother Isambard de la Pierre:\nJoan herself was admonished and requested with charitable exhortations that, if it should happen that she had done anything against the faith, she should refer herself to the determination of holy mother Church, to which she ought to refer herself. She replied that her answers should be seen and examined by clerics, and afterwards she should be told if there is anything there that is against the Christian faith: she will well know how to say what will come of it; and afterwards she will say what she finds about this by her counsel. However, if there is anything evil against the Christian faith which God commanded, she would not wish to uphold it, and would be very angry to go against it.\nItem, the distinction between the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant was explained to her, and what pertained to the one and the other; and she was requested to submit herself at present to the determination of the Church, and concerning what she has done and said, whether it be good or evil. She replied: I will not answer you anything else at present.\nManchon’s French minute:\nThursday morning, the fifteenth day of March. After she had been admonished and requested that, if she had done anything against our faith, she ought to refer it to the determination of the Church, she replied that her answers should be seen and examined by clerics, and that afterwards she should be told whether there was anything in them contrary to the Christian faith. She would then know, with the advice of her counsel, what to say about it, and afterwards would state what her counsel had found. Nevertheless, if there were anything wrong and contrary to the Christian faith commanded by Our Lord, she would not wish to maintain it, and would be very grieved to act against it.\nItem, the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant were explained to her, and what each of them was. Item, she was requested at once to submit to the determination of the Church whatever she had done or said, whether good or evil. She replied: I will answer you nothing further at present.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 22, v°.\nOfficial Latin record (continued):\nItem, Joan was requested, under the oath she had taken, to say how she thought to escape from the Castle of Beaulieu (1), between two pieces of wood: she replied that she was never a prisoner in any place from which she would not gladly have escaped; and while she was in the aforesaid Castle, she would have locked her guards inside the tower, had it not been for the porter who saw her and met her. Item, she also said that, as it seems to her, it did not please God that she should escape that time, and that it was necessary for her to see the King of England, as her voices had told her, as is written above.\n(1) Beaulieu, a fortress near Compiègne, where the Maid was first detained after her capture. (Monstrelet, book II, ch. 86.)\nQuestioned whether she has permission from God or from her voices to depart as often as she pleases: she replied: I have asked many times, but I do not have it yet.\nQuestioned whether she would depart at present if she saw her opportunity to depart: she replied that, if she saw the door open, she would depart; and this would be God\u0026rsquo;s command to her. And she firmly believes that, if she saw the door open, and her guards and other English did not know how to resist, she would understand that this is her permission and that God would send her succor; but without permission she would not depart, unless it were that she would make an attempt, in French une entreprise, to know if God would be content, citing that common proverb in French: Aide toi, Dieu te aidera (Help yourself, God will help you). And she says this so that, if she were to go, it would not be said that she had departed without permission.\nQuestioned, since she had asked to hear mass, whether it seemed more proper to her to wear female attire; and she was asked whether she would prefer to take female attire and hear mass, or remain in male attire and not hear mass. She replied: Assure me of hearing mass, if I am in female attire, and I will answer you on this.\nThen it was said to her by the questioner: And I assure you that you will hear mass, if you are in female attire. She replied: And what do you say, if I have promised our king, and sworn not to put off this attire? Nevertheless, I answer you: have a long tunic made for me, down to the ground, without a train, and give it to me to go to mass; and afterwards, on my return, I will again take this attire which I have.\nAgain questioned whether she would take female attire to go to hear mass: she replied: I will take counsel on this, and afterwards I will answer you. And she further requested, in honor of God and the Blessed Mary, that she might hear mass in this good city.\nAnd to this it was said to her by the questioner that she should take female attire simply and absolutely. She replied: Give me attire like a bourgeois girl, namely a long houppelande; and I will take it to go to hear mass. She further says that, as earnestly as she could, she requested that she be allowed to hear mass in the attire she wears, without changing it.\nQuestioned whether, concerning what she has said and done, she wishes to submit and refer herself to the determination of the Church: she replied: All my sayings and doings are in the hand of God, and for these I await Him. And I certify to you that I would wish to do or say nothing against the Christian faith; and, if I had said or done anything, or that which was upon my body, which the clerics knew how to say was against the Christian faith which the Lord established, I would not wish to uphold it, but would cast it out.\nQuestioned whether she would submit herself to the ordinance of the Church concerning this: she replied: I will not answer you anything else now; but send me a cleric on Saturday, if you do not wish to come, and I will answer him about this with God\u0026rsquo;s help, and it will be put in writing.\nQuestioned whether, when her voices come, she shows them reverence without qualification, as she would to a male or female saint: she replied that yes; and if she sometimes did not, she asked their forgiveness afterwards. Nor does she know how to show them as much reverence as is due to them, because she firmly believes that they are Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret. And she said the same in this regard concerning Saint Michael.\nQuestioned, since offerings of candles are commonly made to the Saints of paradise, whether to those Saints coming to her, she has made an offering of burning candles or other things, in church or elsewhere, or whether she has caused masses to be said: she replied that no, unless it was by offering in mass into the hand of the priest, in honor of Saint Catherine. And she believes that she is one of those who appear to her; nor has she lit as many candles as she would gladly do for those Saints Catherine and Margaret who are in paradise, whom she firmly believes to be those very ones who come to her.\nQuestioned whether, when she places candles before the image of Saint Catherine, she places them in honor of that one who appears to her: she replied: I do this in honor of God, the Blessed Mary, and Saint Catherine who is in heaven, and of that one who shows herself to me.\nQuestioned whether she places such candles in honor of that Saint Catherine who shows herself to her, or who appears to her: she replied that yes, and that she makes no difference between the one who appears to her and the one who is in heaven.\nQuestioned whether she always does and completes what her voices command her: she replied that with all her power, she fulfilled God\u0026rsquo;s command given to her by her voices, concerning what she knew how to understand. And those voices command her nothing without God\u0026rsquo;s good pleasure.\nQuestioned whether, in the matter of war, she did anything without the counsel of her voices: she replied: You have an answer about this. Read your book well, and you will find it. She said, however, that, at the request of the men-at-arms, a feat of arms was performed before the city of Paris; and also before the city of La Charité, at the request of her king. And this was not against nor by the command of her voices.\nQuestioned whether she ever did anything against the will and command of those voices: she replied that what she could and knew how to do, she fulfilled to the best of her ability. And as for the jump from the tower of Beaurevoir, which she made against their command, she could not restrain herself from it; and when those voices saw her necessity, that she did not know nor could restrain herself from it, they succored her life and preserved her from killing herself. She further said that, whatever she ever did in her great undertakings, those voices always succored her; and this is a sign that they are good spirits.\nQuestioned whether she has another sign that those voices are good spirits: she replied that Saint Michael certified this to her, before those voices came.\nQuestioned how she knew that he was Saint Michael: she replied that by his speech and by the language of angels; and she firmly believes that they were angels.\nQuestioned how she knew that they were angels: she replied that she believed this quite readily, and had this will to believe it. And she further said that Saint Michael, when he came to her, told her that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret would come to her, and that she should act by their counsel, who were ordained to guide her and advise her in what she had to do; and that she should believe them in what they would tell her; and that this was by God\u0026rsquo;s command.\nQuestioned, if the devil were to put himself in the form or figure of a good angel, how she would know whether it was a good angel or a bad one: she replied that she would well know whether it was Saint Michael, or something counterfeited in his likeness. Item, she said that, the first time, she had great doubt whether it was Saint Michael who was coming to her, and that first time she had great fear; and she saw him many times before she knew that it was Saint Michael.\nQuestioned why she recognized Saint Michael more quickly that time when she believed it, than she had recognized him the first time he appeared to her: she replied that, the first time, she was young and had fear; and afterwards the same Saint Michael taught her and showed her so much that she firmly believed that it was he.\nQuestioned what doctrine he showed her: she replied that above all, he told her to be a good young woman, and that God would help her; and among other things he told her that she would come to the succor of the King of France; and a major part of what the angel taught her is in this book (1); and the angel recounted to her the calamity that was in the kingdom of France.\nQuestioned about the size and stature of the same angel: she replied that, on the next Saturday, she would answer, along with another matter about which she must answer, namely what will please God concerning this.\nQuestioned whether she believes that it is a great sin to offend Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret who appear to her, and to act against their command: she replied that yes, if one knows how to amend it; and that the most she ever offended them, in her opinion, was in the jump from Beaurevoir, for which she asked their forgiveness, and for other offenses she may have committed against them.\nQuestioned whether Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret would take bodily vengeance for that offense: she replied that she does not know, and that she did not ask them.\nQuestioned, because she had previously said that sometimes people are hanged for telling the truth, whether she knows of any crime or any fault, for which she could or ought to die, if she confessed it: she replied that no.\n(1) That is, the interrogatories of Poitiers, or perhaps the Gospel held by one of the judges.\nManchon’s French minute (continued):\nItem, Joan was requested, under the oath she had taken, to say how she thought to escape from the Castle of Beaulieu (1), between two pieces of wood: she replied that she was never a prisoner in any place from which she would not gladly have escaped; and while she was in the aforesaid Castle, she would have locked her guards inside the tower, had it not been for the porter who saw her and met her. Item, she also said that, as it seems to her, it did not please God that she should escape that time, and that it was necessary for her to see the King of England, as her voices had told her, as is written above.\nQuestioned whether she has permission from God or from her voices to depart as often as she pleases: she replied: I have asked many times, but I do not have it yet.\nQuestioned whether she would depart at present if she saw her opportunity to depart: she replied that, if she saw the door open, she would depart; and this would be God\u0026rsquo;s command to her. And she firmly believes that, if she saw the door open, and her guards and other English did not know how to resist, she would understand that this is her permission and that God would send her succor; but without permission she would not depart, unless it were that she would make an attempt, in French une entreprise, to know if God would be content, citing that common proverb in French: Aide toi, Dieu te aidera (Help yourself, God will help you). And she says this so that, if she were to go, it would not be said that she had departed without permission.\nQuestioned, since she had asked to hear mass, whether it seemed more proper to her to wear female attire; and she was asked whether she would prefer to take female attire and hear mass, or remain in male attire and not hear mass. She replied: Assure me of hearing mass, if I am in female attire, and I will answer you on this.\nThen it was said to her by the questioner: And I assure you that you will hear mass, if you are in female attire. She replied: And what do you say, if I have promised our king, and sworn not to put off this attire? Nevertheless, I answer you: have a long tunic made for me, down to the ground, without a train, and give it to me to go to mass; and afterwards, on my return, I will again take this attire which I have.\nAgain questioned whether she would take female attire to go to hear mass: she replied: I will take counsel on this, and afterwards I will answer you. And she further requested, in honor of God and the Blessed Mary, that she might hear mass in this good city.\nAnd she was told to take female attire simply and absolutely. She replied: Give me clothing like a bourgeois girl, namely a long houppelande, and likewise a woman\u0026rsquo;s hood, and I will take it to go to hear mass. She then requested as earnestly as she could that she be allowed to keep the clothing she wore and hear mass without changing it.\nQuestioned whether, concerning what she has said and done, she wishes to submit and refer herself to the determination of the Church: she replied: All my sayings and doings are in the hand of God, and for these I await Him. And I certify to you that I would wish to do or say nothing against the Christian faith; and, if I had said or done anything, or that which was upon my body, which the clerics knew how to say was against the Christian faith which the Lord established, I would not wish to uphold it, but would cast it out.\nQuestioned whether she would submit herself to the ordinance of the Church concerning this: she replied: I will not answer you anything else now; but send me a cleric on Saturday, if you do not wish to come, and I will answer him about this with God\u0026rsquo;s help, and it will be put in writing.\nQuestioned whether, when her voices come, she shows them reverence without qualification, as she would to a male or female saint: she replied that yes; and if she sometimes did not, she asked their forgiveness afterwards. Nor does she know how to show them as much reverence as is due to them, because she firmly believes that they are Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret. And she said the same in this regard concerning Saint Michael.\nQuestioned, since offerings of candles are commonly made to the Saints of paradise, whether to those Saints coming to her, she has made an offering of burning candles or other things, in church or elsewhere, or whether she has caused masses to be said: she replied that no, unless it was by offering in mass into the hand of the priest, in honor of Saint Catherine. And she believes that she is one of those who appear to her; nor has she lit as many candles as she would gladly do for those Saints Catherine and Margaret who are in paradise, whom she firmly believes to be those very ones who come to her.\nQuestioned whether, when she places candles before the image of Saint Catherine, she places them in honour of the one who appeared to her: she replied: I do it in honour of God, Our Lady, and Saint Catherine who is in heaven; and I make no distinction between Saint Catherine who is in heaven and the one who appears to me.\nQuestioned whether she places such candles in honor of that Saint Catherine who shows herself to her, or who appears to her: she replied that yes, and that she makes no difference between the one who appears to her and the one who is in heaven.\nQuestioned whether she always does and completes what her voices command her: she replied that with all her power, she fulfilled God\u0026rsquo;s command given to her by her voices, concerning what she knew how to understand. And those voices command her nothing without God\u0026rsquo;s good pleasure.\nQuestioned whether, in the matter of war, she did anything without the counsel of her voices: she replied: You have an answer about this. Read your book well, and you will find it. She said, however, that, at the request of the men-at-arms, a feat of arms was performed before the city of Paris; and also before the city of La Charité, at the request of her king. And this was not against nor by the command of her voices.\nQuestioned whether she ever did anything against the will and command of those voices: she replied that what she could and knew how to do, she fulfilled to the best of her ability. And as for the jump from the tower of Beaurevoir, which she made against their command, she could not restrain herself from it; and when those voices saw her necessity, that she did not know nor could restrain herself from it, they succored her life and preserved her from killing herself. She further said that, whatever she ever did in her great undertakings, those voices always succored her; and this is a sign that they are good spirits.\nQuestioned whether she has another sign that those voices are good spirits: she replied that Saint Michael certified this to her, before those voices came.\nQuestioned how she knew that he was Saint Michael: she replied that by his speech and by the language of angels; and she firmly believes that they were angels.\nQuestioned how she recognised that it was the language of angels: she replied that she believed it quite soon, and had the will to believe it. She further said that Saint Michael, when he came to her, told her that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret would come to her, and that she should act by their counsel; they were appointed to guide and advise her in what she had to do, and she should believe what they told her, for this was by Our Lord\u0026rsquo;s command.\nQuestioned, if the devil were to put himself in the form or figure of a good angel, how she would know whether it was a good angel or a bad one: she replied that she would well know whether it was Saint Michael, or something counterfeited in his likeness. Item, she said that, the first time, she had great doubt whether it was Saint Michael who was coming to her, and that first time she had great fear; and she saw him many times before she knew that it was Saint Michael.\nQuestioned why she recognized Saint Michael more quickly that time when she believed it, than she had recognized him the first time he appeared to her: she replied that, the first time, she was young and had fear; and afterwards the same Saint Michael taught her and showed her so much that she firmly believed that it was he.\nQuestioned what teaching he gave her: she replied that, above all, he told her to be a good child and that God would help her; among other things, he told her to come to the aid of the King of France. A greater part of what the angel taught her is in this book (1), and the angel recounted to her the misery that was in the kingdom of France.\nQuestioned about the size and stature of the same angel: she replied that, on the next Saturday, she would answer, along with another matter about which she must answer, namely what will please God concerning this.\nQuestioned whether she believes that it is a great sin to offend Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret who appear to her, and to act against their command: she replied that yes, if one knows how to amend it; and that the most she ever offended them, in her opinion, was in the jump from Beaurevoir, for which she asked their forgiveness, and for other offenses she may have committed against them.\nQuestioned whether Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret would take bodily vengeance for that offense: she replied that she does not know, and that she did not ask them.\nQuestioned, because she had previously said that sometimes people are hanged for telling the truth, whether she knows of any crime or any fault, for which she could or ought to die, if she confessed it: she replied that no.\nMarch 17, in prison. # Item, on the immediately following Saturday, the 17th of the said month of March, with Master Jean de La Fontaine, commissioner appointed by us, the aforesaid bishop, and us, Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the Inquisitor, presiding in the said prison of the aforesaid Joan; with the venerable and discreet men, the lords and masters named above, Nicolas Midi and Gerard Fueillet, doctors in theology, assisting; present were Isambard de la Pierre and Jean Massieu, named above; the aforesaid Joan was requested to take the oath, which she did.\n*Thereupon questioned in what form, size, species, and habit Saint Michael came to her: she replied that he was in the form of a very true honest man; and concerning his habit and other things, she will say nothing further. As for the angels, she saw them with her own eyes, and nothing more will be obtained from her about this. Item, she says that she believes the sayings and deeds of Saint Michael who appeared to her as firmly as she believes that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered death and passion for us. And what moves her to believe this is the good counsel, good comfort, and good doctrine that he made and gave to Joan herself.\nQuestioned whether she wishes to place herself under the determination of holy mother Church concerning all her deeds, whether good or evil: she replied that, as for the Church, she loves it and would wish to uphold it with all her power, for our Christian faith; and she is not one who should be hindered from going to church, nor from hearing mass. And as for the good works she has done and her coming, she must refer herself to the King of heaven who sent her to Charles, son of Charles, King of France, who was (1) King of France. And you will see, she said, that the French will very soon gain a great matter that God will send to the French, and that in this the whole kingdom of France will waver, in French branlera. And she says this so that, when it happens, it may be remembered that she said it.\n(1) Thus in manuscripts 5965 and 5966. Perhaps read erit (“will be”).\nQuestioned to state the term in which this would happen: she replied: I await the Lord concerning this.\nQuestioned whether she will refer herself concerning her sayings and deeds to the determination of the Church: she replied: I refer myself to God who sent me, to the Blessed Mary, and all the Saints of paradise. And it seems to me that it is one and the same thing concerning God and the Church, and that no difficulty should be made about this. Why do you make a difficulty about this?\nThen it was said to her that there is a Church Triumphant, where are God, the Saints, the Angels, and souls already saved; there is also a Church Militant, in which is the Pope, vicar of God on earth, cardinals, prelates of the church, clergy, and all good Christians and Catholics; which Church, well assembled, cannot err and is governed by the Holy Spirit. Therefore she was questioned whether she wishes to refer herself to the Church Militant, namely that which is on earth, now declared in this manner. She replied that she came to the King of France on behalf of God, on behalf of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the Saints of paradise, and the victorious Church from above, and by their command; and to that Church she submits all her good deeds, and all that she has done and will do. And concerning answering whether she will submit herself to the Church Militant, she says that she will not answer anything else for now.\nQuestioned what she says about that female attire which is offered to her, so that she can go to hear mass: she replied that, as for female attire, she will not take it yet until it pleases God. And, if it so happens that she must be led to judgment, she refers herself to the lords of the Church, that they grant her the grace of having a female shirt and a head covering on her head; and that she would rather die than revoke what God made her do; that she firmly believes that God will not now allow her to be brought so low, but that she will very soon have succor and by a miracle.\nQuestioned, because she says that she wears attire by God\u0026rsquo;s command, why she asks for a female shirt in the article of death: she replied: It is enough for me that it be long.\nQuestioned whether her godmother who saw the Fates, in French les fées, is considered a wise woman: she replied that she is held and reputed to be an honest woman, not a diviner or sorceress.\nQuestioned, because she had said that she would take female attire if she were allowed to leave, whether this would please God: she replied that, if she were given permission to leave in female attire, she would immediately resume male attire and do what is commanded her by the Lord. And she answered this previously, nor would she, for any reason, take an oath not to arm herself and not to wear male attire, to fulfill the Lord\u0026rsquo;s command.\nQuestioned about the age and clothing of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret: she replied: You have an answer about this that you will get from me, nor will you get anything else. And I have answered you about this as certainly as I know.\nQuestioned whether she believed before this day that the Fates were evil spirits: she replied that she knows nothing about this.\nQuestioned whether she knows that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret hate the English: she replied: They love what God loves, and hate what God hates.\nQuestioned whether God hates the English: she replied that concerning the love or hatred God has for the English, or what God will do to them as to their souls, she knows nothing; but she well knows that they will be expelled from France, except for those who will remain and die there, and that God will send victory to the French against the English.\nQuestioned whether God was for the English when they had prosperity in France: she replied that she does not know whether God hated the French; but she believes that He wanted to allow them to be punished for their sins, if they were in them.\nQuestioned what guarantee and what succor she expects to have from the Lord, concerning the fact that she wears male attire: she replied that, both for the attire and for other things she has done, she expects no other reward than the salvation of her soul.\nQuestioned what arms she offered in the church of Saint-Denis in France: she replied that she offered her white harness, in French un blanc harnoys, complete, such as is fitting for a man-at-arms, with a sword which she won before the city of Paris.\nQuestioned for what purpose she offered the same arms: she replied that this was out of devotion, as is customary among men-at-arms when they are wounded; and because she had been wounded before the city of Paris, she offered them to Saint-Denis, because it is the cry of France.\nQuestioned whether she did this so that the arms themselves would be adored: she replied that no.\nQuestioned what purpose those five crosses served which were on that sword, which she found at Saint Catherine of Fierbois: she replied that she knows nothing about this.\nQuestioned what moved her to have angels depicted with arms, feet, legs, and clothing on her banner: she replied: You have an answer about this.\nQuestioned whether she had those angels who come to her depicted: she replied that she had them depicted in the manner in which they are depicted in churches.\nQuestioned if she ever saw them in such a way as they were depicted: she replied: I will tell you nothing else.\nQuestioned why she did not have the brightness that came to her with the angel or voices depicted there: she replied that this was not commanded to her.\nOn the same day in the afternoon. [In the same place.]\nItem, on the same Saturday in the afternoon, with us, the aforesaid bishop and vicar of the Inquisitor, presiding; with the venerable and discreet men, lords and masters: Jean Puichripatris, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, and Gerard Fueillet, doctors; and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor in sacred theology; Jean de La Fontaine, licentiate in canon law, commissioner appointed by us, the aforesaid bishop; present were Brother Isambard de la Pierre and Jean Gris, named above.\nJoan herself was questioned whether those two angels depicted on her banner represented Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel: she replied that they were there only for the honor of God who was depicted on the banner. And she said that she did not have the representation of two angels made, but only in honor of God, who was figured there holding the world.\nQuestioned whether those two angels figured on her banner were the two angels guarding the world, and why there were not more, seeing that it was commanded to her by God that she should take that banner: she replied that the whole banner was commanded by God, through the voices of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret who told her: Take the banner on behalf of the King of heaven. And because they told her: Take the banner on behalf of the King of heaven, she had that figure of God and the angels made there, and colored. And she did everything by God\u0026rsquo;s command.\nManchon’s French minute:\nSaturday, the 17th day of March, 1430, after dinner.\nQuestioned whether these two angels, who were painted on her standard, represented Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel: she replies that they were there only for the honor of our Lord, who was painted on the standard; and she says that she did not have that representation of the two angels made, except only for the honor of our Lord, who was figured there, holding the world.\nQuestioned whether these two angels, who were figured on the standard, were the two angels who guard the world, and why there were not more, seeing that it was commanded to her by our Lord that she should take that standard: she replies, the whole standard was commanded by our Lord, by the voices of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, who told her: Take the standard on behalf of the King of heaven. And because they told her: Take the standard on behalf of the King of heaven, she had that figure of our Lord and of two angels made there, and colored, and she did everything by their command.\nQuestioned whether she then asked the same two Saints if, by virtue of that banner, she would win all the battles in which she would engage, and whether she would have victories: she replied that they told her to take courage, and that God would help her.\nQuestioned whether she helped the banner more than the banner helped her, or vice versa: she replied that, concerning the victory of Joan herself or the banner, everything was in the Lord.\nQuestioned whether the hope of having victory was founded in the banner, or in Joan herself: she replied that this is founded in the Lord, and in no other.\nQuestioned whether, if another had carried that banner, he would have had as good fortune as Joan herself had: she replied: I know nothing; I refer myself to God.\nQuestioned whether, if someone from her side had given her his banner to carry, she would have carried it, and whether she would have had as good hope in it as in her own banner which was prepared for her by God; and specifically questioned about her king\u0026rsquo;s banner, if she had had it, etc.: she replied: I would more gladly carry that which was ordained for me by God. And yet I refer myself entirely to God.\nQuestioned what purpose that sign served which she placed in her letters, and these names Jesus Mary: she replied that the clerics writing her letters placed this there; and some said that it was fitting to place these two names, Jesus Mary.\nQuestioned whether it had been revealed to her that, if she lost her virginity, she would lose her fortune, and that her voices would no longer come to her: she replied that this had not been revealed to her.\nQuestioned whether she believes that, if she were married, those voices would come to her: she replied: I do not know. And concerning this I refer myself to God.\nQuestioned whether she estimates and firmly believes that her king did well in killing the lord Duke of Burgundy (1): she replied that this was a great harm for the kingdom of France; and, whatever there was between those two aforesaid princes, God sent her to the succor of the King of France.\nQuestioned, because she had replied to us, the aforesaid bishop, that she would answer us and our commissioners as much as she would answer our most holy lord the Pope, and yet there were many interrogatories to which she does not wish to answer, whether she would answer more fully before the Pope than she does before us: she replied that she answered everything as truly as she could; and, if she knew anything that she remembered she had not said, she would gladly say it.\nQuestioned whether, if it appears from this that she is bound to answer the truth more fully to our lord the Pope, vicar of God, concerning all that would be asked of her touching the faith and the matter of her conscience, than she answers us: she replied that she requests that she be led before our lord the Pope himself, and afterwards she will answer before him all that she ought to answer.\nQuestioned of what material was one of her rings, on which these names Jesus Mary were written: she replied that she does not properly know this; and if it was of gold, it was not of pure gold; nor does she know whether it was of gold or of electrum; and she estimates that there were three crosses on it and no other sign, that she knows of, except these names, Jesus Mary.\nQuestioned why she gladly looked at that ring when she went to any act of war: she replied that this was out of pleasure, and for the honor of her father and mother; and she, with that ring on her hand and on her finger, touched Saint Catherine visibly appearing to her (1).\nQuestioned in what part of Saint Catherine herself she touched her: she replied: You will have nothing else about this.\n(1) Jean-sans-Peur.\n(1) Translation as is of the Gallicism toucher à.\nQuestioned whether she ever kissed or embraced Saint Catherine or Saint Margaret: she replied that she embraced both.\nQuestioned whether they had a good smell: she replied that it is good to know that they had a good smell.\nQuestioned whether, in embracing them, she felt warmth or anything else: she replied that she could not embrace them without feeling and touching them.\nQuestioned by what part she embraced them, whether from above or from below: she replied that it is more fitting to embrace them from below than from above.\nQuestioned whether she gave the aforesaid Saints any garlands or caps: she replied that, in their honor, she often gave such garlands to their images or representations in churches; and, as for those who appear to her, she did not give them anything that she remembers.\nQuestioned whether, when she placed such garlands on the tree mentioned above, she placed them in honor of those who appear to her: she replied that no.\nQuestioned whether, when those Saints came to her, she showed them reverence, by bending her knees and bowing: she replied that yes; and, as much as she could, she showed them reverence, because she well knows that they are those who are in the kingdom of paradise.\nQuestioned whether she knows anything about those who go, in French en Verre avec les Fades, with the Fates: she replied that she never was, nor knows anything; but she certainly heard it spoken of, and that they went on Thursday; but she does not believe in this, and believes that this is nothing but sorcery.\nQuestioned whether anyone caused her banner to be waved around her king\u0026rsquo;s head, while he was being consecrated at Reims: she replied that no, that she knows of.\n(1) Read tête (“head”).\nQuestioned why the same banner was carried more into the church of Reims, at her king\u0026rsquo;s consecration, than the banners of other captains: she replied that her banner itself had been in pain: it was well reasonable that it should have honor.\nManchon’s French minute — Saturday, March 17, morning; afternoon continued:\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 24, r°.\nJoan was requested to take the oath, and she swore, etc.\nQuestioned what answer she would give concerning the form, appearance, stature, and clothing in which Saint Michael came to her: she replied: He was in the form of a thoroughly honourable man; and of his clothing and other matters she would say nothing further. As for the angels, she saw them with her own eyes, and nothing more would be obtained from her about them. Item, she says that she believes the words and deeds of Saint Michael, who appeared to her, as firmly as she believes that Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered death and passion for us. What moves her to believe this is the good counsel, comfort, and sound teaching that he gave her.\nQuestioned whether she wishes to place herself under the determination of holy mother Church concerning all her words and deeds, whether good or evil: she replied that, as for the Church, she loves it and would wish to uphold it with all her power, for our Christian faith; and she is not one who should be prevented or hindered from going to church and hearing mass. As for the good works she has done and her coming, she must rely upon the King of heaven who sent her to Charles, son of Charles, King of France, who will be King of France. And you will see, she said, that the French will very soon gain a great victory that God will send to the French, and that because of it almost the whole kingdom of France will be shaken. She says this so that, when it happens, it may be remembered that she said it.\nQuestioned to state the term in which this would happen: she replied: I await the Lord concerning this.\nQuestioned whether she will refer herself concerning her sayings and deeds to the determination of the Church: she replied: I refer myself to God who sent me, to the Blessed Mary, and all the Saints of paradise. And it seems to me that it is one and the same thing concerning God and the Church, and that no difficulty should be made about this. Why do you make a difficulty about this?\nThen it was said to her that there is a Church Triumphant, where are God, the Saints, the Angels, and souls already saved; there is also a Church Militant, in which is the Pope, vicar of God on earth, cardinals, prelates of the church, clergy, and all good Christians and Catholics; which Church, well assembled, cannot err and is governed by the Holy Spirit. Therefore she was questioned whether she wishes to refer herself to the Church Militant, namely that which is on earth, now declared in this manner. She replied that she came to the King of France on behalf of God, on behalf of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the Saints of paradise, and the victorious Church from above, and by their command; and to that Church she submits all her good deeds, and all that she has done and will do. And concerning answering whether she will submit herself to the Church Militant, she says that she will not answer anything else for now.\nQuestioned what she says about the female attire offered to her so that she may go to hear mass: she replied that she will not yet take female attire, for so long as it pleases Our Lord. And if she must be brought as far as judgment, and must be undressed at judgment [sic], she requests that the lords of the Church grant her the grace of having a woman\u0026rsquo;s shift and a head covering. She would rather die than revoke what Our Lord caused her to do, and she firmly believes that Our Lord will not allow her to be brought so low without her soon receiving help from God, and by a miracle.\nQuestioned, because she says that she wears attire by God\u0026rsquo;s command, why she asks for a female shirt in the article of death: she replied: It is enough for me that it be long.\nQuestioned whether her godmother who saw the Fates, in French les fées, is considered a wise woman: she replied that she is held and reputed to be an honest woman, not a diviner or sorceress.\nQuestioned, because she had said that she would take female attire provided that she were allowed to leave, whether this would please God: she replied that, if she were given permission to leave in female attire, she would immediately put on male attire and do what Our Lord commanded her. She had answered this before, and for nothing would she swear not to arm herself and put on male attire in order to do Our Lord\u0026rsquo;s pleasure.\nQuestioned about the age and clothing of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret: she replied: You have an answer about this that you will get from me, nor will you get anything else. And I have answered you about this as certainly as I know.\nQuestioned whether she believed before this day that the Fates were evil spirits: she replied that she knows nothing about this.\nQuestioned whether she knows that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret hate the English: she replied: They love what God loves, and hate what God hates.\nQuestioned whether God hates the English: she replied that she knows nothing about the love or hatred God has for the English, or what God will do to their souls; but she well knows that they will be driven out of France, except those who die there, and that God will send victory to the French against the English.\nQuestioned whether God was for the English when they prospered in France: she replied that she does not know whether God hated the French, but believes that He wished to allow them to be beaten for their sins, if they were in sin.\nQuestioned what guarantee and what succor she expects to have from the Lord, concerning the fact that she wears male attire: she replied that, both for the attire and for other things she has done, she expects no other reward than the salvation of her soul.\nQuestioned what arms she offered in the church of Saint-Denis in France: she replied that she offered her white harness, in French un blanc harnoys, complete, such as is fitting for a man-at-arms, with a sword which she won before the city of Paris.\nQuestioned for what purpose she offered the same arms: she replied that this was out of devotion, as is customary among men-at-arms when they are wounded; and because she had been wounded before the city of Paris, she offered them to Saint-Denis, because it is the cry of France.\nQuestioned whether this was so that they might be armed [sic]: she replied that no.\nQuestioned what purpose those five crosses served which were on that sword, which she found at Saint Catherine of Fierbois: she replied that she knows nothing about this.\nQuestioned what moved her to have angels depicted with arms, feet, legs, and clothing on her banner: she replied: You have an answer about this.\nQuestioned whether she had those angels who come to her depicted: she replied that she had them depicted in the manner in which they are depicted in churches.\nQuestioned if she ever saw them in such a way as they were depicted: she replied: I will tell you nothing else.\nQuestioned why she did not have the brightness that came to her with the angel or voices depicted there: she replied that this was not commanded to her. Questioned whether she then asked the same two Saints if, by virtue of that banner, she would win all the battles in which she would engage, and whether she would have victories: she replied that they told her to take courage, and that God would help her.\nQuestioned whether she helped the banner more than the banner helped her, or vice versa: she replied that, concerning the victory of Joan herself or the banner, everything was in the Lord.\nQuestioned whether the hope of having victory was founded in the banner, or in Joan herself: she replied that this is founded in the Lord, and in no other.\nQuestioned whether, if another had carried that banner, he would have had as good fortune as Joan herself had: she replied: I know nothing; I refer myself to God.\nQuestioned whether, if someone from her side had given her his banner to carry, she would have carried it, and whether she would have had as good hope in it as in her own banner which was prepared for her by God; and specifically questioned about her king\u0026rsquo;s banner, if she had had it, etc.: she replied: I would more gladly carry that which was ordained for me by God. And yet I refer myself entirely to God.\nQuestioned what purpose that sign served which she placed in her letters, and these names Jesus Mary: she replied that the clerics writing her letters placed this there; and some said that it was fitting to place these two names, Jesus Mary.\nQuestioned whether it had been revealed to her that, if she lost her virginity, she would lose her fortune, and that her voices would no longer come to her: she replied that this had not been revealed to her.\nQuestioned whether she believes that, if she were married, those voices would come to her: she replied: I do not know. And concerning this I refer myself to God.\nQuestioned whether she thinks and firmly believes that her king did well to kill or have killed the lord Duke of Burgundy (1): she replied that this was a great harm to the kingdom of France; and, whatever there was between them, God sent her to the aid of the King of France.\nQuestioned, because she had replied to us, the aforesaid bishop, that she would answer us and our commissioners as much as she would answer our most holy lord the Pope, and yet there were many interrogatories to which she does not wish to answer, whether she would answer more fully before the Pope than she does before us: she replied that she answered everything as truly as she could; and, if she knew anything that she remembered she had not said, she would gladly say it.\nQuestioned concerning the angel who brought the sign to her king—of what age, stature, and clothing he was.\nQuestioned whether, if it appears from this that she is bound to answer the truth more fully to our lord the Pope, vicar of God, concerning all that would be asked of her touching the faith and the matter of her conscience, than she answers us: she replied that she requests that she be led before our lord the Pope himself, and afterwards she will answer before him all that she ought to answer.\nQuestioned of what material was one of her rings, on which these names Jesus Mary were written: she replied that she does not properly know; and if it was gold, it was not fine gold; nor does she know whether it was gold or brass. She thinks that there were three crosses on it and no other sign that she knows of, except Jesus Mary.\nQuestioned why she gladly looked at that ring when she went into battle: she replied that it was for pleasure and in honour of her father and mother; and, with the ring in her hand and on her finger, she touched Saint Catherine when the Saint appeared to her (1).\nQuestioned in what part of Saint Catherine herself she touched her: she replied: You will have nothing else about this.\nQuestioned whether she ever kissed or embraced Saint Catherine or Saint Margaret: she replied that she embraced both.\nQuestioned whether they had a good smell: she replied that it is good to know that they had a good smell.\nQuestioned whether, in embracing them, she felt warmth or anything else: she replied that she could not embrace them without feeling and touching them.\nQuestioned by what part she embraced them, whether from above or from below: she replied that it is more fitting to embrace them from below than from above.\nQuestioned whether she gave the aforesaid Saints any garlands or caps: she replied that, in their honor, she often gave such garlands to their images or representations in churches; and, as for those who appear to her, she did not give them anything that she remembers.\nQuestioned whether, when she placed such garlands on the tree mentioned above, she placed them in honor of those who appear to her: she replied that no.\nQuestioned whether, when those Saints came to her, she showed them reverence, by bending her knees and bowing: she replied that yes; and, as much as she could, she showed them reverence, because she well knows that they are those who are in the kingdom of paradise.\nQuestioned whether she knows anything about those who go at the hour with the fairies, in French vont en l\u0026rsquo;eure avec les fées: she replied that she had never done so and knew nothing about it; but she had heard it spoken of, and that people went there on Thursdays. She does not believe in it and believes that it is sorcery.\nQuestioned whether anyone caused her banner to be waved around her king\u0026rsquo;s head, while he was being consecrated at Reims: she replied that no, that she knows of.\nQuestioned why the same banner was carried more into the church of Reims, at her king\u0026rsquo;s consecration, than the banners of other captains: she replied that her banner itself had been in pain: it was well reasonable that it should have honor.\nMarch 18. Assertions delivered to the lords assessors. # Also, on Passion Sunday, the 18th day of the said month of March, immediately following, with us, the aforesaid bishop, and the said Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the Inquisitor, presiding in our dwelling house, the aforesaid bishop, at Rouen, and with the reverend fathers, lords, and masters present: Gilles, Abbot of Fécamp; Pierre, Prior of Longueville; Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, and Gérard Feuillet, in sacred theology; and Raoul Roussel, doctors in both laws; — Nicolas de Vendères and Jean de La Fontaine, licentiates in canon law; — Nicolas Coppequesne and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelors in sacred theology: we, the aforesaid bishop, explained how the aforesaid Joan had been interrogated for many days, and many of her confessions and responses were held in writing; asking the same assistants to provide their deliberations and advice on the manner of proceeding further in the matter. And we caused to be read before them many assertions which had been extracted from Joan\u0026rsquo;s responses by some masters by our order, so that they might more fully see the matter and deliberate more securely on what was to be done.\nAnd these lords and masters, having heard the foregoing, deliberated solemnly and maturely. And having heard the opinions of each, we concluded and ordained that each of them should diligently examine and study the matter, and consult the opinions of doctors in authentic books on such assertions, so that on the following Thursday, we might confer on these matters, with each presenting his advice before us; and that in the meantime, from Joan\u0026rsquo;s interrogations and responses, certain articles should be formulated which would be presented in judgment before us, the judges, and against Joan herself.\nMarch 22. It was concluded that the aforesaid assertions should be reduced to fewer articles. # Also, on the immediately following Thursday, the 22nd of the said month of March, at Rouen, in our dwelling house, the aforesaid bishop; with us, the bishop, and Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the lord Inquisitor, aforesaid, presiding; there appeared the venerable lords and masters: Jean de Châtillon, Erard Emengart, Guillaume Boucher, Pierre, Prior of Longueville, Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Maurice de Quesnay, Pierre Houdenc, Jean de Nibat, Jean Fabri, Pierre Maurice, Jacques Guesdon, and Gérard Feuillet, of sacred theology; and Raoul Roussel, treasurer of the Church of Rouen, doctors in both laws; — Nicolas de Vendères, Archdeacon of Eu in the Church of Rouen, and Jean de La Fontaine, licentiates in canon law; — Guillaume Haiton, Nicolas Coppequesne, and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelors in sacred theology; — Nicolas Loiselleur, canon of the Church of Rouen, and Brother Ysambard de la Pierre, of the Order of Preaching Friars.\nThese being thus present, several matters were reported which had been notably and scientifically compiled and advised upon in the matter by many of the said doctors, lords, and masters. Having seen these, and heard the opinions of each, and held a long conference with them, we concluded and ordained that those matters which had previously been extracted from the register of Joan\u0026rsquo;s confessions should be reduced to fewer articles, in the form of assertions or propositions. And these articles should then be communicated to each of the doctors and masters, so that they might more easily render their deliberations; and as for other matters, whether the same Joan should be further interrogated and examined, we would proceed in such a way, with the help of God, that the matter itself would be brought to the praise of God and the exaltation of the faith, so that our proceedings would suffer no defect.\nMarch 24. Her interrogations are read before Joan. # Also, on the immediately following Saturday, the 24th of the said month of March, presiding in the place of Joan\u0026rsquo;s prison, Master Jean de La Fontaine, our commissioner, the aforesaid bishop, and we, Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the aforesaid lord Inquisitor; and with the venerable lords and masters assisting: Jean Beaupère, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, and Gérard Feuillet, doctors; and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor in sacred theology; and Master Inguerrand de Camp-Rotundo, official of Coutances. The register containing Joan\u0026rsquo;s interrogations and responses was read before her, in French words, by Guillaume Manchon, the notary written below. But before this reading began, the promoter appointed by us, named above, who was present there, offered to prove the contents of the said register, both the interrogations and the responses, to have been made and said in case the said Joan should deny having said any of the responses written therein. Then Joan herself took an oath to add nothing to her responses except what was true.\nAfterwards, while these writings were being read, she said that she was surnamed D\u0026rsquo;Arc or Romée; and that in her country, daughters bore their mother\u0026rsquo;s surname. She further said that the interrogations and responses should be read consecutively, and that what was read, if she did not contradict it, she held to be true and confessed.\nShe also spoke on the article concerning receiving women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, and added these words: Give me a woman\u0026rsquo;s tunic, to go to my mother\u0026rsquo;s house, and I will take it. And this is for being out of prison; and when she was out of prison, she would take counsel on what she should do.\nFinally, after the reading of the said contents in the register, the said Joan confessed that she truly believed she had said, as it was written in the register and as it was read to her; nor did she contradict any of the said contents in the said register.\nMarch 25. Joan asks to be allowed to hear Mass. # Also, on the immediately following Palm Sunday, the 25th day of the said month of March, in the morning, in the place of Joan\u0026rsquo;s prison, in the castle of Rouen, we, the aforesaid bishop, addressed the aforesaid Joan, in the presence of the venerable men, lords, and masters: Jean Beaupère, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, doctors; and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor in sacred theology. And we said to Joan that she had repeatedly, and especially yesterday, requested that, because of the solemnity of the days and the season, she be permitted to hear Mass on that Sunday, which was Palm Sunday: therefore, we asked her whether, if we granted her this, she would be willing to abandon men\u0026rsquo;s clothing and receive women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, as she was accustomed to in her birthplace, and as the women of her place were accustomed to wear.\nTo which the said Joan responded by requesting that she be permitted to hear Mass in the men\u0026rsquo;s clothing she was wearing, and that she might also receive the sacrament of the Eucharist on the feast of Easter.\nThen we said to her that she should answer the request, namely, whether she would be willing to abandon men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, if this were granted to her. But she responded that she had not been advised on this, nor could she yet receive the said clothing.\nAnd we asked her if she would like to take counsel with the Saints, whether she should receive women\u0026rsquo;s clothing. To which she responded that she could be permitted to hear Mass in this state, which she greatly desired; but she could not change her clothing, nor was this even within her power.\nAfterwards, the said masters exhorted her that, for such good and devotion as she seemed to bear, she should be willing to take clothing suitable to her sex. To which Joan again responded that it was not in her power to do this; and, if it were in her power, it would be done very quickly.\nHowever, she was told to speak with her voices to know if she would resume women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, so that she might receive viaticum at Easter. To which the said Joan responded that, as far as she was concerned, she would not receive that viaticum by changing her clothing to women\u0026rsquo;s; and she requested that she be permitted to hear Mass in men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, saying that that clothing did not burden her soul, and that wearing it was not against the Church.\nConcerning all these matters, the said lord Jean d\u0026rsquo;Estivet, promoter, requested an instrument, in the presence of the lords and masters: Adam Midet, secretary to the king; Guillaume Brolbster and Pierre Orient, of the dioceses of Rouen, London, and Châlons.\nFirst Judgment # Ordinary Proceedings Begin After the Ex Officio Inquiry # Also, on the immediately following Monday, after Palm Sunday, which was the 26th day of the said month of March, in our dwelling house, at Rouen, before us, the aforesaid bishop, and the said Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the lord Inquisitor, there appeared the venerable lords and masters: Jean de Châtillon, Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, Gérard Feuillet, in sacred theology; and Raoul Roussel, treasurer of the Church of Rouen, doctors of both laws; — André Marguerie, Archdeacon of Petit-Caux, in laws; Nicolas de Vendères, Archdeacon of Eu, and Jean de La Fontaine, licentiates in decrees; — Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor in theology, and Nicolas Loiselleur, canon of the Church of Rouen. In their presence, we caused to be read certain articles concluding what the said promoter intended to propose against Joan herself.\nAnd then it was deliberated that, besides and beyond the preparatory proceedings, hitherto observed ex officio by us, henceforth, as we, the bishop and vicar aforesaid, have decreed and concluded should be done, the said Joan should be proceeded against by ordinary proceedings; and that these articles were well composed; and that Joan should be interrogated and heard on these matters; and that these articles should be proposed on the part of the said promoter by some solemn advocate or by the promoter himself; and, if the said Joan refuses to respond, after a canonical admonition has first been given to her, these matters should be held as confessed. And, after several other matters, we concluded that on the following day, the aforesaid articles to be given by the promoter should be proposed, and Joan should be interrogated and heard on them.\nMarch 27. Request of the Promoter. Articles proposed by him against Joan are read. # Also, on the Tuesday after Palm Sunday, immediately following, the 27th day of the said month of March, in the chamber near the great hall of the castle of Rouen, with us, the aforesaid bishop, and the said Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the said lord Inquisitor, presiding; and also with the reverend fathers, lords, and masters assisting: Gilles, Abbot of Fécamp; Pierre, Prior of Longueville; Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, Gérard Feuillet, Erard Emengart, Guillaume Boucher,\nTuesday after Palm Sunday, March 27. (1)\nIn the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred and thirty, on Tuesday after Palm Sunday, the twenty-seventh day of the month of March, the promoter made the supplication and request contained in a certain paper schedule which he then held in his hands, the tenor of which is as follows: My Lords, etc. And the supplication having been made, etc. (2)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 26, v°. (2) See the continuation below, p. 198.\nMaurice de Quesnay, Jean de Nibat, Jean Fabri, Jacques Guesdon, Jean de Châtillon, in sacred theology; Raoul Roussel, in both laws; Jean Guerini, doctor in canon law; — Robert Barberii, Denis Gastinelli, Jean Ledoux, in both laws; Nicolas de Vendères, Jean Pinchon, Jean Basseti, Jean de La Fontaine, Jean Columbelli, Aubert Morelli, Jean de Quemino, in canon law; André Marguerie, Archdeacon of Petit-Caux; Jean Alespée, Nicolas Caval, Geoffroy de Crotey, licentiates in civil law; — Guillaume Desjardins and Jean Tiphaine (1), doctors in medicine; — Guillaume de la Chambre (2), licentiate in medicine; — Brother Jean Vallée, Brother Ysambard de la Pierre, of the Order of Preaching Friars. — Guillaume Brolbster and Jean de Hanton, priests (3): the oft-mentioned Jean d\u0026rsquo;Estivet, canon of the churches of Bayeux and Beauvais, appointed promoter in this case, appearing in judgment before us, in the presence of the said Joan brought before us in the same place, proposed a certain supplication and request in French words, the tenor of which, translated into Latin word for word, follows:\n(1) This Jean Tiphaine testified as a witness in the absolution trial, where he is described as master of arts, doctor of medicine, and canon of the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris. He had formerly been chaplain of the castle of Caen (Rymer, t. X, p. 53). Summoned to join the tribunal, he pleaded in vain the specialty of his studies which made him little competent in the matter. He was forced to yield to a second injunction. (2) Guillaume de la Chambre, licentiate in medicine, evoked from Paris like his colleague Jean Tiphaine, witness in the absolution trial. (3) William Brolbster and John de Hampton, English priests.\nMy Lords, reverend father in Christ, and you, vicar, singularly committed to this by the lord Inquisitor of those deviating from the Catholic faith, established and appointed throughout the entire kingdom of France: I, promoter committed and ordained by you in this cause, after certain informations and interrogations, made by you and on your behalf, say, affirm, and propose Joan, here present and accused, to respond to what I wish to ask, say, and propose against her, touching and concerning the aforesaid faith; and I intend to prove, if necessary, by protestations and under protestations, and to the ends and conclusions more fully declared in the code which I exhibit and deliver before you, judges in this matter, against the said Joan, the facts, laws, and reasons declared and contained in the articles written and specified in that code. And I supplicate and request you to cause Joan herself to swear and affirm that she will respond to the contents of the said articles and of each of them particularly, by whether she believes or does not believe; and in case she is unwilling to swear and affirm, refuses, or delays more than is proper, after you have commanded her to do this and she has been summoned by you concerning it, let her be considered as defaulting and contumacious in her presence; and, her contumacy requiring it, let her be declared excommunicated for manifest offense. And further, let a certain and brief day be assigned to her by you for responding, as has been said, to the said articles, with the intimation that, if she does not respond to them or any of them within the aforesaid day, you will hold the said articles or article, not responded to by her, as confessed, as the laws, style, usage, and common observance wish and require.\nThis supplication having been thus made, the said promoter delivered a libel against Joan, present there, in the form of concluding articles, the tenor of which is written below. Afterwards, we, the aforesaid judges, requested the deliberation of the aforesaid lords and masters, then assisting there, and what further was to be done. Having seen the supplication and request of the promoter, and heard the opinions of each, we concluded that the said articles, exhibited by the promoter himself, should be read, and explained in French words to Joan herself, and that the said Joan should respond to each article what she knew; and if there were any matters concerning which she requested a delay for responding, a suitable delay should be granted to her.\nAnd the supplication having been made, he delivered a libel against Joan, here present, in the form of concluding articles. And afterwards the lord judges asked the assistants, in the presence of the said Joan, who had been brought there, how it was to be done and proceeded further in the matter, according to the promoter\u0026rsquo;s supplication. To which the said assisting lords responded: (1) And first, Master Nicolas de Vendères said that, as to the first, she must be compelled to take the oath. As to the second, the promoter also rightly requests, and she is to be considered contumacious if she refuses to swear. As to the third, he believes she should be excommunicated. And if she endures the sentence of excommunication, she ought to be proceeded against according to the laws. Also, if she refuses, and endures the sentence of excommunication.\nMaster Jean Pinchon, that the articles be read first, before he deliberates.\n(1) This deliberation is found only in the D\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript.\nMaster Jean Basseti, that the articles be read, before the sentence of excommunication is delivered.\nMaster Jean Garini: let the articles be read.\nMaster Jean de La Fontaine, as Master Nicolas de Vendères.\nMaster Geoffroy de Crotey. It seems to him that she should be given at least three delays, before she is excommunicated; and she should be held as convicted if she refuses to swear; especially since in civil matters, three delays are given for swearing to calumny.\nMaster Jean Ledoux, as the preceding.\nMaster Gilles des Champs: let the articles be read, and a day be assigned to her to come, advised to respond.\nMaster Robert Barberii, as the preceding.\nThe Lord Abbot of Fécamp: as it seems to him, she is bound to swear to tell the truth about those things which are known concerning the proceedings. And if she is not advised, let her have a competent delay. [And a day] must be given, for her to come advised.\nMaster Jean de Châtillon: she is bound to respond to the truth, especially since her own actions are at issue.\nMaster Erard Emengart, as the Lord of Fécamp.\nMaster Guillaume le Boucher, as the preceding.\nThe Lord Prior of Longueville: in those matters which she would not know how to answer, it appears to him that she is not to be compelled to answer by I believe or I do not believe.\nMaster Jean Beaupère: in those matters of which she is certain and which are factual, she is bound to respond to the truth. However, in those matters in which she would not know how to respond to the truth, or which would be a matter of law, if she requests a delay, a delay should be granted to her.\nMaster Jacques de Touraine, as the preceding.\nMaster Nicolas Midi, as the preceding, adding that, if she must now be precisely compelled to swear, he refers to the jurists.\nMaster Maurice de Quesnay, as the Lord of Fécamp.\nMaster Jean de Nibat, as to the articles, he refers to the jurists, and as to the oath, she must take an oath to tell the truth about those things which concern the proceedings and the faith; and if she makes difficulty in responding to the truth about anything, and requests a delay, it should be granted to her.\nMaster Jean Fabri, refers to the jurists. Master Pierre Maurice: let her respond to what is known.\nMaster Gérard: she is bound to respond by oath.\nMaster Jacques Guesdon, as the preceding.\nMaster Thomas de Courcelles: she is bound to respond; and let the articles be read, and let her respond while they are being read; and as to a delay, if she requests it, it should be granted to her.\nMaster André Marguerie is of the opinion that she should swear on those things which concern the proceedings; and as to those things which are doubtful, he believes that a delay should be given to her.\nMaster Denis Gastinel: she must swear; and the promoter rightly requests as to the oath. As to proceeding further, if she refuses to swear, he wishes first to consult the books.\nMaster Aubert Morelli and Master Jean de Quemino: she is bound to swear, etc.\nThese things having been thus done, the promoter offered to swear to calumny, and swore, namely, that not out of favor, rancor, fear, or hatred, but out of zeal for the faith, he proposes those things which he presents in the libel, or articles, and in this matter against the said Joan.\nAfterwards, Joan was told that she would have to respond to the truth about those things which concerned the facts. After the said doctors and masters had given their opinions, and also after the said promoter had sworn to calumny, the Lord of Beauvais said to Joan that all those present were ecclesiastics and very learned men, etc. (1)\n(1) The remainder is entirely consistent with the definitive redaction.\nThen the aforesaid promoter swore before us to calumny. This being done, we said to Joan that all those present were ecclesiastics and very learned men, experienced in divine and human law, who with all piety and gentleness wished and intended to proceed with her, as they had always been prepared to do; not seeking vengeance or corporal punishment, but her instruction and reduction to the way of truth and salvation. And because she was not sufficiently learned and instructed in letters and such arduous matters, for consulting herself on what she should do or respond, therefore we offered to Joan that she should choose one or more of those present whom she wished; or, if she did not know how to choose, some would be given to her by us, for consulting Joan on what she should do or respond, provided that, concerning matters of fact, she should respond to the truth in her own person; requiring Joan to take an oath to tell the truth about those things which concerned the facts.\nTo which the same Joan responded in this manner: First, as to what you admonish me for my good and for our faith, I thank you and also all the company. As to the counsel you offer me, I also thank you; but I have no intention of separating myself from the counsel of God. As to the oath you wish me to take, I am ready to tell the truth about all that concerns these proceedings. And so she swore, touching the holy Gospels. Afterwards, by our command and ordination, the aforesaid articles exhibited by the promoter were read; and the contents of the same articles or libel were explained to Joan in French words, both on the aforesaid Tuesday and on the following Wednesday.\nTo which the said Joan responded: First, as to what you admonish me for my good and for our faith, I thank you and also all the company. As to the counsel you offer me, I also thank you, but I have no intention of departing from the counsel of our Lord. As to the oath you wish me to take, I am ready to swear to tell the truth about all that will concern these proceedings. And so she swore, touching the holy Gospels. Afterwards, Master Thomas de Courcelles, by order of the lord judges, began to explain the contents of the libel or articles. (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 27, v°.\nOn which Wednesday (1), the reverend fathers, lords, and masters were present: Gilles, Abbot of Fécamp; Pierre, Prior of Longueville; Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Erard Emengart, Maurice de Quesnay, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, Guillaume Boucher, Jean de Nibat, Jean Fabri, Jean de Châtillon, Jacques Guesdon, and Gérard Feuillet, in sacred theology; Raoul Roussel, doctor in both laws; — Robert Barberii, licentiate in canon law; — Guillaume Haiton, Nicolas Coppequesne, bachelors in sacred theology; — Jean Guerini, Denis Gastinelli, Jean Ledoux, in both laws; Jean Pinchon, Jean Basseti, Jean de La Fontaine, Jean Columbelli, Jean de Quemino, in canon law; André Marguerie, Archdeacon of Petit-Caux; Jean Alespée, Nicolas Caval, Geoffroy de Crotey, licentiates in civil law; — Guillaume Desjardins, Jean Tiphaine, doctors; Guillaume de la Chambre, licentiate in medicine; — Guillaume Brolbster and Jean de Hanton, priests.\n(1) March 28.\nThe tenor of the aforesaid articles of the libel, and also of Joan\u0026rsquo;s responses then given, together with the responses given elsewhere, to which the said Joan presently refers, follows word for word.\nBEFORE you, venerable father in Christ and lord, Lord Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, as Ordinary, having jurisdiction in this city and diocese of Rouen; and the religious man, Master Jean Le Maistre, of the Order of Preaching Friars, bachelor in theology, by the religious and very circumspect man, Master Jean Graverent, eminent doctor in sacred theology of the same order, Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the kingdom of France appointed by the Apostolic See, vicar in the aforesaid city and diocese, and specially committed for the present cause; competent judges in this matter, to the end or ends that a certain woman, commonly called Joan the Maid, recently found, captured, and detained within the limits of the territory, venerable father, and the boundaries of your diocese of Beauvais, and rendered, delivered, freed, and restored to you, as an ecclesiastical and ordinary judge, by our most Christian lord the King of France and England, as your subject, justiciable, and corrigible, vehemently suspected, scandalized, and very notoriously defamed among good and grave persons; concerning and upon the following matters, by you, the aforesaid judges, she be pronounced and declared a sorceress or diviner, a pseudo-prophetess, an invoker and conjurer of evil spirits, superstitious, and involved in and adhering to magical arts, ill-informed in and concerning our Catholic faith, schismatic, in the article Unam sanctam, etc., and several other articles of the same faith, doubtful and deviant, sacrilegious, idolatrous, apostate from the faith, cursed and maleficent, blasphemous against God and His Saints, scandalous, seditious, disturbing of peace and hindering it, inciter to wars, cruelly thirsty for human blood, and inciter to its effusion, entirely abandoning the decency and propriety of her sex without shame, and shamelessly assuming the deformed habit and status of armed men; in these and other matters abominable before God and men, transgressor of divine and natural laws and ecclesiastical discipline, seducer of princes and common people; permitting and consenting to be venerated and adored to the insult and contempt of God, offering her hands and clothes to be kissed, usurper of divine honor and worship; heretical or at least vehemently suspected of heresy; and concerning these matters, according to divine and canonical sanctions, she be canonically and legitimately punished and corrected, and also to all and singular other ends propitious and due to these matters: Jean d\u0026rsquo;Estivet, canon of the churches of Bayeux and Beauvais, promoter or procurator of your office, committed by you for this purpose and specially appointed, in the name of that office and for that office, plaintiff and accuser, and against the said Joan, the accused, says, proposes, and intends to prove and duly inform your minds the following; with the protestation, however, that the said procurator does not intend to bind himself to proving anything superfluous, but only to those things which suffice and can and ought to suffice to achieve his intention, in whole or in part; with other protestations customary in such acts, and also with the right to add, correct, change, interpret, and any other right whatsoever, both of law and of fact, reserved to him.\nI. AND FIRST, that, both by divine, canon, and civil law, it pertains and belongs to you, as Ordinary judges and Inquisitor of the faith, to drive away, destroy, indeed to eradicate heresies, sorceries, superstitions, and other such crimes declared above, from the said diocese and the entire kingdom of France; to punish, correct, and amend heretics and those proposing, saying, propagating, or in any way acting against our Catholic faith, sorcerers, diviners, invocators of demons, those ill-informed in the faith, and such malefactors and criminals and their supporters apprehended in the said diocese and jurisdiction, even if they have offended elsewhere in the premises or any of the premises, as other competent judges can and ought to do in their dioceses, limits, and jurisdictions. And in this regard, even in the person of a lay person of whatever status, sex, quality, or preeminence, you are to be considered, held, and reputed competent judges.\nTo the first article, Joan responds that she truly believes that our Lord the Pope of Rome, and the bishops, and other ecclesiastical men are for preserving the Catholic faith and punishing those who fail; but as for herself, concerning her actions, she will not submit, except only to the heavenly Church, namely, God, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints of paradise. And she firmly believes that she has not failed in our faith, nor would she wish to fail.\nShe responds to the first that she truly believes that our Holy Father the Pope of Rome, and the bishops, and other church people are to guard the Christian faith, and to punish those who fail; but, as for her, concerning her actions, she will submit only to the church of heaven, that is to say, to God, to the Virgin Mary and the Saints of paradise. And she firmly believes that she has not failed in our Christian faith, and would not wish to fail, and requests (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 27, v°.\nII. Also, that the said accused, not only in the present year, but from the time of her youth onwards; and not only in the said diocese and your jurisdiction, but also roundabout in many other and diverse places of this kingdom, performed, composed, mixed, and arranged many sorceries and superstitions; she divined, and allowed herself to be adored and venerated; and she invoked demons and evil spirits, consulted them, frequented them, and entered into, made, and had pacts, treaties, and agreements with them, and used them; she also gave counsel, aid, and favor to others doing these things, and induced them to do these and similar things; saying, believing, asserting, and maintaining that to do so and to believe in and use such sorceries, divinations, and superstitious acts, was not a sin, indeed not even prohibited; but rather lawful, laudable, and to be approved, inducing many persons of various statuses, even of both sexes, to these errors and evil deeds, and impressing these and similar things upon their hearts, she asserted. And the said Joan, by doing and perpetrating the aforesaid offenses, was captured and apprehended within the limits and boundaries of your diocese of Beauvais.\nTo this second article, Joan responds: concerning sorceries and superstitious works and divinations, she denies; and concerning adoration, she says, if anyone kissed her hands or clothes, this was not by her or of her will; and concerning this, she caused herself to be protected and opposed it as much as she could. She denies the rest of the article.\nTo the second article concerning sorceries, and superstitious works and divinations, she denies. And concerning adoration, she says; if any have kissed her hands or clothes, it is not by her or of her will; and she has caused herself to be protected from it and opposed it as much as she could. And she denies the rest of the article. (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 27, v°.\nAnd elsewhere, on Saturday the third of March, in the aforesaid year, to the content of the article and to the interrogation whether she knew the intention of those on her side, when they kissed her hands, feet, and clothes: she responded that many people saw her gladly. And with this she says that they kissed her clothes less than they could; but the poor came to her, so she did not displease them, but rather supported them as much as she could.\nAlso, on Saturday, the tenth of the same month of March, interrogated whether, when she made the sally, or sortie in French, from the town of Compiègne, in which sally she was captured, she had had a voice of revelation concerning making the aforesaid sally: she responded that on that day she did not foresee her capture, nor did she have any other command to go out; but it had always been told to her that she must be a prisoner. — Also, interrogated whether, in making that sally, she crossed the bridge of the said town of Compiègne: she responded that yes, and through the fortified outwork called a boulevard in French; and she went with a company of people of her party against the people of the Lord of Luxembourg, whom she repelled twice, up to the Burgundian lodgings, and a third time up to halfway; and then the English who were there, cut off her path and that of her people, between her and the said bolwerk, and therefore her people retreated; and she, retreating in the fields to the side, towards Picardy, near the bolwerk, was captured; and there was a river between Compiègne and the place where she had been captured, nor was there anything else between the place where she was captured and Compiègne, except the river, the bolwerk, and the ditch of the said bolwerk.\nIII. Also, that the said accused fell into many diverse and very wicked errors, savoring of heretical depravity; she said, shouted, uttered, asserted, published, and fixed in the hearts of the simple, several false, mendacious propositions, savoring of heresy and heretical, beyond, within, and against our Catholic faith, its articles, evangelical sayings, statutes made and approved in general Councils, laws not only divine but also canonical and civil; scandalous, sacrilegious, against good morals, and offensive to pious ears; and she gave counsel, aid, and favor to those saying, dogmatizing, asserting, and promulgating such propositions.\nTo this article, Joan herself denies; and affirms that, to the best of her ability, she supported the Church.\nTo the third article, she denies; and affirms that to the best of her ability, she has supported the Church. (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 27, v°.\nIV. And to more fully and specially inform you, lord judges, concerning the aforesaid offenses, excesses, crimes, and delinquencies perpetrated by the said accused, as aforesaid, in the said diocese and elsewhere, in many and diverse places of this kingdom: it is true that the said accused was and is from the village of Greux, father Jacques d\u0026rsquo;Arc, mother Isabelle, his wife; raised in youth up to the eighteenth year of her age, or thereabouts, in the village of Domrémy on the river Meuse, diocese of Toul, in the bailiwick of Chaumont-en-Bassigny, and the provostship of Montéclair and Andelot (1). Which Joan in her youth was not taught nor instructed in belief nor in the rudiments of faith; but by some old women accustomed and imbued to use sorceries, divinations, and other superstitious works or magical arts; of which villages many inhabitants were noted from ancient times to use the aforesaid evil practices. And from many, and especially Joan herself said she had heard much from her godmother about visions and apparitions of Fates or fatal spirits, in French fées, and also from others, she was educated and imbued in evil and pernicious errors concerning such spirits, to such an extent that, in judgment before you, she confessed that up to this time she did not know whether those Fates were evil spirits.\nTo this article, she responded that she confesses the first part, namely concerning her father, and mother, and place of birth; and as to the fatal Ladies, in French fées, she does not know what it is. As to instruction, she learned her belief, and was well and duly taught to do as a good child should do. And concerning this\nAs to the fourth, she responds that she confesses the first part, namely concerning her father, and mother, and place of birth. As to the second part, she denies. And as to the fairies, she does not know what it is. And as to her instruction, she learned her belief and was well and duly taught,\n(1) Andelot now belongs to the department of Haute-Marne and borders that of Vosges. Montéclair is a hill that rises above Andelot, and whose summit was formerly crowned by a castle where, in the 15th century, the assizes of the provostship were held.\nas a good child should do. And concerning what touches her godmother, she refers to what she said elsewhere.\nAnd asked to say her Creed, etc.: she responded: Ask my confessor to whom I said it.\nV. Also, near the said village of Domrémy is a certain large, thick, and ancient tree, commonly called the arbre charmaine faée de Bourlemont, and near the said tree is a certain spring; around which evil spirits, called Fates, in French fées, are said to converse, with whom those using sorceries were accustomed to dance at night, circling the said tree and spring.\nTo this article, concerning the tree and the spring, she refers to another response made on these matters; she denies the rest. (1)\nAsked on Saturday, February 24, about the tree, she replied that very near Domrémy there is a tree called the Ladies’ Tree, which others call the Fairies’ Tree, and that beside it is a spring. She had heard that people suffering from fevers drank from this spring; she herself had drunk from it, and people came to draw its water in the hope of being healed. She did not know whether it cured them.\nAsked on Thursday, March 1, whether Saints Catherine and Margaret had spoken to her beneath the tree, she replied that she knew nothing about this. Asked again whether those saints had spoken to her at the spring, she replied that they had, and that she had heard them there, but she did not know what they had said to her on that occasion. Asked again that day whether they had promised her anything there or elsewhere, she replied that they had made her no promise except with Our Lord’s permission.\nOn Saturday, March 17, asked whether her godmother, who had seen the Fairies or Ladies of Fate, was considered a wise woman, she replied that she was held to be a good and upright woman, not a diviner or sorceress. Asked again that day whether, before March 17, she had believed that the Ladies of Fate were evil spirits, she replied that she knew nothing about this. Asked whether she knew anything about those who wander, or in French qui vont en Verre, with the Fairies, she replied that she had never done so and knew nothing about it. She had indeed heard people say that they went on Thursdays, but she did not believe this; rather, she believed it to be sorcery.\nVI. Also, Joan was accustomed to frequent the said spring and tree, more often at night, though sometimes during the day, especially at the hours when divine worship was being celebrated in church, so that she might be alone. Dancing, she would circle the said spring and tree. Afterwards she hung on the branches of that tree many garlands, made with her own hands from various herbs and flowers, while saying and singing before and afterwards certain songs and verses, with particular invocations, sorceries, and other evil arts. Yet on the following morning these garlands were not found there.\nTo this article, on the aforesaid March 27, she replied that she referred to another answer she had previously given, and she denied the remainder of the article.\nAsked on Saturday, February 24, concerning the tree, etc.: she responded that she heard it said that, when the sick can get up, they go to the tree to walk around; and there is a large tree called a Beech from which comes le beau mai, in French; and the said tree used to belong to Lord Pierre de Bourlemont. Also, that she sometimes went for a walk with other young girls, in summer time, and there she made garlands for Our Lady of Domrémy. Also, that she heard it said by many old people, not of her own family, that Fates frequented there; and she also heard it said by a certain woman named Joan, wife of Mayor Aubery, of the village, her godmother, that she had seen the said Fates there: whether this is true, she does not know. Also she said that she never saw the said Fates there, that she knows of; and, if she saw them elsewhere, she does not know. Also she said that she saw garlands placed on the branches of the said tree by young girls, and that she herself placed some there with other girls; and she sometimes carried them away, and sometimes left them. She further said that, after she knew that she had to come to France, she indulged in few walks or amusements (2), and less than she could; nor does she know if she danced near the tree after she had discretion; however, before that, she could well have danced near the tree with children; and there she sang more than she danced. Moreover, she said that there is a certain wood, called\n(1) The response recorded in G. Manchon\u0026rsquo;s minute is identically the same. (2) In French: solatz.\nNemus-canutum (1), from the door of her father\u0026rsquo;s house; and it is distant from there by half a league. She also says that she does not know nor has she heard that Fates frequented there, namely in the said wood; however, she did hear her brother say, after she left her homeland, that it was said there that Joan herself had begun her work at the tree of the Fates; which she had not done, and she told her said brother the contrary. Also she said that, when she came to her king, some asked her if there was any wood called Nemus-canutum in her homeland, because there were prophecies which said that from Nemus-canutum, a certain girl was to come who was to do miracles; but she does not believe in this.\n(1) There is an ambiguity here. The accused said in the interrogation of February 24 that the wood seen from the door of her house was called, not Bois-chenu (Hoary Wood), but Bois-chemu (Quercosum nemus, Oak Wood). See above, p. 68.\nVII. Also, the said Joan sometimes used to carry a mandrake in her bosom, hoping, by means of it, to have good fortune in riches and temporal affairs; asserting that such a mandrake had such power and effect.\nTo this article, concerning the mandrake, she denies it entirely. (2)\n(2) Likewise in G. Manchon\u0026rsquo;s minute.\nInterrogated, on Thursday, March 1, what she did with her mandrake: she responded that she never had one, but that she heard it said that there was one near her village, and she never saw one. Also she heard it said that it is a dangerous and evil thing to keep; and she does not know what it is for. — Interrogated about the place where the one she heard spoken of is: she responded that she heard it said that it is in the ground, near the tree, but she does not know the place; but she heard it said that above that place, there is a certain tree called a hazel. — Interrogated what such a mandrake is for: she responded that she heard it said that it makes money come; but she does not believe in this, and her voices never told her anything about it.\nVIII. Also, the said Joan, around the twentieth year of her age, of her own will and without the permission of her said father and mother, went to the town of Neufchâteau in Lorraine, and there served for some time a certain hostess, named La Rousse, where many incontinent young women continually reside, and also mostly people of war are lodged. In which inn the said Joan, thus residing, sometimes stayed with the said women, sometimes led sheep to the fields, and sometimes led horses to water and to meadows and pastures; and there she learned the use of riding, and to have knowledge of arms.\nTo this article, Joan responds that she refers to what she responded elsewhere on this matter; she denies the rest. (1)\n(1) Likewise in Guillaume Manchon\u0026rsquo;s minute.\nOn Thursday, February 22, she confessed that, because of the Burgundians, she left her father\u0026rsquo;s house, and went to the town called Neufchâteau, near a certain woman called La Rousse, and there she stayed for about fifteen days, attending to household affairs; nor did she go to the fields.\nAlso, on Saturday, the 24th of the said month, interrogated whether she led flocks to the fields: she said she had responded on this. And beyond this she said that, after she was an adult and had discretion, she commonly did not guard animals, but she did help to lead them to the meadows and a castle called Île, because of fear of armed men. But whether in her youth she guarded animals or not, she does not remember.\nIX. Also, the said Joan, while in the said service, brought a certain young man to court, before the Official of Toul, in a matrimonial cause, in the prosecution of the cause, going many times to the said city of Toul and exposing, on this occasion, almost all that she had. Which young man, knowing her to have associated with the said women, refusing to marry her, died, while the cause was pending. From which the said Joan, out of impatience, left the said service.\nTo this article, concerning the matrimonial cause, Joan responds that she responded elsewhere on this matter, and refers to her response; she denies the rest. (1)\n(1) Likewise in G. Manchon\u0026rsquo;s minute.\nOn Monday, March 12, interrogated what moved her to cause a certain man to be cited to the town of Toul, in a matrimonial cause: she responded that she did not cause him to be cited, but he was the one who caused her to be cited; and there she swore, before the judge, to tell the truth; and finally she swore that she had made no promise to that man. She also says that her voices assured her of winning her case.\nX. Also, after leaving the said service of La Rousse, the said Joan, saying that she had had and continually had for five years visions and apparitions of Saint Michael and Saints Catherine and Margaret, and specifically that it had then been revealed to her by them on behalf of God that she should lift the siege of Orléans and that she should cause Charles, whom she calls her king, to be crowned, and that she should expel all his adversaries from the kingdom of France: against the will and contradiction of her father and mother, she left them, and of her own accord and spontaneously, went to Robert de Baudricourt, captain of the town of Vaucouleurs, then present there, to communicate to the same Robert, as she had also been commanded by the said Saints Michael, Margaret, and Catherine, the visions and revelations made to Joan herself on behalf of God, as she says; requesting the aforesaid Robert to find a way by which she might fulfill the aforesaid matters revealed to her. From which Robert, twice repulsed, and having returned home, again, commanded by revelation to return, she was admitted a third time by the said Robert, and received.\nTo this article, she responds that she refers to what she responded elsewhere on this matter. (1)\n(1) Likewise in G. Manchon\u0026rsquo;s minute.\nOn Thursday, February 22, she confessed that, when she was thirteen years old, she had a voice or revelation from our Lord, to help her govern herself; and the first time she had great fear, and it was about noon, in summer time; and she was in her father\u0026rsquo;s garden, and then she was fasting, nor had she fasted the preceding day. Which voice she heard from her right side, towards the church; and she rarely hears it without clarity, which is from the same side whence the voice comes; and often there is great\nclarity. And when she came to France, she often heard a great voice; and the first time it was clarity. She also said, if she were in a wood, she would hear well. She further said that the voice seemed worthy to her, believing that that voice was sent on behalf of God; which, after she heard it three times, she recognized it to be the voice of an angel. She says again that that voice always guarded her well, and she understood it well. — Interrogated what document it told her for the salvation of her soul: she responded that it taught her to govern herself well, to frequent the church, and that it was necessary for her to come to France. She also says that this time the interrogator will not get from her in what form that voice appeared to her. Also she said that that voice told her twice or thrice a week that she must leave and come to France, and that her father should know nothing of her departure. She further said that that voice told her that she must come to France, nor could she stay there any longer; and that she would lift the siege before Orléans. Also she said that, when she came to the town of Vaucouleurs, she recognized Robert de Baudricourt, previously unseen by her, to whom she said that it had been revealed to her by a voice that she must go to France; and she recognized Robert himself by the voice telling her that he was the one. Who twice repulsed her; and a third time received her and gave her men, as the voice had told her.\nAlso, on Saturday, February 24, interrogated from what hour onwards she had heard her voice: she responded that she heard it yesterday, and on that day, February 24; namely yesterday, three times: first in the morning; second in the evening; and third at the Ave Maria; also more often than she names or says. And yesterday morning, when she was sleeping, it awakened her not by touch, but by the sound of its voice; nor did she know if that voice was in her chamber, but she well knows that it was in the Castle, in which the said chamber is. Also she confessed that, the first time the voice came to her, she was thirteen years old, or thereabouts.\nAlso, on Tuesday, the 27th of the said month, she says that it was then well seven years since, for the first time, Saints Catherine and Margaret began to guide her. — Interrogated if Saint Michael first appeared to her: she responded that yes, from whom she received comfort; Nor do I name to you the voice of Saint Michael, but I speak of his great comfort. — Interrogated what was the first voice that came to her, at the age of thirteen years, or thereabouts: she responded that it was Saint Michael, whom she saw before her eyes; nor was he alone, but he was well accompanied by angels of heaven. She further said that she did not come to France except by the command of God. — Interrogated if she saw Saint Michael and the angels corporally and formally: she responded that with her bodily eyes, as well as she saw those assisting in judgment. And when the said Michael and angels departed, she wept and would have wished that they had carried her with them. — Interrogated on the twenty-seventh day, when she saw the voice, if there was light there with the voice: she responded that there was much light from all sides, and it was very fitting.\nOn Thursday, March 1, interrogated if, since Tuesday, she had spoken with Saints Catherine and Margaret; she responded that yesterday and today, but she does not know at what hour; nor is there a day when she does not hear them.\nOn Monday, March 12, interrogated whether she had asked her voices to tell her father and mother of her departure: she responded, as to her father and mother, the voices were quite content that she should tell her said parents, except for the punishment they would inflict on her if she told them of her departure; and as for herself, she would never have told them for any reason; and as to telling or not telling her said father and mother of her departure, the said voices referred this to Joan herself speaking. — Interrogated about her father\u0026rsquo;s dreams, concerning her and her departure: she responded that her mother often told her, while she was still with her father, that her father had said he had had dreams that the said Joan was going to go with armed men; and her said father and mother took great care to guard her well, keeping her in great subjection; whom she obeyed in all things, except in the Toul proceedings, in the matrimonial cause. Also she heard from her mother her father say to his brothers in this manner: Truly, if I thought the thing would happen, which I dreamed about my daughter, I would wish that you would drown her; and if you did not, I myself would drown her. Which aforesaid parents almost lost their senses when she left to go to the town of Vaucouleurs. — Interrogated if those dreams came to her father after she had visions or voices: she responded that yes, for more than two years, after she first had voices.\nXI. Also, the said Joan, having gained the familiarity of the said Robert, boasting, told him that, all things which had been commanded to her by revelation on behalf of God having been accomplished and fulfilled, she was to have three sons, the first of whom would be Pope, the second emperor, and the third king. Which captain, hearing this, said: Then I would wish to make one for you, since they will be men of such authority, so that I might be better off thereby. To whom she responded: Gentle Robert, no, no, it is not time; the Holy Spirit will work it, as the said Robert asserted, said, and published the foregoing in various places, in the presence of prelates, great lords, and notable persons.\nTo this article, Joan responds that she refers to what she responded elsewhere on this matter (1). And she said that concerning this, namely concerning having three children, she did not boast of this.\n(1) Likewise in G. Manchon\u0026rsquo;s minute, minus the phrase that follows: Quod de hoc, videlicet, etc.\nOn Monday, March 12, interrogated whether her voices called her daughter of God, or daughter of the Church, or fille au grand cœur (daughter of the great heart): she responded that before the lifting of the siege of Orléans, and afterwards, on all the days they spoke to her, they often called her Joan the Maid, daughter of God.\nXII. Also, and that the said Joan might better and more openly undertake her purpose, she requested from the said captain that men\u0026rsquo;s clothing be made for her, with suitable arms. Which the said captain, though unwilling and with great abomination, finally acquiescing to the request of the said Joan, did. And these clothes and arms having been made, composed, and fashioned, the aforesaid Joan, having rejected and abandoned all women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, with her hair cut round like a page\u0026rsquo;s, a shirt, breeches, doublet, hose joined together, long and tied to the said doublet with twenty aiguillettes, high laced shoes, and a short robe reaching to the knee, or thereabouts; a cut hood, tight boots or buskins, long spurs, sword, dagger, breastplate, lance, and other armaments, in the manner of a man-at-arms, she dressed and armed herself; and with them she exercised acts of war, asserting that in this she was fulfilling the command of God given to her by revelations, and that she was doing these things on behalf of God.\nTo this article, the said Joan responded that she refers to what she responded elsewhere on this matter. And consequently interrogated whether she took the clothing and arms with other war accoutrements, by command of God: she responds that she refers, as before, to what she responded elsewhere on this matter.\nOn Thursday, February 22, she confessed that the voice told her to go to Robert, captain of Vaucouleurs, and he would give her men; to whom she responded that she was a poor girl, and would not know how to ride, nor to wage war. Also, she confessed that she told her uncle that she wanted to stay with him for a short time; and she stayed there for eight days, or thereabouts. And she told her uncle that she had to go to Vaucouleurs; who took her there. Also she said that, when she went to her king, she was dressed in men\u0026rsquo;s clothing. She also said that, before she went to her lord the king, the Duke of Lorraine ordered her to be sent to him; to whom she went, and told him that she wanted to go to\nAs to the twelfth, concerning having clothes and armor: she responds that she refers to what she responded elsewhere on this matter. And interrogated if she took this habit and armor and attire, if it was by the command of God that she took them: she responds: I refer, as above, to what I have responded elsewhere. (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 27, v°.\nFrance. To whom he asked about her health, and she said that she knew nothing about it, declaring little to him about her journey. Also she told the said duke that he should give her his son and men, to lead her to France, and she would pray to God for his health. And she had gone to the duke with a safe-conduct; and from there she returned to the town of Vaucouleurs. Also she said that, on leaving Vaucouleurs, she, in men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, with a sword given to her by the said Robert, without other armor, accompanied by a knight, a squire, and four servants, went to sleep at Saint-Urbain and slept in the abbey. She also said that, on her journey, she passed through Auxerre, where she heard Mass in the great church; and she often had her voices with her. She further said that the said Robert received an oath from those who led her, that they would lead her well and safely; and on leaving, the same Robert said to Joan: Go, and let come what may. She also said that she had to change her clothing to men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, believing that her counsel in this had told her well. She also said that, without impediment, she came to her king, to whom she had first sent letters, while she was still in Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois.\nOn Tuesday, February 27, interrogated if the voice commanded her to take men\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she responded that the clothing is of little importance, and of less; nor did she take the clothing by the counsel of any man of the world; nor did she take the same clothing, nor did she do anything, but that it was by the command of our Lord and the Angels; nor did she ever take such clothing by the order of the said Robert. — Interrogated if she did well in taking such clothing: she responded that all that she did by the command of our Lord, she believes she did well, and from it she expects good assurance and good succor. She also said that she had a sword which she had taken at Vaucouleurs.\nOn March 12, interrogated if at the request of the said Robert she had accepted such clothing, and whether the voice had commanded her concerning Robert: she responded as above. Concerning the voice, she responded that all the good she did, she did by the command of the voices; and as to the clothing, she responded elsewhere, because she is not advised on this now, but she will respond on this tomorrow.\nOn Saturday, March 17, interrogated what assurance and what succor she expects to have from our Lord, for wearing men\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she responded that, as to the clothing and other things she did, she wished to have no other reward than the salvation of her soul.\nXIII. Also, the said Joan attributes to God, His Angels and Saints, that they command things which are against the honesty of the female sex and prohibited by divine law, and also abominable to God and men, and forbidden by ecclesiastical sanctions under pain of anathema, such as being dressed in men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, short, brief, and loose, both in undergarments and hose, and in other things; and following their command, she was sometimes dressed in sumptuous and pompous clothes, of precious and golden fabrics, and also furs (1); and not only did she use short tunics, but also tabards (2) and robes slit on both sides; and this is notorious,\n(1) Furs. (2) Tabard, a long, loose coat.\nSince she was captured in a golden houppelande, open on all sides; also (1) on her head, caps or hats and hair, cut round in the manner of men; and generally, having cast off all feminine modesty, and not only against feminine decency, but also against that which pertains to well-behaved men, she used all those customs and clothes which the most dissolute men are accustomed to assume, also carrying offensive weapons. To attribute these things to the command of God, the holy Angels, and also the holy Virgins, is to blaspheme God and the Saints, to subvert the law of God, to violate canonical laws, to scandalize the female sex and its honesty, to pervert all decency of external worship, to approve examples of all dissolution in the human race, and to induce men to this.\nTo this article, Joan responds that she has not blasphemed God nor His Saints. On Tuesday, February 27, interrogated if it seems to her that the command given to her to take men\u0026rsquo;s clothing is lawful: she responded that all that she did, this is by the command of our Lord; and if our Lord commanded Joan to take other clothing, she would take it, since she would do this by the command of God. — Interrogated if, in this particular case, concerning men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, she believes she did well:\nAs to the thirteenth: she responds: I have not blasphemed God, nor His Saints. And when it was explained to her that the holy canons and the holy scriptures state that women who take men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, or men women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, is a thing abominable to God, asking if she took these clothes by the command of God; she responds:\n(1) Sic. Perhaps one should read habillement or habit.\nshe responded that she did not take it without the command of God, and that she did nothing worldly in what she did, but that it is by the command of God.\nOn Saturday the third, interrogated if, when she first came into the presence of her king, he asked her whether she had by revelation to change her clothing: she responded: I have responded to you on this elsewhere, and however, I do not remember if this was asked of me. And she further said that this is written at Poitiers. — Again, on the said Saturday, March 3, interrogated if she believed that she should have committed or had committed a mortal sin by taking women\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she responded that she does better by obeying and serving her supreme Lord, namely God.\nXIV. Also, the said Joan asserts that she does well by wearing such loose men\u0026rsquo;s clothes and habits; and in this she wishes to remain, saying that she will not abandon these, unless she has express permission from God by revelation, thereby injuring God, His Angels and Saints.\nYou have been answered enough on this; and if you wish me to answer you further, give me a delay, and I will answer you.\nShe also says, after she was interrogated if she would take women\u0026rsquo;s clothing so that she might receive her Savior this Easter: she responds that she will not leave her clothing yet, for anything, neither for receiving, nor for anything else; and she says that she makes no difference between men\u0026rsquo;s or women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, for receiving her Savior; and that for this clothing, it should not be refused to her.\nAnd interrogated by one who spoke, asking her if she had it by revelation or by command, to wear this clothing: she responds that she has answered on this: to which she refers. And afterwards she says that she will send an answer tomorrow. Also, she says that she knows well who made her take the clothing; but she does not know how she should reveal it. (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28. Here there is a rather notable difference between the clerk\u0026rsquo;s minute and the definitive redaction. Two of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s responses are suppressed in the latter; two others are placed under article XIV. I cannot explain the omission. As for the transposition, it must presumably be attributed to an error by the copyist who executed the D\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript.\nTo this article, Joan responded that she does no evil by serving God, and that she would respond to us tomorrow concerning the contents of the article. And on that day, interrogated by another of those present whether she had by revelation or command to wear men\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she responded that she had responded elsewhere on this, to which she refers; and afterwards she said that, on this matter, she would send a response tomorrow. And she further said that she knew well who made her take men\u0026rsquo;s clothing; but she does not know how she should reveal this.\nAlso, on Saturday, February 24, interrogated if she would like to have women\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she responded: If you wish to give me permission, give me a woman\u0026rsquo;s garment; I will take it and go; otherwise not; and I am content with this, since it pleases God that I wear it.\nAlso, on Monday, March 12, interrogated if, by taking men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, she thought she was doing evil: she responded that no; and even now, if she were elsewhere, and in this men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, it seems to her that it would be one of the great goods of France, to do as she did before her capture.\nAs to the fourteenth: she responds: I do no evil by serving God; and tomorrow you will be answered on this. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, r°. See the note on the preceding page.\nAlso, on Saturday, March 17, interrogated, because she said that she wears men\u0026rsquo;s clothing by God\u0026rsquo;s command, why she asks for a woman\u0026rsquo;s shirt in the article of death: she responded that it is enough for her that the shirt be long.\nXV. Also, when the said Joan sometimes and often requested that she be permitted to hear Mass, she was admonished to abandon men\u0026rsquo;s clothing and resume women\u0026rsquo;s, being given hope by the judges that she would be admitted to hearing Mass and receiving the sacraments, in case she would entirely abandon men\u0026rsquo;s clothing and take women\u0026rsquo;s, according to the decency of her sex: she refused to acquiesce; namely, she preferred not to communicate in the sacraments and divine offices, rather than abandon such clothing, feigning that this displeased God. In which appears her obstinacy, and hardening in evil, lack of charity, disobedience to the Church, and contempt for the divine sacraments.\nTo this article, on the said Tuesday, March 27, Joan responded that she would rather die than revoke what she did by the command of our Lord. On the said day, interrogated if she wishes to abandon men\u0026rsquo;s clothing to hear Mass: she responds, as to the clothing she wears, she will not abandon it yet; nor is it in her power to set a time within which she will abandon it. Also, on the same day, she says that, if the judges refuse her to hear Mass, it is\nAs to the fifteenth: she responds that she would rather die than revoke what she did by the command of our Lord. Interrogated if she wishes to leave men\u0026rsquo;s clothing to hear Mass: she responds, as to the clothing she wears, she will not leave it yet; and that it is not in her power to set a time within which she will leave it. Also, she says that, if the judges refuse her to hear Mass, it is\nwell within our Lord\u0026rsquo;s power to make her hear it, when it pleases Him, without them.\nAlso, as to the rest of the article, concerning the consequence: she responds that she confesses to having been well admonished to take women\u0026rsquo;s clothing; but as to irreverence and other consequences, she denies them.\nAlso, on Thursday, March 15, interrogated what she would prefer, namely, to take women\u0026rsquo;s clothing and hear Mass, or to remain in men\u0026rsquo;s clothing and not hear Mass: she responded: Assure me of hearing Mass, if I am in women\u0026rsquo;s clothing; and on this I will respond to you. To which she was told by the interrogator that he assured her of this. Then Joan herself responded: What will you say, if I have sworn and promised our king not to lay aside this clothing? Nevertheless, I respond to you: have a long garment made for me, reaching to the ground, without a train, and give it to me to go to Mass; and afterwards, on my return, I will resume the clothing I have. — Again interrogated about taking women\u0026rsquo;s clothing entirely, to go to hear Mass: she responded: I will take counsel on this, and afterwards I will respond to you. And she further requested, in honor of God and Our Lady, that she might hear Mass in this good town. To which she was told that she should take\nwell within our Lord\u0026rsquo;s power to make her hear it, when it pleases Him, without them.\nAlso, she says, as to the rest of the article concerning the consequence: she responds that she confesses to having been well admonished to take women\u0026rsquo;s clothing. As to irreverence and other consequences, she denies them. (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, r°.\nwomen\u0026rsquo;s clothing simply and absolutely. And to this Joan herself responded: Give me clothing in the manner of a bourgeois daughter, namely a long houppelande and likewise a woman\u0026rsquo;s hood, and I will take it to hear Mass. And moreover, as insistently as she could, she then requested that the clothing she was wearing be left to her, and that she be permitted to hear Mass, without changing.\nAlso, on Saturday, March 17, interrogated what she said to the said women\u0026rsquo;s clothing which was offered to her, so that she might hear Mass: she responded, as to women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, she would not take it yet, until it pleased our Lord; and, if it is so that she must be led to judgment and stripped, she requests the ecclesiastical lords to grant her the grace of having a woman\u0026rsquo;s shirt and a head covering on her head; because she prefers to die than to revoke what our Lord made her do. And she firmly believes that our Lord will not permit her to come so low, but that she will have succor from God very soon and by a miracle. — Also, on the same day, interrogated, because she said that she would take women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, provided she was allowed to leave, whether this would please God: she responded, if she were given permission in women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, she would quickly put on men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, and would do what she was commanded by our Lord; nor would she take an oath for anything but that she would arm herself and put on men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, to do the pleasure or will of our Lord.\nXVI. Also, the said Joan, before, after her capture, in the Castle of Beaurevoir and Arras, was often charitably admonished by noble and notable persons of both sexes to abandon men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, and to resume clothes suitable and decent for her sex. Which she entirely refused to do, and still, as aforesaid, persistently refuses, and to do other works suitable for the female sex; in all things, conducting herself more as a man than as a woman.\nTo this article, Joan responds that, at Arras and in the castle of Beaurevoir, she was well admonished to take women\u0026rsquo;s clothing; which she then refused, and still refuses. And, as to other women\u0026rsquo;s works, she says that there are enough other women to do these. On Saturday, March 3, interrogated if she remembers whether the masters who examined her in the other obedience, some for one month, and others for three weeks, had interrogated her about changing her clothing: she responded that she does not remember; however, they interrogated her where she had taken that men\u0026rsquo;s attire; to whom she said that she had taken it at Vaucouleurs. — Interrogated if they asked her whether she had taken it by her voices: she responded that she does not remember; nor does she remember if her queen asked her the same thing. — Again interrogated if her king, and queen, and others of the opposing party, had requested her to lay aside her clothing and take women\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she responded: This is not part of these proceedings.\nAs to the sixteenth: she responds that, at Arras and Beaurevoir, she was well admonished to take women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, and she refused it and still refuses it. And as to other women\u0026rsquo;s works, she says that there are enough other women to do this. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, r°.\nFurther interrogated if she had been asked about this at Beaurevoir: she responded, truly yes; and then she responded that she would not change without the permission of our Lord. Also she said that the Lady of Luxembourg requested the Lord of Luxembourg that Joan herself should not be handed over to the English (1). Also she said that the aforesaid Lady and the Lady of Beaurevoir offered her women\u0026rsquo;s clothing or fabric, to make it, requesting her to wear it; to whom she responded that she did not have permission from our Lord, and that the time was not yet. She further said that Lord Jean de Pressy, knight, and several others offered her women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, at Arras, and often asked her if she would change her clothing. Moreover she said that, if she had to change such clothing, she would have changed it sooner at the request of the aforesaid two ladies than of others in the kingdom of France, except her queen. — Further interrogated whether, when God revealed to her that she should change her clothing, if this was by the voice of Saint Michael or Saints Catherine and Margaret: she responded: You will not have anything else about this now.\n(1) This circumstance is not recorded in the interrogation of March 3.\nXVII. Also, when the said Joan came into the presence of the said Charles, thus dressed and armed, as aforesaid, among other things, she promised him three things: first, that she would lift the siege of Orléans; second, that she would cause him to be crowned at Reims; and third, that she would deliver him from his adversaries, and either kill them all by her art or expel them from this kingdom, both English and Burgundians. And of these promises the said Joan often and in many places publicly boasted; and that, so that greater faith might be given to her sayings and deeds, then and thereafter she frequently used divinations, revealing the manners, life, and hidden deeds of some coming into her presence, whom she had not known or seen before, boasting that she knew these things by revelation.\nTo this article, Joan responds that she brought news on behalf of God to her king, that our Lord would restore his kingdom of France to him, would cause him to be crowned at Reims, and would expel his adversaries. And of this she was a messenger on behalf of God, telling him to boldly put her to work, and that she would lift the siege of Orléans. Also she said that she spoke of the whole kingdom, and that, if the lord of Burgundy and other subjects of the kingdom did not come to obedience, her king would make them come by force. Also she said, as to the end of the article, concerning knowing Robert de Baudricourt and her king, that she referred to what she had responded elsewhere on this matter.\nAs to the seventeenth: she responds that she confesses that she brought news from God to her king, that our Lord would restore his kingdom to him, would cause him to be crowned at Reims, and would expel his adversaries. And of this she was a messenger from God; and that he should boldly put her to work; and that she would lift the siege of Orléans. Also, she says that she spoke of the whole kingdom, and that, if my lord of Burgundy and the other subjects of the kingdom did not come to obedience, the king would make them come by force. Also, she says, as to the end of the article, concerning knowing Robert and her king: she responds: I adhere to what I have responded elsewhere on this. (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, r°.\nOn Thursday, February 22, she confessed that, when she came to Vaucouleurs, she recognized Robert de Baudricourt, and yet she had never seen him before; and this was by a voice which told her that he was the one. Also she said that she found her king at Chinon, where she arrived about noon, and was lodged in a certain inn; and after dinner, she went to her king in the Castle, whom, when she entered the chamber, she recognized among others and by the counsel of the voices; to which king she said that she wanted to go to fight the English.\nOn Tuesday, March 13, interrogated about a certain concubine priest, and about a lost silver cup, etc.: she responded that she knew nothing of all this, nor had she ever heard it spoken of.\nXVIII. Also, the said Joan, as long as she stayed with the said Charles, with all her might dissuaded him and his people from attending in any way to any treaty of peace or agreement with his adversaries, always inciting them to slaughter and the effusion of human blood; asserting that peace could not be had except with the butt of the lance and the sword; and that it was so ordained by God, because the king\u0026rsquo;s adversaries would otherwise not relinquish what they occupy in the kingdom; whom to thus conquer, was one of the great goods that could happen to all Christendom, as she said.\nTo this article, Joan responds, as to the Duke of Burgundy, she requested him by letters (1) and his ambassadors, that there should be peace between her king and the said duke; but as to the English, the peace that must be there, is that they go to their country in England. And as to the rest of the article, she responded elsewhere; to which response she refers.\nAs to the eighteenth: she says, as to peace, she says, as to the Duke of Burgundy, she requested the Duke of Burgundy, by letters and his ambassadors, that there should be peace. As to the English, the peace that is needed, is that they go to their country, to England. And as to the rest, she has responded; to which she refers. (2)\n(1) We will report this letter at the end of the work. (2) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, r°.\nOn Tuesday, February 27, interrogated why she did not accept a treaty with the captain of Jargeau: she responded that the lords of her party responded to the English that they would not have the fifteen-day term they requested; but they should withdraw with their horses, at the present hour. And as for herself, she told them to withdraw in their doublet or tunic, their lives saved, if they wished; otherwise they would be captured by assault. — Interrogated if she had deliberated with her counsel, namely with her voices, whether to give them a term or not: she responded that she does not remember this.\nXIX. Also, the said Joan, consulting demons and using divinations, sent to seek a certain sword hidden in the church of Saint Catherine of Fierbois, or which she maliciously, fraudulently, and deceitfully hid or caused to be hidden in the said church, so that, by seducing princes, nobles, clergy, and people, she might induce them to more easily believe that she knew by revelation that the said sword was in the same place; and by these and similar means, undoubted faith would be more easily given to her sayings.\nTo this article, on the said Tuesday, March 27, she responded that she refers to what she responded elsewhere on this matter; and she denies the rest of the article. (1)\n(1) Likewise in the minute.\nOn Tuesday, February 27, interrogated if she had been to Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois: she responded that yes, and there she heard three Masses in one day, and from there she left for the town of Chinon. Also, on the same Tuesday, February 27, she said that she had a sword which she sent to seek from the town of Tours or Chinon, at Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois; which sword was in the ground, behind the altar of Saint Catherine; and the said sword was found quite quickly, all rusty. — Interrogated how she knew the said sword was there: she responded that it was in the ground, rusty, having five crosses; and she knew this by her voices, saying that she had never seen the man by whom she sent to seek the said sword; but she wrote to the people of the church that it would please them that she should have the said sword, which they sent to her; nor was it very deep in the ground, behind the said altar, as it seems to her; nevertheless she does not properly know if this was before or behind; and she believes that she wrote that it was behind. Also she said that, as soon as the said sword was found, the people of the local church rubbed it, and immediately the rust fell off without force; and there was an armorer from Tours who went to seek the said sword. And the people of the church of Sainte-Catherine, and those of Tours together, gave her a scabbard; and they had two scabbards made, one of red velvet, the other of golden cloth; and she herself\nhad one made of very strong leather. She also said that, when she was captured, she did not have the said sword, which she always carried from then on, until she left Saint-Denis. — Interrogated, concerning a blessing, if she made any or caused any to be made upon the said sword: she responded that no, nor would she have known how to do anything. Also, she said that she truly loved the aforesaid sword, because it had been found in the church of Sainte-Catherine, which she truly loved.\nAlso, on Saturday, March 17, interrogated what those five crosses, which were on the sword found in the church of Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois, were for: she responded that she knew nothing about this.\nXX. Also, Joan herself placed fortune in a ring, a banner, and certain pieces of cloth and small banners which she used to carry and cause to be carried by her people, and also in the sword found by revelation, as she says, at Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois; saying that these were very fortunate. And upon them she made many execrations and conjurations, in many and diverse places, publicly asserting that by them she would do great things, and obtain victory over her adversaries; and that nothing adverse could happen to her people, having such small banners, in their aggressions and deeds, nor could they suffer any misfortune. Which she specially and publicly published at Compiègne, the day before she made a sally from the said town of Compiègne, with the army, against the lord Duke of Burgundy, in which many of her people were wounded, killed, and captured, and she herself was captured and apprehended. And she had published and done the same at Saint-Denis, when she incited the army to make an assault against Paris.\nTo this article, on the said Tuesday, March 27, she said that she refers to what she responded elsewhere on this matter. And she further adds that, of anything she did, there was no sorcery, nor any other evil art; but as to the good fortune of her standard, she refers to the fortune that our Lord transmitted in it. On Tuesday, February 27, interrogated if she had her sword when she was captured: she responded that no; but she had one that had been captured from a Burgundian.\nAs to the twentieth, she refers to what she responded on this. And she further adds that of anything she did, there was neither sorcery nor any other evil art. And as to the good fortune of her standard, she says that as to the fortune, she refers to the fortune that our Lord sent there. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, r°.\nAlso, on Thursday, March 1, interrogated who had given her the ring that the Burgundians have: she responded that her father or her mother, and it seems to her that Jesus Maria was written on it; but she does not know who caused it to be written; nor was there a stone in it, as it seems to her; and it was given to her at Domrémy. She also said that her brother gave her the ring that we, the bishop, have, concerning which he charges us to offer it to the church. Also, she said that with none of her rings did she cure or heal any person.\nAlso, on Saturday, March 3, interrogated, when her king first put her to work, and had her banner made, whether the men-at-arms and other men of war had small banners made in the manner of her banner: she responded: It is good to know that lords maintain their arms. Also, she responded that some companions of war had small banners made according to their pleasure, and others\nnot. — Interrogated of what material they had them made, whether of cloth or of fabric: she responded that this was of white satin, and in some there were lilies; nor were there more than two or three lances of her company; but the companions of war sometimes had small banners made in imitation of theirs, nor did they do this except to distinguish their own from others. — Interrogated if they were renewed very often: she responded that she does not know; and when the lances were broken, then the small banners were renewed. — Interrogated if she said that the small banners made in imitation of hers were fortunate: she responded that she sometimes said well: Enter boldly through the midst of the English, or among the English, and she herself entered there. — Interrogated if she told them to carry boldly, and that they would have good fortune: she responded that she truly told them what had come and was yet to come. — Interrogated if she placed or caused to be placed any blessed thing upon the said small banners, when she took them anew: she responded that she knew nothing about this; and, if it was done, this was not by her command. — Interrogated if she saw water thrown upon them: she responded: This is not of these proceedings; and, if she saw it thrown, she is not advised now to respond on this. — Interrogated if the companions of war caused Jesus Maria to be placed on their small banners: she responded, by her faith, that she knew nothing about this. — Interrogated if, by circling the altar or the church, in the manner of a procession, she caused cloths to be carried, for making small banners: she responded that no, nor did she see anything of this done.\nAlso, on Saturday, March 17, interrogated of what material her ring was, on which Jesus Maria was written: she responded that she does not properly know; and, if it is of gold, it is not of pure gold, nor does she know whether it is gold or electrum; and she thinks that there were three crosses there, nor any other sign that she knows of, except Jesus Maria. — Interrogated why she so gladly looked at the said ring, when she went into an act of war: she responded that, for the pleasure and honor of her father and mother; and she, having the ring in her hand and on her finger, touched Saint Catherine who appeared to her. — Interrogated in what part she touched her: she responded: You will not have anything else about this.\nXXI. ITEM, the said Joan, led by rashness and presumption, caused letters to be drawn up and sent on her behalf to our lord the King, to the Lord of Bedford, then Regent of the Kingdom of France, and to the lords and captains then holding the siege before Orléans, with the names Jesus Maria prefixed and the sign of the cross inserted; these letters contained many evil and pernicious things, and were not in harmony with the Catholic faith, the tenor of which follows below.\nTo this article, on the said Tuesday, March 27, she responded that, as for the letters, she did not make them out of pride or presumption, but by the command of our Lord; and she fully confesses the contents of the letters, except for three words.\nAs to the twenty-first; she responded that, as for the letters, she did not make them out of pride or presumption, but by the command of our Lord; and she fully confesses the contents of the letters, except for three words. Item, she says that if the English had believed her letters, they would have acted wisely; and that before seven years are out, they will well perceive what she wrote to them. And concerning this, she refers to the answer she made elsewhere.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, recto and verso. The Latin redaction carries this response forward to the following article.\nOn Thursday, February 22, she said that she had sent letters to the English before Orléans, so that they would withdraw from there, as the letters she heard read contain, except for two or three words, namely rendez à la Pucelle (surrender to the Maid), where it should be rendez au roy (surrender to the King), as she said; also two, namely corps pour corps (body for body) and chief de guerre (war leader). The tenor of these letters begins thus: King of England, etc., and above they are titled: Jhesus Maria.\nOn Saturday, March 3, asked if those on her side firmly believe that she was sent by God: she responded that she does not know if they believe this, and concerning this, she refers to their minds; that if they do not believe it, she nevertheless said that she was sent by God. — Asked if she thinks that they, by believing her to be sent by God, have good faith: she responded: If they believe this, they are not deceived or abused.\nXXII. Jhesus Maria.\nKing of England, and you, Duke of Bedford, who call yourself Regent of the Kingdom of France; you, William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk; John, Lord Talbot; and you, Thomas, Lord Scales, who call yourselves lieutenants of the said Duke of Bedford, render justice to the King of Heaven; surrender to the Maid, who is sent here by God, the King of Heaven, the keys of all the good towns that you have taken and violated in France. She has come here by God\u0026rsquo;s command to reclaim the royal blood. She is entirely ready to make peace, if you wish to do her justice, provided that you lay down France and pay for what you have held. And among you, archers, companions in arms, nobles and others who are before the town of Orléans, go away into your own country, by God\u0026rsquo;s command; and if you do not do so, await the news of the Maid, who will come to see you shortly, to your very great detriment. King of England, if you do not do so, I am a war leader, and wherever I find your people in France, I will make them leave, whether they want to or not; and if they do not want to obey, I will have them all killed. I am sent here by God, the King of Heaven, body for body, to drive you out of all France. And if they want to obey, I will take them to mercy. And do not hold in your opinion that you will not hold the kingdom of France, God, the King of Heaven, Son of Holy Mary; rather, King Charles, the true heir, will hold it; for God, the King of Heaven, wills it, and it is revealed to him by the Maid; who will enter Paris with a good company. If you do not want to believe the news from God and the Maid, wherever we find you, we will make such a great uproar within and there, that for a thousand years there has not been such a great one in France, if you do not do justice. And believe firmly that the King of Heaven sends more force to the Maid than you can bring against her in all assaults, to her and to her good men-at-arms; and in the blows, it will be seen who has the better right from God of Heaven. You, Duke of Bedford, the Maid prays and requests you not to destroy yourselves. If you do her justice, you can still come into her company, where the French will do the most beautiful deed that was ever done for Christendom. And make a response if you want to make peace in the city of Orléans; and if you do not do so, remember your very great damages shortly. Written this Tuesday of Holy Week.\n(1) Thus in Ms. 5966. Ms. 5965 reads Saturday, but erroneously.\nTo this article, which is the tenor of the aforesaid letters, Joan responded that, if the English had believed her letters, they would have acted wisely; and that within seven years, they will clearly perceive what she wrote to them; and that concerning this, she refers to the answer she made elsewhere.\nXXIII. FROM the tenor of which letters, it clearly appears that the said Joan was deluded by evil spirits, and that she frequently consults them in her actions, or, to deceive the people, perniciously and falsely invents such fictions.\nTo this article, she responded, as to the end of the twenty-third article, which mentions that she did these things by the counsel of evil spirits: she denies it.\nItem, on Tuesday, February 27, she said that she would rather be torn apart by horses than have come to France without God\u0026rsquo;s permission.\nXXIV. ITEM, the said Joan abused these names, Jesus Maria, with the sign of the cross inserted, by giving a sign to some of her people that, when they found such words with a cross in her letters on her behalf, they should believe the opposite of what she wrote, and also do the opposite.\nTo this article, on Tuesday, March 27, Joan responded that she refers to the answer she made elsewhere concerning this.\n(1) Likewise in Guillaume Manchon’s minute.\nOn Saturday, March 17, asked what purpose the sign she placed in her letters, Jesus Maria, served: she responded that the scribes writing her letters placed it, and some said that it was fitting to place those two names, Jesus Maria.\nAnd as to the article mentioning that she did these things by the counsel of evil spirits, she denies it.\n(2) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, v°.\nXXV. ITEM, the said Joan, usurping the office of angels, said and asserted that she had been and was sent by God, even for those things which entirely tend to acts of violence and the shedding of human blood. Which is entirely alien to holiness, and is horrifying and abominable to every pious mind.\nTo this article, on the said Tuesday, March 27, Joan responded that she first requested that peace be made, and in case peace was not made, she was ready to fight.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that she first requested that peace be made, and that, if they would not make peace, she was entirely ready to fight. (1) On Saturday, February 24, she confessed that she had come from God, and that in the judgment in which she was before us, she had nothing to do or negotiate; and that she should be sent back to God from whom she came.\nItem, on Saturday, March 17, she said that God sent her to the aid of the King of France.\nXXVI. ITEM, the aforesaid Joan, being at Compiègne, in the year of our Lord one thousand four hundred twenty-nine, in the month of August, received letters from the Count of Armagnac, the tenor of which will follow below.\nTo this article, on March 27, the aforesaid Joan responded that she refers to the answer she made elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe refers to her answer. (2) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, v°.\n(2) Ibid.\nItem, on Thursday, March 1, asked whether she had received letters from the Count of Armagnac, mentioning to whom, of the three contenders for the papacy, she should obey: she responded that the Count himself wrote her certain letters concerning this matter; to which matter she gave an answer, among other things, that when she was in Paris or elsewhere at rest, she would give an answer. And then she wanted to mount her horse when she gave that answer. — After the reading of these letters from the Count and Joan, she was asked if it was her answer. She responded that she thought she had made that answer, that is, part of it, but not all. — Asked if she said she knew by the counsel of the King of kings what she ought to believe concerning this: she responded that she knew nothing about this. — Asked if she doubted whom the Count himself ought to obey: she responded that, concerning this, she did not know what to command as to whom he ought to obey, because he asked to know whom our Lord wanted him to obey; but as for her, she holds and believes that our lord the Roman Pontiff ought to be obeyed. Item, she said that she told the messenger something else that is not contained in the letters; and, if he had not left quickly, he would have been thrown into the river, though not by her. Item, she said that, concerning what he asked to know whom he should obey, according to God\u0026rsquo;s good pleasure, she responded that she did not know this; and she sent him many things that were not written; and as for her, she believes in the Roman Pontiff. — Asked why she wrote that she would give another answer, since she believed in the Roman Pontiff: she responded that the answer she gave was on another matter than that of the three popes. — Asked what it was, that she would have counsel on the matter of the three popes: she responded that she never wrote or caused to be written anything on the matter of the three popes; and, under oath, she asserted that she had never written or caused to be written anything concerning this.\nXXVII. My very dear lady, I humbly commend myself to you and beg you for God\u0026rsquo;s sake that, considering the division that is presently in the universal Holy Church, concerning the matter of the popes (for there are three contenders for the papacy: one resides in Rome, who calls himself Martin V, whom all Christian kings obey; the other resides in Peñíscola, in the kingdom of Valencia, who calls himself Pope Clement VIII; the third, it is not known where he resides, except only the Cardinal of Saint-Étienne and a few people with him, who calls himself Pope Benedict XIV; the first, who calls himself Pope Martin, was elected in Constance by the consent of all Christian nations; the one who calls himself Clement was elected in Peñíscola, after the death of Pope Benedict XIII, by three of his cardinals; the third, who calls himself Pope Benedict XIV, was elected secretly in Peñíscola, even by the Cardinal of Saint-Étienne): please supplicate our Lord Jesus Christ that, by his infinite mercy, he would declare to us through you which of the three aforesaid is the true Pope, and whom it will please him that we obey from now on, whether him who calls himself Martin, or him who calls himself Clement, or him who calls himself Benedict; and whom we ought to believe, whether secretly or by some dissimulation, or publicly and manifestly; for we shall all be ready to do the will and pleasure of our Lord Jesus Christ.\nYour devoted Count of Armagnac.\n(1) This letter is undated. It must have been written in July, probably before Clement VIII’s resignation on 26 July 1429, since the Count of Armagnac, then on the Spanish frontier, did not even suspect that this might occur.\nXXVIII. To which Count of Armagnac, the said Joan made a response by letters, signed with her own hand, the tenor of which follows:\nXXIX. Jhesus Maria.\nCount of Armagnac, my very dear and good friend, Joan the Maid makes known to you that your messenger has come to me, who told me that you had sent him here to know from me which of the three popes, whom you mention in your memorandum, you should believe. Concerning this, I cannot truly inform you for the present, until I am in Paris or elsewhere, at rest; for I am for the present too occupied with the business of war; but when you know that I am in Paris, send a messenger to me, and I will let you know truly whom you should believe, and what I shall have learned by the counsel of my rightful and sovereign Lord, the King of all the world, and what you will have to do, to the best of my power. I commend you to God; may God keep you. Written at Compiègne, the 22nd day of August.\nXXX. And so, the said Joan, being requested by the Count of Armagnac, as aforesaid, as to which of the three aforementioned should be held for the true Pope, and in whom one should believe, not only was she doubtful as to who he was, although there is only one undoubted one; but truly, presuming too much of herself, and holding lightly the authority of the universal Church, wishing to prefer her own word to the authority of the whole Church, she asserted that, within a certain subsequent period, she would respond in whom one should believe; and this, according to what she would find by the counsel of God, as more fully appears from her letters.\nTo articles XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, exposed to her word for word, she refers to her answer made elsewhere concerning this, which is placed under article XXVI.\nManchon’s French minute:\nAs to Article XXVII and the Count of Armagnac’s letters, she refers to her answer. As to Articles XXVIII and XXIX, she refers to her answer. As to Article XXX, she refers to the answer she previously gave. (1) [March 28. The reading of the articles is completed.]\nManchon’s French minute — Wednesday after Palm Sunday, 28 March 1431:\nFirst required to take the oath, she replied that she would willingly tell the truth about the matters touching the proceedings, and she then swore. As to the article concerning clothing and armour, she replied that she had worn both men’s clothing and armour with God’s permission. Asked whether she would lay aside her clothing, she replied that she would not lay it aside without Our Lord’s permission, even if they were to cut off her head; but, if it pleased Our Lord, it would soon be laid aside. She added that, without Our Lord’s permission, she would not take women’s clothing. (2) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, v°.\n(2) Ibid. The answers that follow relate to an incident not recorded in the Latin version, but announced on page 226 by the accused’s promise to answer the next day concerning Article XIV.\nXXXI. ITEM, the said Joan, from the time of her youth and thereafter, boasted, and from day to day boasts, that she had and has many revelations and visions, concerning which, although charitably admonished and otherwise duly and legally requested under oath, she has made or wished to make, or wishes to make, no faith; indeed, she has not sufficiently declared them by word or sign; but she has deferred, contradicted, and refused to do so, and defers, contradicts, and refuses; and formally contradicting, she sometimes and often said and asserted, in judgment and out of it, that she would not reveal such revelations and visions even to you, if her head were to be cut off, or her limbs divided; nor would the sign that God had revealed to her, and by which it was known that she came from God, be extracted from her mouth.\nTo this article, she responded that, as to revealing the sign and other things contained in the article, she could well have said that she would not reveal it; and she adds that in her confession made elsewhere, it should be understood that, without our Lord\u0026rsquo;s permission, she would not reveal that sign.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied concerning this article that, as to revealing the sign or the other matters contained in it, she might well have said that she would not reveal them. She added that her earlier confession should be understood to mean that she would not reveal the sign without Our Lord’s permission. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, v°.\nItem, on Thursday, February 22, she said that there is no day that she does not hear those voices; and she also greatly needs them.\nItem, on Saturday, February 23, she said that the voice told her many things that night for the good of her King, which she would want the King himself to know that day, and that he should not drink wine until Easter; and he would be happier at dinner because of it.\nItem, on Tuesday, February 27, she said that she told her King everything at once that had been revealed to her, because she was going to him. Item, on that Tuesday, she said that she sent letters to her King, and it was contained therein that she was sending to know if she would enter the town where he was; and that she had already traveled well over one hundred and fifty leagues to come to him, to his aid; and that she knew many good things for him; and it seems to her that it was contained therein that she would recognize him well among all others.\nItem, on Thursday, March 1, asked in what form Saint Michael was: she responded that she did not see a crown on him; and of his garments, she knows nothing. — Asked if Saint Michael was naked: she responded: Do you think that our Lord Jesus does not have wherewith to clothe him?\nItem, on March 15, asked what she would say about how she believed she escaped from the castle of Beaulieu, between two pieces of wood: she responded that she was never a prisoner in any place from which she would not gladly have escaped; and, being in that castle, she would have locked her guards inside the tower, if it had not been for the porter, who saw her and met her. Item, she also said to this, that it seemed to her that it did not please God that she should escape that time, and that it was necessary for her to see the King of England, as her voices told her, as was said above. Item, on the said Thursday, asked about the size and stature of the angel appearing to her: she said that she would respond on Saturday, with another matter about which she must respond, namely what would please God concerning these things. — On that day, asked, since she said that she is suspended for speaking the truth, if she knew in herself any crime or defect, because of which she might doubt dying, if she confessed them: she responded that no.\nItem, on Saturday, March 17, asked about the age and garments of Saints Catherine and Margaret: she responded: You have been answered concerning this, what you will have from me concerning these things; nor will you have anything else from it; and concerning these things, I have answered you everything to the most certain of what I know.\nXXXII. ITEM, that by these things you can and ought strongly to presume that those revelations and visions, if the said Joan had any, rather came from lying and evil spirits than from good ones; and thus it must be held by all, especially considering the severity, pride, demeanor, deeds, lies, and contradictory conditions in many and diverse articles declared here, which are truly and ought to be called presumptions of law and by right.\nTo this article, on Wednesday after Palm Sunday, March 28, she responded that she denies it; but she did it by the revelation of Saints Catherine and Margaret; and she will maintain this until death. Item, on that day, she said that she was advised by some on her side to put Jesus Maria; and in some of her letters, she put those names, and in others not. Item, she said, as to that point where it is written, Whatever she did, this is by the counsel of our Lord, that it should be understood: All that I have done well, in French, that it should be: All the good that I have done.\nAsked, on that day, if, when she went before the town of La Charité, she did well or ill: she responded that, if she did ill, she would confess it.\nAsked if she did well in going before Paris: she responded that the nobles of France wanted to go before Paris; and in doing this, it seems to her that they did their duty, going against their adversaries.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe denied the article, saying that she had acted by revelation from Saints Catherine and Margaret and would maintain this until death. She said that some of her party had advised her to place Jesus Maria in her letters; she used those names in some letters and not in others. As to the words Everything she did was by Our Lord’s counsel, she said that they should read, Everything I have done well. Asked whether she had done well or ill in going to La Charité, she replied that, if she had done ill, she would confess it. Asked whether she had done well in going before Paris, she replied that the nobles of France wished to go there and that, in doing so, they seemed to her to have done their duty by going against their enemies. (1) XXXIII. ITEM, that the said Joan presumptuously and rashly boasted and boasts that she foreknows future things, foreknew past things, and hidden or latent present things; which is attributed to divinity, attributing it to herself, a simple and unlearned human creature.\nTo this article, on the same Wednesday, March 28, she responded: It is for our Lord to reveal to whom it pleases him; and that, concerning the sword and other future things she spoke of, this is by revelation.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that it belongs to Our Lord to reveal things to whomever He pleases, and that what she had said concerning the sword and other future things was by revelation. (2) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, v°.\n(2) Ibid.\nItem, on Saturday, February 24, she says that the Burgundians will have war unless they do what they ought; and she knows this by voices.\nItem, on Tuesday, February 27, asked if, when she came to the assault before the bastille of Orléans, she told her people that she would receive arrows, bolts, and cannon stones: she responded that no; rather, there were well over a hundred or more wounded there. And she certainly told her people not to doubt, and that they would lift the siege. — Asked on that day, before which bastille she made her people withdraw: she responded that she does not remember this. She also says that she was quite certain that she would lift the siege of Orléans, by revelation made to her; and she had also told this to her King, before she came there. Item, she says that, in the assault on the bastille of the Bridge, she was wounded in the neck by a bolt; but then she received great consolation from Saint Catherine, and was healed within fifteen days; nor did she cease to ride or work because of this. — Asked if she foreknew that she would be wounded: she responded that she knew this well, and had told her King; but, notwithstanding this, she would not cease to work further. And this had been revealed to her by the voices of Saints Catherine and Margaret. She also says that she was the first to place a ladder up, on the bastille of the Bridge; and in raising it, she was wounded in the neck by a bolt.\nOn Thursday, March 1, she says that within seven years, the English will lose a greater pledge than they did before the town of Orléans; and that they will lose everything in France. Item, she said that they will suffer a greater loss than they have ever had in France; and it will be by a great victory that our Lord will send to the French. And she knows these things by revelation made to her; and that the aforesaid will happen within seven years; and she would be very sorry if it were delayed so long. Item, she says, as before, that she knows this by revelation, and she knows it as well as that we, the Bishop of Beauvais, were before her, saying in French: I know it as surely as you are here.. — Asked in what year: she responded: You will not have this yet, but I would wish that it were before the feast of Saint John. — On that day, asked if she said that this would happen within the feast of Saint Martin in winter: she responded that she said that many things would be seen within the feast of Saint Martin; and it may be that there will be English who will fall, or be cast down to the ground. — Asked what she said to John Gris, her guard, in prison, about that feast of Saint Martin: she responded: I told you. — Asked by whom she knows that future thing: she responded that by Saints Catherine and Margaret. — Item, on Thursday, March 1, asked what promises Saints Catherine and Margaret made to her: she responded: This is not at all part of these proceedings. Of some things they told her that her King would be restored to his kingdom, whether his adversaries wished it or not. Item, on that day, she said that she knows well that her King will gain his kingdom; and that she knows it as well as she knows us to be there.\nOn Saturday, March 3, asked if her voices told her anything in general about her escape and liberation: she responded that yes, Truly, they told me that I would be liberated; but I do not know the day or the hour; and that I would bravely put on a good face.\nOn Saturday, March 10, asked if she left Compiègne by command of her voices: she responded that, in the last past Easter week, being on the ramparts of Melun, she was told by the voices of Saints Catherine and Margaret that she would be captured before the feast of Saint John, and that it had to happen so; nor should she be astonished by this, and that she should accept everything gratefully, and that God would help her. — On that day, asked if, from that place of Melun, it was afterwards told to her by her voices that she would be captured: she responded that yes, many times, and almost daily, or every day. And she requested of her voices that, when she was captured, she should die immediately, without a long vexation of prison; which voices told her that she should accept it gratefully, and that it had to happen so; but they did not tell her the hour; which if she had known, then she would not have gone. And she had often asked to know the hour, which they did not tell her. On that day, she said that, when she was to depart and go to her King, it was told to her by the voices that she should go boldly, because, when she was with her King, he would have a good sign for receiving her and believing her.\nOn Monday, March 12, asked how she would have liberated the Duke of Orléans: she responded that she would have captured enough English in those parts to recover or ransom him; and, if she had not captured enough, she would have crossed the sea to go seek him in England, with power. — Asked if Saints Catherine and Margaret told her unconditionally and absolutely that she would capture enough people to have the Duke of Orléans, who was in England, or otherwise that she would cross the sea to go seek him and bring him within three years: she responded that yes; and that she told her King to let her deal with the prisoners. She further said of herself that, if she had lasted three years without impediment, she would have liberated him. Item, she said that she had a shorter term than three years, and a longer one than one year; but of this, for the present, she has no memory.\nOn Wednesday, March 14, asked what was the peril or danger in which we and others of the clergy placed ourselves by holding her in trial: she responded that Saint Catherine told her that she would have succor; and she does not know if this will be by release from prison, or if, when she is in judgment, some disturbance will occur there, by means of which she could be liberated; and she thinks that it will be either one or the other; and the voices often tell her that she will be liberated by a great victory. And afterwards her voices tell her to accept it gratefully, and do not care about your martyrdom.\nXXXIV. ITEM, that the said Joan, persevering in her rashness and presumption, said, cried out, and publicly declared that she knew and recognized the voices of Archangels, Angels, Saints, and Holy Women of God, asserting that she knew how to distinguish their voices from human voices.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she said that she adheres to what she said elsewhere concerning this; and concerning the rashness and conclusion of the article, she refers to God, her judge.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that she adhered to what she had said about this. As to the rashness and the conclusion of the article, she referred herself to Our Lord, her judge. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, v°.\nItem, on Tuesday, February 27, asked if it was the voice of an Angel, or a Saint, or God, without intermediary, that spoke to her: she responded that that voice is of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret; and their figures are crowned with beautiful crowns, very richly and very preciously; And concerning this, she said, I have permission from the Lord; and if you doubt this, send to Poitiers, where I was questioned elsewhere. — Item, on the same day, asked how she well recognizes one of those Saints from another: she responded that she recognizes them by the greeting they give her. Item, she said that she recognizes them by the fact that they name themselves to her.\nItem, on Thursday, March 1, asked how she knows whether it is a man or a woman who appears to her: she responded: I know and recognize those Saints well by their voices; and that they revealed themselves to her. — On the same day, asked what figure she sees: she responded that she sees a face. — Asked if they have hair: she responded: It is good to know, in French Il est bon à savoir. — Asked if there was anything between the crowns and the hair: she responded that no. — Asked if the hair was long and hanging: she responded: I know nothing. Item, she said that she does not know if they had any arms, or if other members were figured. Item, she said that they spoke very well and beautifully; and she also understood them very well. — Item, asked how they spoke, when they had no members: she responded: I await myself to God.\nItem, on March 15, asked if there was another sign that they were good spirits who appeared to her: she responded: Saint Michael certified me, before the voices came to me. — Asked how she knew that it was Saint Michael: she responded: By the speech and language of Angels; and she firmly believes that they were Angels. — Asked how she believed that it was the language of Angels: she responded that she believed it quite readily, and had that will to believe it. And she further said that, when Saint Michael came to her, he told her that Saints Catherine and Margaret would come to her, and that she should act by their counsel; and they were ordained to guide her and advise her in what she had to do; and that she should believe them in what they would tell her; and that this was by the command of the Lord. — Asked if the Devil would put himself in the form or figure of an angel, how she would know whether it was a good angel or a bad one: she responded that she would know well if it was Saint Michael, or something fabricated in his place or like him. Item, she responded that, the first time, she had great doubt if it was Saint Michael, and the first time she had great fear; and she saw him many times before she knew that it was Saint Michael. — Item, asked why she recognized more quickly that it was Saint Michael, that time when she believed it to be him, than she had the first time: she responded that, the first time, she was a young child, and had fear; and afterwards Saint Michael himself taught her, and showed her so much, that she firmly believed that it was he. — Asked what doctrine he taught her: she responded that above all, he told her to be good, and that God would help her; and among other things, he said that she would come to the aid of the King of France; and a major part of what the angel taught her is in this book; and the angel recounted to her the misery that was in the kingdom of France.\nXXXV. ITEM, the same Joan boasted and asserted that she knew how to discern which men God loves or hates more.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded: I adhere to what I answered elsewhere, concerning the King and the Duke of Orléans; of other people, she knows nothing. Item, she said that she knows well that God loves her King and the Duke of Orléans more than herself, for the comfort of their bodies; and she said that she knows this by revelation.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I adhere to what I answered before concerning the King and the Duke of Orléans. Of other people, she knew nothing. She said that she knew well that God loved her King and the Duke of Orléans more than He loved her, for their bodily comfort, and that she knew this by revelation. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 28, v°.\nItem, on Thursday, February 22, she said that she knows well that God loves the Duke of Orléans well; and also that she had had more revelations about that Duke than about any living man, except her King.\nItem, on Saturday, February 24, asked whether she could do so much with the voice appearing to her that it would obey her and carry a message to her King: she responded that she does not know if it would obey, unless it was God\u0026rsquo;s will, and that God consented; and if it pleases God, he can well cause it to be revealed to the King; and concerning this, she would be well content. — Asked why that voice does not speak with her King now, as it did when the same Joan was in his presence: she responded that she does not know if it is God\u0026rsquo;s will.\nItem, on Saturday, March 17, asked whether she knows that Saints Catherine and Margaret hate the English: she responded that they love what God loves, and hate what God hates. — Asked if God hates the English: she responded that, concerning the love or hatred God has for the English, or what God will do to their souls, she knows nothing; but she knows well that they will be expelled from France, except for those who will die; and that God will send victory to the French against the English. — Asked whether God was for the English when they had prosperity in France: she responded that she does not know if God then hated the French; but she believes that he wanted to permit them to be struck for their sins, if they were in sins.\nXXXVI. ITEM, the said Joan said, asserted, and boasted concerning this, and says, asserts, and from day to day boasts, that she truly knew and knows that, not only she, but also other men, at her instance, recognized and truly knew a certain voice, which she called her own, coming to her; although, by its nature, such a voice, which she declared and declares, was and is invisible to human creatures.\nTo this article, she responded that she adheres to what she said elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that she adhered to what she had answered before concerning this. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nItem, on Thursday, February 22, she said that those on her side well knew that the voice appearing to her was from God, and that they saw and recognized that voice; and that Joan herself knows well. Item, she said that her King and many others heard and saw the voices that came to her; and Charles of Bourbon was there, and two or three others.\nXXXVII. ITEM, that the said Joan confesses that she frequently acted contrary to what had been commanded and ordained for her by those revelations, which she boasts of having from God; for example, when she departed from Saint-Denis, after the Parisian assault; when she jumped from the tower of Beaurevoir; and in certain other instances. In which it is manifest that either she did not have revelations from God, or that she despised the express commands and revelations by which she says she is ruled and governed in all things. And she further said that, when she had the command not to jump from the tower, she was tempted to do the opposite, and that she could not do otherwise. In which she seems to err concerning the freedom of human will, and to fall into the error of those who hold it to be necessitated by fatal dispositions or something similar.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded: I adhere to what I answered elsewhere concerning this. Nevertheless, she added that, in her departure from Saint-Denis, she had permission to depart.\nAsked if, by acting against the command of her voices, she believes she would commit a mortal sin: she responded: I have answered elsewhere, and I adhere to the said answer. And concerning the conclusion of the article, she refers to God.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I adhere to what I answered before concerning this. Nevertheless, she added that, when she left Saint-Denis, she had permission to leave. Asked whether she believed that acting against the command of her voices would be a mortal sin, she replied: I answered this before, and I adhere to that answer. As to the conclusion of the article, she referred herself to Our Lord. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nOn Thursday, February 22, she said that the voice told her to remain at Saint-Denis; but, against her will, the lords led her out; and if she had not been wounded, she would not have departed. And she was wounded in the Parisian moats. Item, she said that, in five days, she was healed.\nItem, asked on Saturday, March 10, if her voices had commanded her to leave Compiègne, and had signified that she would be captured, whether she would have gone to the place where she was captured: she responded that if she had known the hour, and that she was to be captured, she would not have gone willingly; nevertheless, she would ultimately have obeyed the command of her voices, whatever might have happened to her because of it.\nItem, on Thursday, March 15, asked if she ever did anything against the command and will of her voices: she responded that what she could and knew how to do, she did and accomplished to the best of her ability. And as for the jump from the tower of Beaurevoir, which she made against the command of her voices, she could not restrain herself; and when the voices saw her necessity, and that she did not know and could not restrain herself, they succored her life and preserved her from killing herself. And she further said that, whatever she ever did, those voices always succored her in her great undertakings; and this is a sign that they are good spirits. — Item, on the same day, asked if she believes it to be a great sin to offend Saints Catherine and Margaret who appear to her, and to act against their command: she said that yes, who knows how to amend this; and that the thing in which she ever most offended them, was in the aforesaid jump, as it seems to her; and for this she asked their forgiveness, and for other offenses she may have committed against them.\nXXXVIII. ITEM, the said Joan, although from the time of her youth, she said, did, and perpetrated many evil, shameful, cruel, scandalous, opprobrious, and unbefitting her sex crimes, sins, and offenses: nevertheless, she said and asserted that whatever she did, she did by God\u0026rsquo;s command and by his will; and that she did or does nothing that does not come from God, and by the revelations of holy angels and holy virgins Catherine and Margaret.\nTo this article, she responded that she refers to what she said elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that she referred herself to what she had said before concerning this. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nItem, on Saturday, February 24, she said that, if it were not for God\u0026rsquo;s grace, she would know nothing to do. — Item, the same, asked if those of Domrémy held the side of the Burgundians or others: she responded that she knew no Burgundian in that village, except one, whom she would have wished to have his head cut off, if it had pleased God. — Asked if the voice told her in her youth that she should hate the Burgundians: she responded that, after she understood the voices, that they were for the King of France, she did not love the Burgundians.\nAsked, on Thursday, March 15, if she had done anything in the matter of war without the counsel of her voices: she responded: You have had the whole answer; and read your book well, you will find it. And nevertheless she said that, at the request of the men-at-arms, a valiant deed of arms was done before Paris; and she also went before the town of La Charité, at the request of her King; and it was neither against nor by the command of her voices. — Asked if she ever did anything else against the command and will of her voices: she responded what was stated in the preceding article.\nXXXIX. ITEM, although a just man falls seven times a day, etc., the said Joan nevertheless said and publicly declared that she had never committed, or at least believed she had not committed, mortal sins; although she did in fact perform all the acts customary for warlike people, and more, as is declared in several preceding and following articles. To this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded: I have answered, and I refer to what I said elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I have answered this, and I refer to what I said before concerning it. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nItem, on Saturday, February 24, asked whether she knows that she is in God\u0026rsquo;s grace: she responded that, if she is not, may God put her there; and, if she is, may God keep her. And she said that she would be very sorry if she knew herself not to be in God\u0026rsquo;s grace. She further said that, if she were in great sin, she believes that the voice would not come to her; and she would wish that everyone understood her voice as well as she does.\nItem, on Thursday, March 1, she said that she has great joy when she sees her voice; and she said that it seems to her that, when she sees it, she is not in mortal sin. Item, she said that Saints Catherine and Margaret gladly make her confess sometimes. Item, she said that, if she is in mortal sin, she does not know. — Asked whether she believes she is ever in mortal sin when she confesses: she responded that she does not know if she has been, nor does she believe she has committed mortal sins; and may it not please God, she said, that I ever should; nor may it please God that I should do works, or that I have done works, by which my soul is burdened.\nItem, on Wednesday, March 14, asked if taking a man for ransom and causing him to die a prisoner is a mortal sin: she responded that she did not do this. And because a word was said to her about one called Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras, who was put to death at Lagny: she responded that she consented to his death, if he deserved it, because he confessed to being a murderer, a thief, and a traitor. And she said that his trial lasted fifteen days; and the judge was the bailiff of Senlis and the men of justice of Lagny. And she said that she requested to have that Franquet for a man from Paris, a guest of the house at the Bear, and when she knew that that man was dead, and that the bailiff told her that she wanted to do a great injustice to justice by delivering that Franquet, she said to the bailiff: Since my man, whom I wanted to have, is dead, do with this one what you ought to do by justice. And when it was brought back to her memory that she had invaded the city of Paris on a feast day; that she had had the horse of the lord Bishop of Senlis; that she let herself fall from the tower of Beaurevoir; that she wears male attire; that she consented to the death of Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras; whether she believes she committed mortal sin: she responded, to the first, concerning the invasion of Paris, that she does not believe she is in mortal sin for it; and if she committed mortal sin, this is to be known by God and the priest, in confession. To the second, concerning the horse of the lord Bishop of Senlis, she responded that she believes she did not sin in this, because the aforesaid lord Bishop of Senlis had an assignment for the said horse of two hundred gold saluts. To the third, namely concerning the tower, she responded that she did not make that jump out of desperation, but in the hope of saving her body, and of succoring many good people who were in need; and, after the jump, she confessed and asked forgiveness from God, and received forgiveness from him; and she believes that it was a wrongdoing to make that jump. Item, she said that she knows she received forgiveness, after she confessed, by the revelation of Saint Catherine, by whose counsel she went to confession. To the fourth, concerning male attire, etc., she responded: Since I do that by God\u0026rsquo;s command and in his service, I do not believe I do wrong; and when it pleases him to command, it will immediately be removed.\nXL. ITEM, that the said Joan, unmindful of her salvation, and at the instigation of the devil, is not nor was ashamed, repeatedly, to receive the body of Christ, in diverse and many places, in male and dissolute attire, and forbidden and prohibited to her by the command of God and the Church.\nTo this article, she responded that she answered elsewhere concerning this, and refers to what she said elsewhere concerning this; and also refers to God, concerning the conclusion of the article.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I have answered this; I refer to what I said before concerning it. As to the conclusion, she referred herself to Our Lord. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nAsked, on Saturday, March 3, when she traveled through the country, if she often received the sacrament of penance and the Eucharist when she came into good towns: she responded that yes, sometimes. — Asked if she received the aforesaid sacraments in male attire: she responded that yes; but she does not remember having received them in armor.\nXLI. ITEM, that the said Joan, as if desperate, out of hatred and contempt for the English, and also because of the destruction of Compiègne which she had heard was to come, attempted to throw herself from the top of a high tower, and at the instigation of the Devil, fixed this in her mind to do, applied herself to doing this, and did what she could in fact; throwing herself down, also, impelled and led by diabolical instinct, so that she intended rather the liberation of bodies than of her own soul and those of many others; often boasting that she would rather kill herself than allow herself to be delivered into the hands of the English.\nTo this article, she responded that she refers to what she said elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I refer to what I said before concerning this. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nAsked, on Saturday, March 3, whether she was long in the tower of Beaurevoir: she responded that she was there for four months, or thereabouts; and when she knew the English had come, she was very angry; and nevertheless the voices had forbidden her many times to jump; and finally, out of fear of the English, she jumped, and commended herself to God and the Blessed Mary. — Item, asked whether she said that she would rather die than be in the hands of the English: she responded that she said she would prefer to render her soul to God than to be in the hands of the English.\nAsked, on Wednesday, March 14, what was the reason why she jumped from the tower of Beaurevoir: she responded that she had heard it said that those of Compiègne, all from seven years old downwards, were to be put to fire and blood; and she preferred to die than to live after such a destruction of good people; and this was one cause of her jump; another was, because she knew she was sold to the English, and she would have preferred to die than to be in their hands. — Asked if she made that jump by the counsel of her voices: she responded that Saint Catherine told her almost every day not to jump, and that God would help her and those of Compiègne; and the said Joan told Saint Catherine that, since God would help those of Compiègne, she wanted to be there; and Saint Catherine said: It is necessary without fail that you be captured willingly; and you will not be liberated until you see the King of England. And Joan responded: Truly, I would not want to see him, and I would rather die than be placed in the hands of the English. Item, she said that, after she fell from the tower, for two or three days she did not want to eat; and because she was distressed by the jump, she could neither drink nor eat; and nevertheless she was comforted by Saint Catherine, who told her to confess and ask forgiveness from God for having jumped; and that those of Compiègne would without fail have succor before the feast of Saint Martin in winter; and then she began to eat and drink, and was immediately healed. — Asked if, when she regained speech after the said jump, she denied God and the Saints: she responded that she does not remember ever having denied God or the Saints. — Asked if she wishes to refer concerning this to the information made or to be made: she responded that she refers to God, and to no other.\n(1) Thus in the text. In French, tous faille [without fail].\nXLII. ITEM, that the said Joan said and publicly declared that Saints Catherine and Margaret and Saint Michael have corporeal members, that is, head, eyes, faces, hair, and the like; and, with this, she said that she had touched the aforesaid Saints with her hands, and had embraced and kissed them.\nTo this article, she responded that she answered elsewhere concerning this, and that she refers to what she said elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I have answered this, and I refer to what I have said about it. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nItem, on Saturday, March 17, asked if she ever kissed or embraced Saints Catherine and Margaret: she responded that she embraced both, and that they smelled good. — Asked if, in embracing, she felt warmth or anything else: she responded that she could not embrace them, in French accoler, without feeling and touching them. — Asked by which part she embraced them, whether by the lower or by the upper: she responded that it is more fitting to embrace them by the lower than by the upper.\nXLIII. ITEM, that the said Joan said and publicly declared that the Saints, male and female, Angels and Archangels, speak the French language and not the English, because the Saints, male and female, Angels and Archangels are not on the side of the English, but of the French; asserting that the Saints, male and female, who are in glory, to their insult, hold one Catholic kingdom and a people dedicated to the veneration of all Saints, according to the ordinance of the Church, in mortal hatred.\nTo this article, exposed to her word for word, she responded nothing else than that she refers to God and to what she answered elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I refer myself to Our Lord and to what I have answered concerning this. (1) On Thursday, March 1, she said that the voice is beautiful, sweet, and humble, and speaks the language of France. — Asked if that voice, namely Saint Margaret, speaks English: she responded: How would she speak English? She is not on the side of the English.\nXLIV. ITEM, that the said Joan boasted and boasts, published and publishes that Saints Catherine and Margaret promised her to lead her to paradise, and certified her that she would attain blessedness if she preserved her virginity; and that she is secure concerning this.\nTo this article, she responded that she refers, concerning this, to our Lord, and to what she answered elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I refer myself to Our Lord and to what I have answered concerning this. (2) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\n(2) Ibid.\nItem, on Thursday, February 22, she said that she never requested any other reward from her voice or revelation in the end, except the salvation of her soul. — Asked if, since her voices told her that she would go to the kingdom of paradise in the end, she holds herself secure of being saved, and that she will not be damned to hell: she responded that she firmly believes what her voices told her, namely that she will be saved; and as firmly as if she were now in the kingdom of heaven. And when it was said to Joan that that answer was of great weight: she also responded that she holds it for a great treasure; and she said, as to that article: provided that she keeps the oath and promise she made to our Lord, namely that she would well preserve her virginity of body and soul. — Asked if, after this revelation, she believes or can commit mortal sin: she responded concerning this: I know nothing; but concerning this, I refer myself entirely to our Lord. — Item, asked whether it is necessary for her to confess, since she believes, by the revelation of her voices, that she will be saved: she responded that she does not know herself to have sinned mortally; but, if she were in mortal sin, she thinks that Saints Catherine and Margaret would immediately abandon her; believing that she would not know how to cleanse her conscience too much.\nItem, on Thursday, March 1, she said that the aforesaid Saints promised to lead her to paradise; which she also requested from them.\n(1) These answers are not from February 22, but from March 14. See pp. 156–157.\nXLV. ITEM, although God\u0026rsquo;s judgments are for us most inscrutable, nevertheless the said Joan said, uttered, recited, and promulgated that she knew and knows who are saints, male and female, archangels, angels, or chosen by God; and to discern which of them is such.\nTo this article, she responded that she refers to what she answered elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I refer to what I have answered concerning this. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nItem, asked on Tuesday, February 27, how or in what manner she knows that those two are Saints Catherine and Margaret, who appear to her, and how she recognizes one from the other: she responded that they are those same ones, and she recognizes one from the other well.\nItem, on Thursday, March 1, asked if those Saints always appear to her in the same attire: she responded that always in one and the same form; and their figures are richly crowned; and of other attire she does not speak, nor does she know anything of their robes.\nItem, on Saturday, March 3, she said of Saints Catherine and Margaret and others appearing to her, that she saw them so well that she knows them to be Saints, male and female, in paradise.\nXLVI. ITEM, she said that she very affectionately requested Saints Catherine and Margaret for those of Compiègne, before she jumped, saying to them among other things by way of complaint, in this manner: And how! will God thus let those of Compiègne, who are so loyal, die so badly! In which appeared her impatience and irreverence towards God and the Saints.\nTo this article, she responded that she refers to what she answered elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I refer to what I have answered concerning this. (2) On Saturday, March 3, she said that, after she was injured after the jump from the tower of Beaurevoir, the voice of Saint Catherine told her to put on a good face and that she would be healed, and that those of Compiègne would have succor. Item, she said that she often prayed for those of Compiègne with her counsel.\n(1) On this point she gave a more definite answer than the accusation reports. See above, p. 151.\n(2) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nXLVII. ITEM, the said Joan, ill-content with the injury that befell her from the fall or jump made from the tower of Beaurevoir, and because she had not attained her desire, blasphemed God, the Saints, male and female, contemptuously denied them, and lightly and with honor despised those present there; and also, after she was in the Castle of Rouen, many times and on diverse days, she blasphemed and denied God, the Blessed Virgin, the Saints, male and female, bearing impatiently and detesting that she should be placed in the judgment of ecclesiastical men, and be treated in the same.\nTo this article, she responded that she refers to our Lord; and to what she answered elsewhere concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I hold to Our Lord and to what I have answered concerning this. (3) (3) Ibid.\nOn Saturday, March 3, asked if, after the jump from the tower, she was disturbed and angry, and if she blasphemed the name of God: she responded that she never cursed a Saint, male or female, and that she is not accustomed to swearing. — Asked about the matter of Soissons, because the captain had surrendered the town and had said that if he held him, he would have him torn into four pieces for having denied God: she responded that she never denied a Saint, male or female, and those who said that, misunderstood.\nItem, on Wednesday, March 14, asked if, after she was in prison, she denied God or cursed him: she responded that no, and that sometimes, when she said, by God’s good will, Saint John, or Our Lady, those who may have reported it, misunderstood.\nXLVIII. ITEM, the said Joan said she believed and believes the spirits appearing to her to be Angels and Archangels and Saints of God, as firmly as she believes the Christian faith and the articles of that faith; although she reports having had no sign that could be sufficient to recognize the aforesaid; nor did she even consult a bishop, curate, or any prelate of the Church, or any ecclesiastical person, as to whether she should give such credence to such spirits; rather, she said she was forbidden by the voices to reveal the aforesaid to anyone, except only first to a captain of men-at-arms and to the aforesaid Charles, and to other purely lay persons. In which, she confesses to believing rashly; and to having an ill understanding of the articles of faith and their firmness; and also to having suspicious revelations, which she wished to conceal from prelates and ecclesiastical men, and rather to reveal to secular persons.\nTo this article, she responded that she answered concerning this, and concerning this she refers to what is written. As for the signs, if those who ask for them are not worthy, she cannot help it; and because of this, she was often in prayer, that it might please God to reveal it to some on that side. And she further said that, concerning believing her revelations, she did not ask counsel of a bishop, curate, or others. Item, she said that she believes it was Saint Michael who appeared to her, because of the good doctrine he showed her.\nAsked whether Saint Michael told her that he was Saint Michael: she responded: I have answered elsewhere concerning this; and, as to the conclusion of the article: I refer myself to our Lord. Item, she said that she believes as firmly as she believes that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered death for us, redeeming us from the pains of hell, that they are Saint Michael, Gabriel, Saints Catherine and Margaret, whom our Lord sent to her, to comfort and advise her.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I have answered this, and I refer to what is written. As to the signs, if those who ask for one are not worthy of it, she cannot help that. She had often prayed that it might please God to reveal the sign to some of her party. She added that she did not ask a bishop, parish priest, or anyone else for advice about believing her revelations. She said that she believed it was Saint Michael because of the good teaching he gave her. (1)\nAsked whether Saint Michael said to her, I am Saint Michael, she replied: I have answered that before. As to the conclusion of the article, she replied: I refer myself to Our Lord. She said that she believed as firmly as she believed that Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered death to redeem us from the pains of hell that these were Saints Michael and Gabriel and Saints Catherine and Margaret, sent to her by Our Lord to comfort and counsel her. (2)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\n(2) Ibid.\nItem, on Saturday, February 24, she said that she firmly believes, and as firmly as she believes the Christian faith and that God redeemed us from the pains of hell, that this voice comes from God and by his ordinance.\nItem, on Saturday, March 3, asked if she believes that Saints Michael and Gabriel have material heads: she responded that she saw them with her own eyes, and believes that they are they, as firmly as God is. — Asked if she believes that God formed them in the heads in which she saw them: she responded: I saw them with my own eyes; nor will I tell you anything else. — Asked if she believes that God formed them in the form and manner in which she saw them: she responded that yes.\nOn Monday, March 12, asked whether she spoke of these visions to her curate or to another ecclesiastical man: she responded that no, but only to Robert de Baudricourt and to her King. And she further said that she was not compelled by her voices to conceal the said visions; but she greatly doubted revealing these things, for fear of the Burgundians, lest they impede her journey; and especially she greatly doubted her father, lest he impede her from making her journey. — Item, on the same day, asked if she thought she did well in departing without the permission of her father and mother, since everyone ought and is bound to honor father and mother: she responded that, in all other things, she well obeyed her father and mother, except for this departure; but afterwards she wrote to them concerning this, and they forgave her.\nXLIX. ITEM, the said Joan, relying solely on her own fantasy, venerated such spirits, kissing the ground over which she said they had passed, also kneeling to the same spirits, embracing and kissing them, and performing other acts of reverence to them, joining her hands in thanks, contracting familiarity with them; although she did not know whether they were good spirits, indeed, considering the said circumstances, they should rather be judged evil spirits than good ones, and appear to be so. Which aforesaid cult and venerations seem to pertain to idolatry, and to a pact made with demons.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded at the beginning: I have answered; and concerning the conclusion: I refer myself to our Lord.\nManchon’s French minute:\nAt the beginning she replied: I have answered this. As to the conclusion, she referred herself to Our Lord. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r°.\nItem, on Saturday, February 24, asked whether she thanked the voice appearing to her, and if she knelt: she responded that she thanked it, being in her bed, and sat in the same bed, and joined her hands; and she said that this was after she requested to have help.\nItem, on Saturday, March 10, asked, when the sign came to her King, what reverence she made there; and if it came from God: she responded that she thanked God, because he put her out of the punishment to be inflicted on her by the clerics of those parts, who argued against her; and she often knelt. — Item, on the same day, asked if her King and she made reverence to the angel when he brought the sign: she responded that yes, as for herself; and she knelt and removed her hood.\nItem, on Monday, March 12, asked, when she promised God to preserve her virginity, whether she spoke to him: she responded that it ought to be sufficient to promise this to those who were sent on behalf of God himself, namely Saints Catherine and Margaret. Item, she said that, the first time she heard her voice, she vowed her virginity, as long as it pleased God; and she was thirteen years old, or thereabouts. — Item, on the same day, asked whether, when she saw Saint Michael and the Angels, she made reverence to them: she responded that yes; and she kissed the ground, after their departure, over which they had passed, making reverence to them.\nItem, on Thursday, March 15, asked whether, when her voices come, she makes reverence to them absolutely, as to a Saint, male or female: she responded that yes; and if she did not do so sometimes, she asked their forgiveness afterwards; nor does she know how to make them as great reverence as is fitting for them, because she firmly believes that they are Saints Catherine and Margaret. And similarly she said of Saint Michael. — Item, on that day, asked if to those Saints who come to her, she made an offering of burning candles or other things, in church or elsewhere, or caused masses to be said: she responded that no, unless it was by offering in mass, in the hand of the priest, in honor of Saint Catherine; and she believes that Saint Catherine is one of those who appeared to her; and she did not light as many candles as she would gladly have done for Saints Catherine and Margaret being in paradise, because she firmly believes that they are those who come to her. — Item, the same, asked whether, when she places these candles before the image of Saint Catherine, she places such candles in honor of that Saint who appeared to her: she responded: I do this in honor of God, the Blessed Mary, and Saint Catherine who is in heaven; nor do I make a difference between Saint Catherine who is in heaven, and her who appears to me. — Item, on the same day, asked if she always does and completes what the voices command her: she responded that, to the best of her ability, she fulfilled the command of the Lord made to her by the voices, concerning what she knows how to understand; nor do they command her anything without the good pleasure of the Lord.\nItem, on Saturday, March 17, asked whether she gave garlands to the Saints appearing to her: she responded that, in honor of those Saints, she often gave garlands to their images or representations in churches; and, as for those who appear to her, she did not give them anything that she remembers. — Item, asked whether, when she placed garlands on that tree of which mention was made elsewhere, she placed them in honor of those who appeared to her: she responded that no. — Item, on that day, asked whether, when the Saints came to her, she made reverence to them, by bending her knees and bowing herself: she responded that yes; and the more she could, she made reverence to them; and she knows well that they are those who are in paradise.\nL. ITEM, the said Joan frequently and daily invokes such spirits, consulting them about her particular actions, such as responding in judgment, and other things. Which seems to pertain to the invocation of demons, and does pertain.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded: I have answered concerning this; and that she will call upon those voices for her help, as long as she lives.\nAsked in what manner she requests them: she responded: I call upon God and Our Lady, that they send me counsel and comfort; and afterwards they send it to me.\nAsked by what words she requests: she responded that she requests in this manner, in French words: Most gentle God, in honour of your holy Passion, I ask you, if you love me, to reveal to me how I should answer these churchmen. I know well the command under which I took up this clothing, but I do not know how I should lay it aside. Therefore, please teach me. And then they immediately come. Item, on that day, she said that she frequently receives news through her voices, concerning us, the Bishop of Beauvais.\nAnd asked what they tell her about us: she responded: I will tell you privately. Item, she said that, on that day, they had come to her three times.\nAsked if they were in her chamber: she responded: I have answered you concerning this; nevertheless, I heard them well. Item, she said that Saints Catherine and Margaret told her the manner in which she ought to respond concerning that habit.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I have answered this, and said that she would call upon them for help as long as she lived. Asked how she called upon them, she replied: I call upon Our Lord and Our Lady to send me counsel and comfort, and then He sends it to me.\nAsked what words she used, she replied: Most gentle God, in honour of your holy Passion, I ask you, if you love me, to reveal what I should answer these churchmen. As to the clothing, I know well the command by which I took it up, but I do not know how I should lay it aside. Therefore, please teach me. They then came at once. She said that her voices often gave her news of the Bishop of Beauvais.\nAsked what they said about him, she replied: I will tell you privately. She said that they had come three times that day. Asked whether they were in her chamber, she replied: I have answered you; nevertheless, I hear them well. She said that Saints Catherine and Margaret had told her how she should answer concerning that clothing. (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, r° and v°.\nItem, on Saturday, February 24, she said that the voice told her to respond boldly; and that, when she awoke from sleep, she asked counsel of that voice concerning what she ought to respond in judgment, telling that voice to ask counsel from the Lord; and the voice said that she should respond boldly, and God would help her. — Item, on the same day, asked whether, before she requested the voice, that voice said any words to her: she responded that the voice said some things which she did not all understand; but after she awoke, she understood that the voice told her to respond boldly. Item, she said that, that night, she had heard the voice saying: Respond boldly.\nItem, on Tuesday, February 27, asked what the voice had told her, after the last past Saturday: she responded that she asked that voice for counsel, concerning some things that had been asked of her in judgment. — Asked if it gave her counsel concerning some things: she responded that, on some points, she had counsel. Item, also that on some points an answer might be asked of her, which she would not give without permission. And, if she responded without permission, perhaps she would not have them as a guarantee; and, when she has permission from the Lord, she will not fear to speak, because she will have a good guarantee. — Item, asked, on that day, how she knows how to make a distinction about responding on some points, and not on others: she responded that, on some points, she asked permission, and on some she had it.\nItem, on Monday, March 12, asked if the Angel failed her, as to worldly goods, because she was captured: she responded that she believes, since it pleases God, that it is for the better that she is captured. — Asked whether the angel failed her in the goods of grace: she responded: How would he fail me, when he comforts me daily? And she understands this comfort to be from Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret. — Asked whether she calls them, or if they come uncalled: she responded that they come frequently without being called; and at other times, if they did not come very quickly, she would ask God to send them. — Item, asked if she ever called them, and they did not come: she responded that she never had need or little need, but that she had them.\nItem, on Tuesday, March 13, asked if, since yesterday, she spoke to Saint Catherine: she responded that since then she heard her, and she told her many times to respond boldly to the judges, concerning what they ask of her, touching the proceedings.\nItem, on Wednesday, March 14, asked if her voices ask for delay in responding: she says that Saint Catherine answers her sometimes, and sometimes Joan herself fails in understanding, because of the disturbance of the prisons and the shouts of her guards; and when she makes a request to Saint Catherine herself, immediately the same Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret make a request to God, and afterwards, by God\u0026rsquo;s command, they give the answer to Joan herself. — Asked, when those Saints come, whether there is light with them, and if she saw light when she heard the voice in the Castle and that she did not know if that voice was in her chamber: she responded that there is no day that they do not come to the castle of Rouen, and they do not come without light; and of that time she heard the voice, but she does not remember if she saw light, nor even if she saw Saint Catherine. Item, she said that she asked her voices for three things: namely, her release; secondly, that God help the French and well guard the towns obedient to them; and the third was the salvation of her soul.\nLI. ITEM, the said Joan does not fear to boast that Saint Michael, the archangel of God, came to her, with a great multitude of angels, at the castle of Chinon, in the house of a certain woman; and, with her, he walked, holding her by the hand, ascending the steps of the castle together, and walking to the chamber of her King; and that the same archangel made reverence to the King himself, bowing before him, accompanied by angels, as aforesaid; some of whom were crowned, others having wings. Which aforesaid things to say of archangels and holy angels, must be considered presumptuous, rash, and fabricated; especially since it is not read that such great reverence or bowing was made by angels and archangels to any pure man, indeed, not even to the Blessed Virgin, the mother of God. And she often also said that Saint Gabriel the archangel came to her, with Blessed Michael, and also sometimes a thousand thousands of angels. The said Joan also boasts that, at her prayer, the aforesaid angel brought with him, in that company of angels, a very precious crown to her King, to be placed upon his head, and now deposited in the treasure of her King; with which, as the said Joan says, her King would have been crowned at Reims, if he had waited certain days; but because of the hasty acceleration of his coronation, he accepted another. And such things are rather fabricated by Joan herself, at the instigation of the Devil, or shown to her by the demon himself in deceptive apparitions, for the illusion of her curiosity, while she seeks things higher than herself and which are beyond the faculty of her condition, than revealed by God.\nTo this article LI, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded that she answered elsewhere concerning the angel who brought the sign; and as to this, that the promoter proposes concerning a thousand thousands of angels, she responded that she does not remember having said it, namely concerning the number; but she certainly said that she was never injured without having great comfort and great help from God and from Saints Catherine and Margaret.\nItem, concerning the crown, she said that she answered elsewhere. And concerning the conclusion of the article, which the promoter puts against her deeds, she refers to God. And also, where the crown was made and fabricated, she refers to God.\nItem, on Tuesday, February 27, asked whether there was any angel above her King\u0026rsquo;s head when she first saw him: she responded: By Saint Mary! if there was any, I do not know and I did not see him. — Asked if there was light there: she responded that there were more than three hundred knights and fifty torches or flambeaux there, and this, without spiritual light; and she rarely has revelations without there being light. — Asked how her King gave credence to her words: she responded that he had good signs from it, and through the clergy. Item, she said that the clerics on her side were of this opinion, that it seemed to them, in her case, that there was nothing but good.\nItem, on Thursday, March 1, asked if her King had a crown at Reims: she responded that she thinks her King gladly took the one he found at Reims; but a much richer one was brought to him afterwards; and he did that to hasten his business, at the request of those of the town, to avoid the burden of the men-at-arms; and, if he had waited, he would have been crowned with a crown a thousand times richer. — Asked if she saw that richer crown: she responded that she cannot say without perjuring herself; and, if she did not see it, she heard it said that it is so rich.\nItem, concerning the crown, she says that she has answered. And concerning the conclusion of the article, which the promoter puts against her deeds, she refers to God our Lord. And where the crown was made and forged, she refers to our Lord.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nItem, on Saturday, March 10, asked what is the sign that came to her King: she responded that it is beautiful, and honorable and very credible, and that it is good, and the richest that exists or can be found, in French le plus riche qui soit. — Asked why she does not want to say and show the aforesaid sign as well as she wanted to have a sign from Catherine de La Rochelle: she responded that, if Catherine\u0026rsquo;s sign had been shown as well as the aforesaid sign, before notable ecclesiastical persons and others, archbishops and bishops, namely before the Archbishop of Reims and other bishops, whose names she does not know (and Charles of Bourbon, the Lord of La Trémoille, the Duke of Alençon, and many other knights were there, who saw and heard as well as she sees those who speak to her); then Joan herself would not have asked to know the sign of the said Catherine; and nevertheless she knew well, through Saints Catherine and Margaret, that the whole matter of the said Catherine was nothing. — Asked if the said sign still lasts: she responded that it is good to know; and that it will last for a thousand years and more. Item, she says that the said sign is in her King\u0026rsquo;s treasure. — Asked if it is gold, silver, or a precious stone, or a crown: she responded: I will not tell you anything else; and no man would know how to describe something so rich as that sign. And she further said: The sign that you need is that God delivers me from your hands; and it is more certain that he knows how to send it to you. Item, on that day, she said that an angel from God, and not from another, delivered the sign to her King; and she thanked God many times for it. Item, she said that the clerics on her side ceased to argue with her when they had the aforesaid sign. — Asked if the ecclesiastical men on her side saw the aforesaid sign: she responded that, when her King and those assisting him saw the aforesaid sign and the angel himself who delivered that sign, she asked her King if he was content; who responded that yes; and then she withdrew, and went to a small chapel, quite near; and then she heard it said that, after her departure, more than three hundred persons saw the aforesaid sign. She further said that, for the love of Joan herself, and so that men would cease to question her, God wanted to permit that those on her side who saw the aforesaid sign, should see the sign itself.\nItem, on Monday, March 12, asked whether the angel who brought the sign had spoken: she responded that yes; and that he told her King that Joan herself should be put to work, and the country would immediately be relieved. — Item, asked if the angel who brought the aforesaid sign was that angel who first appeared to her, or if it was another: she responded that it is always the same, and never failed her. — Item, on that day, asked about the sign delivered to her King: she responded that she would have counsel from Saint Catherine.\nItem, on Tuesday, March 13, asked about the sign delivered to her King, what it was like: she responded: Would you be content that I should incur perjury? — Asked whether she had sworn and promised Saint Catherine not to speak of that sign: she responded: I swore and promised not to speak of that sign; and I did this of my own accord, because men pressed me too much to speak. And then Joan herself said that she would speak no more of it to any man. Item, she said, on the same day, that that sign was that the angel certified her King, bringing him a crown, and saying that he would have the whole kingdom of France intact with God\u0026rsquo;s help, and through the labor of Joan herself; and that he should put her to work, namely that he should give her men-at-arms, otherwise he would not be crowned and consecrated so quickly. — Item, on that day, asked in what manner that angel brought the crown, and if he placed it on her King\u0026rsquo;s head: she responded that the crown was delivered to an archbishop, namely the Archbishop of Reims, as it seems to her, in the presence of her King; and the said archbishop received it and delivered it to her King, Joan herself being present there; and it is placed in the treasure of the same King. — Asked about the place where it was brought: she responded that this was in her King\u0026rsquo;s chamber, in the Castle of Chinon. — Asked about the day and hour: she responded: Of the day I do not know; and of the hour it was a late hour; otherwise she had no memory of the hour; and of the month, it was in the month of April or March, as it seems to her; and in the next April or in this present month, it will be two years; and it was after Easter. — Asked if, the first day she saw the sign, her King also saw it: she responded that yes, and that he himself had it. — Asked of what material the said crown was: she responded: It is good to know that it was of pure gold; and it was so rich that she would not know how to estimate its richness; and that that crown signified that her King himself would hold the kingdom of France. — Asked if there were precious stones there: she responded: I told you what I know about it. — Asked if she held or kissed it: she responded that no. — Asked if the angel who brought it came from above, or if he came by land: she responded that he came from above, by which she understands that he came by God\u0026rsquo;s command; and he entered through the door of the chamber. — Asked if the angel came by land and walked afterwards through the door of the chamber: she responded that, when the angel came before her King, the angel made reverence to the said King, bowing before the same King and pronouncing the words that Joan herself said about the sign; and, with this, the same angel brought back to the memory of the same King the beautiful patience he had had, according to the great tribulations that had befallen him; and after the door, the same angel walked and stepped on the ground, coming to the aforesaid King. — Asked what space there was from the door to the aforesaid King: she responded that, as she estimates, it was well the length of a lance; and the angel returned by the way by which he had come. Item, she said that, when the angel came, Joan herself accompanied him and went with him, by the steps, to the chamber of the aforesaid King; and the angel entered first; and then Joan herself said to the King: Lord, behold your sign; take it. — Asked in what place that angel appeared to her: she responded that she was almost always in prayer, that God would send a sign to her King; and Joan was in her lodging, namely in the house of a good woman, near the castle of Chinon; and afterwards the angel and Joan herself went together to the said King; and that angel was well accompanied by other angels being with him, whom not everyone saw; and, if it had not been for the love of Joan herself, and for removing her from the punishment of the men who argued with her, she well believes that many people would not have seen the aforesaid angel, who did see him. — Asked if all those who were there with her King saw the angel: she responded that she estimates that the Archbishop of Reims and the Lords of Alençon, of La Trémoille, and Charles of Bourbon saw him; and, as for the crown, many ecclesiastical men and others saw it, who did not see the angel. — Asked of what figure and of what magnitude the said angel was: she responded that she does not have permission to say this, and that she would respond tomorrow. — Asked about those who were in the company of the angel, if all were of the same figure: she responded that some resembled each other well, and others not, in the way she saw them; and there were some having wings, and some crowned, and others not; and also there were in the company, Saints Catherine and Margaret, who were with the aforesaid angel, and also other angels, even into the chamber of her King. — Asked how that angel departed from her: she responded that he departed from her in a small chapel; and she was very angry at his departure, and cried, and would gladly have gone with him, namely as to her soul. — Asked if, at his departure, she remained joyful or if she was disturbed and in great fear: she responded that he did not leave her in fear, but she was angry at his departure. — Item, asked if it was by Joan\u0026rsquo;s merit that God sent his angel: she responded that he came for a great thing; and it was in the hope that her King would believe the sign and that men would cease to argue with Joan herself, and for giving succor to the good people of Orléans; and also for the merits of her King and the good Duke of Orléans.\n— Asked why she had more than another: she responded: It pleased God to do so through a simple maiden, to repel the King\u0026rsquo;s adversaries.\n— Asked if it was told to Joan where the angel first received the aforesaid crown: she responded that it was brought from God, and that there is no goldsmith in the world who would know how to make one so beautiful or so rich; but where the angel himself received it, the said Joan refers to God, and does not otherwise know where that crown was taken. — Asked if that crown had a good odor, and if it was resplendent: she responded that she has no memory of this, and that she would consider it. And afterwards she said that it has a good odor and will have, provided it is well kept, as is fitting; and that it was in the manner of a crown. — Asked if the angel wrote her letters: she responded that no. — Asked what sign her King and the people with him, and Joan herself, had for believing that it was an angel who appeared: she responded that the King well believed by the instruction of the ecclesiastical men who were there, and by the sign of the crown. — Asked how the ecclesiastical men knew that it was an angel: she responded that this was by their knowledge, and by the fact that they were clerics.\nLII. ITEM, Joan herself so much seduced the Catholic people with her inventions that many in her presence adored her as a saint, and still adore her in her absence, ordering masses and collects in churches in her reverence; indeed, they say she is greater than all the Saints of God, after the Blessed Virgin; they raise her images and representations in the basilicas of the Saints, and also carry her representations on themselves in lead and other metal, as is customary for the memorials and representations of Saints canonized by the Church; and they publicly preach that she is a messenger of God, and is rather an angel than a woman. Which aforesaid things are pernicious in the Christian religion, and, unless provided for by the prelates of the Church, could subvert all ecclesiastical authority, and men and women will rise up everywhere, feigning to have revelations from God and angels, sowing lies and errors, as has already been experienced by many, since this woman arose and began to scandalize the Christian people and to propagate her fictions.\n(1) A lead medal which seems to confirm this circumstance in the accusation was recently described and illustrated by M. Rolin of Guise in the Revue de Numismatique (vol. I, p. 413). The obverse shows a woman’s head, with hair parted in the middle and descending along the temples to the bottoms of the ears. On the reverse can be made out a sword, or rather a blade set upright, accompanied by two fleurs-de-lis, an emblem fairly consistent with the arms of the Du Lys family.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded that, as to the beginning of the article, she answered elsewhere concerning this; and as to the conclusion of the article, she refers to God.\nManchon’s French minute:\nAs to the beginning of the article, she replied: I have answered this before. As to its conclusion, she referred herself to Our Lord. (2) (2) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nItem, on Saturday, March 3, asked if she ever knew Brother Richard: she responded: I had never seen him when I came before the town of Troyes. — Asked what kind of face Brother Richard made to her: she responded that those of the town of Troyes, as she thinks, sent him to her, saying that they doubted that it was a thing from God, and when he came near her, he made the sign of the cross and sprinkled holy water; and she said to him: Approach boldly; I will not fly away, in French: Je ne me envoleraj pas. — Asked if she had seen or caused to be made any images or pictures in her likeness: she responded that she, at Arras, saw a picture, in the hand of a Scot, which was in the likeness of the same Joan armed, and presented a letter to her King; and she was kneeling on one knee. And she said that she never saw or caused to be made any other image or picture in her likeness. — Asked about a certain tablet or picture, at her host\u0026rsquo;s, at Orléans, in which were painted three women, Justice, Peace, Union: she responds that she knows nothing about this. — Asked if she knows that those on her side performed service, mass, and prayer for her: she responded that she knows nothing about this; and, if they perform service for her, they do not do so by her command; and if they prayed for her, it seems to her that they do no wrong.\nItem, on Saturday, March 3, asked what reverence those of Troyes made to her upon entering: she responded: They did not make reverence to me. And she further said that, as it seems to her, Brother Richard entered Troyes when they entered; but she does not remember if she saw him upon entering.\n— Asked if Brother Richard preached a sermon upon entering, concerning Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival; she responded that she did not stay long in Troyes, and never slept there; and as for the sermon, she knows nothing about it.\nLIII. ITEM, against the commands of God and the Saints, the said Joan presumptuously and proudly assumed for herself leadership over men, constituting herself head and leader of an army, sometimes numbering sixteen thousand men, in which were princes, barons, and many other nobles, all of whom she caused to serve under her, as under a principal captain.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded, as to the fact of being a war leader in French, that she answered elsewhere concerning this; and if she was a war leader, it was for beating the English. And, as to the conclusion of the article, she refers to our Lord.\nManchon’s French minute:\nAs to being a war leader, she replied that she had answered this before; and, if she was a war leader, it was to defeat the English. As to the conclusion of the article, she referred herself to Our Lord. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nItem, on Tuesday, February 27, asked what company her King gave her when he put her to work: she responded that, ten or twelve thousand men; and that she approached Orléans, first to the bastille of Saint-Loup, and then to that of the Bridge.\nLIV. ITEM, Joan herself shamelessly associated with men, refusing to have the company or services of women, but only of men, whom she wished to serve her in the private offices of her chamber and in her secret affairs. Which has never been seen or heard of any modest and devout woman.\nTo this article, she responded that her governance was by men; but, as to lodging and sleeping at night, for the most part, she had a woman with her; and when she was in war, she slept clothed and armed, where she could not obtain women. And as to the conclusion of the article, she refers to the Lord.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that her attendants were men; but, at her lodgings and when sleeping at night, she usually had a woman with her. When she was at war, she slept clothed and armed wherever she could not obtain women. As to the conclusion of the article, she referred herself to Our Lord. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nLV. ITEM, the said Joan abused revelations and prophecies, which she says she has from God, converting them to temporal gain and profit; for, by means of such revelations, she acquired a great abundance of riches, and great equipage and status in many officers, horses, ornaments, and also, for her brothers and parents, great temporal revenues: in this imitating false prophets who, for temporal gain or to acquire the favors of temporal lords, were accustomed to feign that they had divine revelations concerning those things which they understood would please temporal princes; abusing divine oracles, and attributing their lies to God.\nTo this article, she responded that she answered elsewhere; and, as to the gifts made to her brothers, what the King gave them is of his grace, without Joan\u0026rsquo;s request. As for the charge that the promoter gives her and the conclusion of the article, she refers to our Lord.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I have answered this. As to the gifts made to her brothers, what the King gave them was of his grace, without any request from her. As to the promoter’s charge and the conclusion of the article, she referred herself to Our Lord. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nItem, on Saturday, March 10, asked if she ever had other riches from her King than her horses: she responded that she asked nothing from her King, except good arms, good horses, and money to pay her people from her household. — Item, asked whether she had a treasure: she responded that ten or twelve thousand, which she has in value, is not a great treasure for waging war; and that it is a small thing; and her brothers have that, as she estimates. And she said that what she has is from her King\u0026rsquo;s own money. Item, she said that she was captured on a half-charger. — Asked who gave it to her: she responded that her King or his people gave it to her from her King\u0026rsquo;s silver; and she had five chargers from her King\u0026rsquo;s silver, besides more than seven trotters she had.\nLVI. ITEM, the said Joan often boasted of having two counselors whom she calls the Counselors of the Fountain, who came to her after she was captured, as was found by the confession of Catherine de La Rochelle, made before the Official of Paris; which Catherine said that Joan herself would escape from prison by the help of the Devil, unless she was well guarded.\nTo this article, the said Joan responded that she adheres to what she said elsewhere concerning this. And as to the Counselors of the Fountain, she does not know what it is; but she certainly believes that she once heard Saints Catherine and Margaret there; and as to the conclusion of the article, she denies it. And by her oath she affirms that she would not wish the Devil to have drawn her out of prison.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I hold to what I have said about this. As to the Counselors of the Fountain, she did not know what that meant, but she firmly believed that she had once heard Saints Catherine and Margaret there. She denied the conclusion of the article and affirmed on oath that she would not wish the Devil to have drawn her out of prison. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\n[Saturday, March 3], asked if she knew Catherine de La Rochelle, or if she saw her: she responded that yes, at Jargeau and at Montfaucon in Berry. — Asked if that Catherine showed Joan a lady, clothed in white, who, as she said, sometimes appeared to that Catherine: she responded that no. — Asked, on the same Saturday, March 3, what the said Catherine told Joan: she responded that the said Catherine told Joan that a lady in white, clothed in cloth of gold, came to that Catherine, who told that Catherine to go through the good towns, and that her King would give that Catherine heralds and trumpets, to cause it to be proclaimed that whoever had gold, silver, or hidden treasure, should bring it quickly; and that those who did not do so and who had hidden things, that the same Catherine would know them well, and would know well how to find the said treasures; and that this would be for paying Joan\u0026rsquo;s men-at-arms. To which the said Joan responded to that Catherine that Catherine herself should return to her husband, do her housework, and nurse her children. And, to know the certainty about the said Catherine, she spoke of her to Saint Catherine or Saint Margaret; who told Joan that, concerning the matter of the said Catherine, it was nothing but foolishness, and was all null, in French because it was nothing but foolishness and entirely baseless. And concerning the matter of the said Catherine, Joan wrote to her King that he should tell her what he ought to do concerning that Catherine; and, when Joan herself came into the presence of her King, she told him that it was foolishness and all null concerning the matter of the said Catherine. Nevertheless, Brother Richard wanted the said Catherine to be put to work; and the said Brother Richard and Catherine were very ill-content with the said Joan. — Asked if she spoke to Catherine de La Rochelle about the matter of going to La Charité: she responded that the said Catherine did not advise Joan to go, and that the weather was too cold, and that Joan herself should not go. Item, on the same March 3, Joan herself confessed to having told the said Catherine, who wanted to go towards the lord Duke of Burgundy, to make peace, that peace would not be found in this, unless it was by the thrust of a lance. Item, the same Joan confessed to having asked the said Catherine if that lady came every night; and therefore she would sleep with her, as she did; and she watched until midnight, nor did she see anything, and afterwards she fell asleep; and, when morning came, she asked the said Catherine if that lady had come; and the said Catherine responded that that lady had come, and then Joan herself was sleeping, nor could she awaken her. And at that time, Joan herself asked the said Catherine if that lady would come the next day; the said Catherine responding that yes. For which reason Joan herself slept during the day, so that she could watch at night; and the following night, Joan herself spent the whole night with the said Catherine, and watched all night; but nevertheless she saw nothing, although she often asked the said Catherine if she would come; and the said Catherine responded: Very soon.\nLVII. ITEM, the said Joan, on the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary, caused all the armed men of the army of the said Charles to be gathered, to go to invade the city of Paris, and led them before the same city, promising them that they would enter it that day, and that she knew this by revelation; and she caused all dispositions to be made that she could, for invading the aforesaid city. And nevertheless she did not dare to deny this in judgment, before you. And also in other places, such as at La Charité-sur-Loire, at Pont-l\u0026rsquo;Évêque, and also at Compiègne, when she invaded the army of the lord Duke of Burgundy, she promised and foretold many things to come, saying that she knew this by revelation, of which nevertheless nothing happened; but rather the opposite occurred. And she denied before you having made promises or predictions, because they did not happen as she had said; although many trustworthy persons report the aforesaid to have been said and published by her. Then also, in the Parisian assault, she said that a thousand thousands of angels had assisted her, who were ready to carry her to paradise, if she had died; and nevertheless it is reported that she responded to a question put to her, why, contrary to promises, it had happened that Paris had not only not been entered, but many of her army and she herself had been severely wounded, and some killed, that Jesus had failed her concerning the promise.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded that, concerning the beginning of the article, she answered elsewhere; and If I am further advised concerning this, I will gladly answer more concerning this. And as to the end of the article, that Jesus had failed her, she denies it.\nManchon’s French minute:\nConcerning the beginning of the article, she replied: I have answered this before; and if I receive further advice about it, I will gladly answer further. As to the end of the article, she denied that Jesus had failed her. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nOn Saturday, March 3, asked what she did on the moats of La Charité: she responded that she caused an assault to be made there, in French assault, and that she did not throw or cause to be thrown water into the same moats, by way of aspersion. — Asked why she did not enter the said town, since she had God\u0026rsquo;s command: she responded: Who told you that I had a command to enter there? — Asked if she had counsel with her voice concerning this: she responded that she wanted to come to France; but the men-at-arms told her that it was better to go first before the town of La Charité. — Asked, on Tuesday, March 13, if, when she went before Paris, she had by revelation of her voices to go there: she responded that no; but this was at the request of noble men who wanted to make a skirmish or a valiant deed of arms; and she certainly had the intention of going further and crossing the moats. — Asked if, concerning going before La Charité, she had a revelation: she responded that no; but by the request of the men-at-arms, as she said elsewhere. — Item, on the same Tuesday, asked if, concerning going to Pont-l\u0026rsquo;Évêque, she had a revelation: she responded that, after she had a revelation at Melun that she would be captured, she largely referred, concerning the matter of war, to the will of the captains; and nevertheless she did not tell them that she had by revelation that she would be captured. — Asked if this was well done, on the day of the Nativity of Our Lady, which was a feast, to go to assault Paris: she responded: It is well done to observe the feasts of Our Lady, and, as it seems to her in her conscience, from one blow to another.\nLVIII. ITEM, the said Joan caused her banner to be painted, and on it to be depicted two angels assisting God holding the world in his hand, with these names Jesus Maria, and other pictures; and she said she did these things by God\u0026rsquo;s command, who revealed these things to her, through Angels and Saints. Which banner she placed in the church of Reims, near the altar, while the aforesaid Charles was being consecrated, wishing that banner to be honored singularly by others, through her pride and vain glory. She also caused her arms to be painted, in which she placed two golden lilies on an azure field, and in the middle of the lilies, a silver sword with a gilded hilt and cross, having its point raised upwards, at the summit of which is a golden crown. Which things seem to pertain to pomp and vanity, and not to religion or piety; and to attribute such vanities to God and Angels is against the reverence of God and the Saints.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she said: I have answered concerning this. And concerning the contradiction put by the promoter: I refer myself or attend to our Lord.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I have answered this. As to the promoter’s contradiction, she replied: I refer myself to Our Lord. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nOn Tuesday, February 27, asked, when she went before the town of Orléans, whether she had a banner, or estandart in French, and of what color: she responded that yes, a field sown with lilies, in which was figured the world and two angels at the sides, of white color, of white cloth or boucassin; and on it were written these names Jesus Maria, as it seems to her; and it was fringed with silk. — Asked if these names, Jesus Maria, were written above, at the side, or below: she responded that at the side, as it seems to her. — Asked which she preferred, the sword or the standard or banner: she responded that she preferred the standard to the sword, forty times. — Asked who caused to be made for her what was depicted there: she responded: I have told you enough that I did nothing except by God\u0026rsquo;s command. Item, she said that she herself carried that standard when she entered among the adversaries, to avoid killing anyone; and she said that she had never killed a man.\nItem, on Saturday, March 3, Joan herself said that her banner or standard was in the church of Reims; and it seems to her that it was quite near the altar; which she herself held for a short time, nor does she know that Brother Richard held it.\nItem, on Saturday, March 10, asked if on that standard or banner, the world is depicted and two angels, etc.: she responded that yes; nor did she ever have but one. — Asked what was the sign or signification of taking God holding the world, and those two angels: she responded that Saints Catherine and Margaret told her that she should take the standard, and carry it boldly; and that on it she should cause to be placed in a picture the King of Heaven; and she told this to her King, but very unwillingly, in French très enfuis; and, of the signification, she knows nothing else. — Asked if she had a shield and arms: she responded that she never had; but her King gave to her brothers, namely: an azure shield with two golden lilies, and a sword in the middle; which arms she described to a painter, in this city of Rouen, because he had asked what arms she had. Item, she said that this was given to her brothers by her King, for their pleasure, without Joan\u0026rsquo;s request, and without revelation.\nOn Saturday, March 17, asked who moved her to cause angels to be depicted on her banner, with arms, feet, legs, and garments: she responded: You have been answered concerning this. — Asked if she caused the same angels to be depicted such as they came to her: she responded that she caused them to be depicted in the manner in which they are painted in churches. — Asked if she ever saw them in the manner in which they were painted: she responded: I will not tell you anything else about this. — Asked why she did not cause to be depicted the clarity that came to her with the angel and the voices: she responded that this had not been commanded to her. — Item, on the same Saturday, March 17, asked if those two angels who were depicted on that standard represented Saints Michael and Gabriel: she responded that they were not there, except only for the honor of our Lord, who was depicted on that standard; and she said that she did not cause that representation of two angels to be made, except only for the honor of our Lord, who was depicted on that standard. And she said that she did not cause that representation of two angels to be made, except only in honor of our Lord who was figured on that standard, holding the world. — Asked if those two angels who were figured on the standard were two angels who guarded the world, and why there were not more, seeing that it was commanded to her by God that she should take that standard: she responded that the whole standard was commanded by God, by the voices of Saints Catherine and Margaret who told her: Take the standard on behalf of the King of Heaven. And because the Saints told her: Take the standard on behalf of the King of Heaven, she caused that figure of God and two angels to be made on it. And of the color and everything, she caused it to be made by their command. — Asked if she then asked the same Saints if, by virtue of that banner, she would prevail in all wars in which she entered, and that she would have victory in them: she responded that the said Saints told her that she should take it boldly, and that God would help her. — Asked who helped more, she with her banner, or the banner to her: she responded that the victory of the banner or of the woman, all was to be attributed to God. — Asked if the hope of having victory was founded in her banner or in herself: she responded, the hope of the said victory was founded in God, and nowhere else. — Asked if, if another than herself had carried the said banner, he would have had as good fortune as she had in carrying it: she responded: I know nothing about this, and I refer myself to God concerning it. — Asked if someone from her side had delivered to the same woman a banner pertaining to her side, and she had carried it; if in that banner she would have had as much hope as she had in her own banner which was disposed for her by God; and especially, if her King\u0026rsquo;s banner had been delivered to her: she responded: I would more gladly carry that banner which was ordained for me by God; nevertheless, in all things, I awaited myself to God. — Asked, on Saturday, March 17, if she caused her banner to be carried around her King\u0026rsquo;s head, waving it: she responded that she does not know having done this. — Asked why that banner was carried more in the church of Reims, at her King\u0026rsquo;s consecration, than the banners of other captains: she responded: That banner had been in hardship, and therefore it was reasonable that it should be in honor.\nLIX. ITEM, at Saint-Denis in France, the said Joan offered and caused to be placed in the church, in a high place, her arms in which she had been wounded, in the assault made against the city of Paris, so that they might be honored by the people as relics. And in the same town she caused wax candles to be lit, from which she poured melted wax over the heads of small children, predicting their future fortunes, and making many divinations concerning them by such sorcery.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded: I, as to the arms, answered elsewhere; and, as to the candles lit and distilled, she denies it.\nManchon’s French minute:\nAs to the armour, she replied: I have answered this. As to the lighted candles and the dripping wax, she denied it. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nOn Saturday, March 17, asked what arms she offered in the church of Saint-Denis: she responded that a complete white harness, such as belongs to a man-at-arms, with a sword; and she gained that sword before Paris. — Asked for what purpose she offered the same arms: she responded that she did this out of devotion, as is customary for men-at-arms when they are wounded; and because she had been wounded before Paris, she offered the said arms to Saint-Denis, because it is the acclamation, in French le cri, of France. — Asked if she did this so that the said arms might be adored: she responded that no.\nLX. ITEM, the said Joan, despising the commands and sanctions of the Church, often refused to swear in judgment to speak the truth; thereby rendering herself suspect that she did or said something, in the matter of faith and revelations, which she dares not reveal to ecclesiastical judges, fearing her own condign punishment, as she seems to have sufficiently confessed, when, for this purpose, she alleged in judgment that proverb, that for speaking the truth, men are sometimes hanged; and she often says: You will not know everything, and I would rather have my head cut off than tell you everything.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded that she did not take delay, except to respond more securely to what was asked of her; and as to the conclusion, she said that she doubted responding, and therefore took delay, to know if she ought to say what was asked of her. Item, she said that, as to the counsel of her King, because it does not touch the proceedings, she did not want to reveal it. And concerning the sign given to her King, she said it, because the ecclesiastical people condemned her to say it.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that she had taken a delay only so that she might answer more securely what was asked of her. As to the conclusion, she said that she had hesitated to answer and had taken a delay to learn whether she ought to speak. She said that she had not wished to reveal her King’s counsel because it did not concern the proceedings. She had spoken of the sign given to the King because the churchmen had compelled her to tell it. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nOn Thursday, February 22, asked if, that time when the voice showed her her King, if there was light there: she responded: Pass on. — Item, asked if she saw any angel above her said King: she responded: Forgive me, and Pass on. — Item, she said that, before her King put her to work, he had many apparitions and beautiful revelations; and asked what kind: she responded: I will not tell you them; you have not yet been answered concerning this; but send to the King, and he will tell you them.\nItem, on Saturday after Quinquagesima Sunday, February 24, we, the aforesaid Bishop, explained to Joan herself that she should swear purely, simply, and absolutely, and without condition; and she was requested and admonished three times concerning this.\nShe said: Give me permission to speak; and she further said: By my faith, you will well be able to ask me things that I will not tell you. Item, she said: Perhaps you will be able to ask me about many things, concerning which I will not tell you the truth: concerning what touches revelations, because you might perhaps compel me to say something about which I swore not to say it; and thus I would be perjured, which you ought not to wish. Item: I tell you; consider well what you say, that you are my judge. You take a great burden, and you burden me too much. Item, she said that it seems to her that it is enough to have sworn twice. — Asked if she wants to swear simply and absolutely: she responds: You can well be content with that; I have sworn enough twice; and she also said that all the clergy of Rouen or Paris would not know how to condemn her, unless that clergy had right. And she further said that she would not say everything in eight days. Item, she said that, concerning her arrival, she will gladly tell the truth; but she will not say everything. Item, it was told to her that she should take counsel with those present, if she ought to swear or not: she responds that, concerning her arrival, she will gladly tell the truth, and not otherwise; and that it is not necessary to speak further with her about it. — Item, afterwards admonished, saying that she would render herself suspect: she responds as before. — Furthermore, we, the Bishop of Beauvais, requested her to swear precisely: she responded: I will gladly say what I know; but not everything. — Item, afterwards requested to swear and admonished, and under penalty of being convicted of those things that were imputed to her: she responds: I have sworn enough, saying: Passez oultre (Pass on). — Item, still requested and admonished to swear and to speak the truth about those things that touch the proceedings, and that she puts herself in great peril: she responds: I am ready to swear to say what I know, touching the proceedings; and not everything I know; and so she swore.\nAsked, on February 24, if her voice forbade her to say everything: she said: I do not answer you about that; and: There are some revelations that concern the King, which I will not tell you. — Asked if the voice forbade her to say the revelations: she responded: I am not consulted about this; and she asked for a term of fifteen days to respond, and afterwards she would respond. Item, she said that she asks for delay to respond about this. Item, she said: If the voice forbade me, what do you want to say about it? — Again asked if it was forbidden to her by the voice: she responded: Believe that men did not forbid me that. Item, she said that she will not respond about this for this day; and she does not know if she ought to say or not, all that is revealed to her. — Asked if she believes that God is displeased by this, that the truth be told: she responded to us, the Bishop, that the voices told her to say some things to the King, and not to us. — Asked if her counsel revealed to her if she would escape from prison: she responded: Must I tell you that? — Asked if, this night, the voice gave her counsel about those things about which she was to respond: she responded that, if the said voice revealed it to her, she did not well understand it. — Asked if, in these two days in which she last heard the said voices, if light came with them: she responded that, in the name of the voice, clarity came. — Asked if with the voice she sees anything: she responds: I do not tell you everything, and I do not have permission for this, and that her oath does not touch those things. Item, she said that the said voice is beautiful, good, and worthy; and that she is not bound to respond about those things that are asked of her. — Asked if the voice that comes to her has sight, namely eyes (and this was asked of her, because Joan herself asked to have in writing the points to which she did not respond); to which she responds: You will not have that yet, in her original French, You do not have that yet. Item, she said that the saying of small children is that sometimes people are hanged for speaking the truth.\n(1) In the manuscript margin: A proud answer.\nItem, on Tuesday after Reminiscere, February 27, requested by us, the aforesaid Bishop, to make and take an oath concerning those things that touched the proceedings: she responded that concerning those things that touched the proceedings, she would gladly swear, and not concerning all that she knew. — Again we requested her to respond truthfully concerning all that was asked of her. She responds as before, saying: You ought to be content; I have sworn enough. Item, she said that concerning those things about which she had permission from God to reveal them, she would gladly tell the truth; but concerning those things that touch revelations concerning her King, she will not say them, without the permission of her voice. — On the said day, asked whether Saints Catherine and Margaret are clothed in the same cloth: she responds: I will not tell you anything else now, and that she does not have permission to reveal this; and: If you do not believe me, go to Poitiers. Item, she said that there are some revelations that go to her King, and not to those who question her. — Asked if the said Saints who appear to her are of the same age: she responds that she does not have permission to say this. — Asked if they speak together, or one after another: she responds that she does not have permission to say this; and nevertheless she daily has the counsel of both of them. — Asked which of them appeared to her first: she responds: I did not recognize them so quickly; and sometimes she knew this well, but she has forgotten; and, if she has counsel to say it, she will gladly say it; and this is in the register, at Poitiers. — Asked in what figure Saint Michael was who appeared to her: she responds: You have not yet been answered concerning this; and I do not yet have permission to say it. — Asked what Saint Michael first told her: she responds: You will not have this answer tonight. Item, she said that the voices told her to respond boldly. Item, she said that she still does not have permission to reveal what Saint Michael told her; and she would well wish that the questioner had a copy of the book that is at Poitiers, provided God was content with this. — Asked if Saint Michael and the other Saints told her not to reveal without their permission: she responds: I do not answer you yet about that; and: About that concerning which I will have permission, I will gladly respond; and that, if they forbade her, she did not understand it. — Asked what sign she gives, by which it may be known that these things are from God, and that these are Saints Catherine and Margaret: she responds: I have told you enough that they are Saints Catherine and Margaret; and: Believe me, if you wish. — Asked what revelations her King had: she responds: You will not have this from me, for this year. — Asked what promises the said Saints made to her: she responds: This is not at all part of these proceedings. — Asked if they promised her anything else than to lead her to paradise: she responds that there are some promises, but she will not say them; and she said that this does not touch the proceedings. Item, she said that, within three months, she will say another promise. — Asked if the said Saints told her that, within three months, she would be liberated from prison: she responds: That is not part of these proceedings; and nevertheless she does not know when she will be liberated. Item, she said that those who would want to take her from this world, can well go before. — Item, asked whether her counsel told her that she would be liberated from prison: she responds: Speak with me within three months, and I will answer you about it; and she further said that it should be asked of those present by their oath, if this touched the proceedings. And afterwards, having had the deliberation of those present, who all deliberated that this touched the proceedings, she said: I always told you well that you would not know everything; and to this she said: It will be necessary for me to be released once; and I want to have permission to speak; and concerning these things she asked for delay. — Asked if the Saints forbade her to speak the truth: she responds: Do you want me to say what goes to the King of France? Item, she said that there are many things there that do not touch the proceedings.\nItem, asked, on Thursday, March 1, what sign she gave to her King, that she came from God: she responds: I have always answered you that you would not extract that from my mouth now. Go ask him. — Asked if she swore not to reveal what was asked of her, touching the proceedings: she responded: I told you elsewhere that what goes to our King, I will not tell you. — Asked whether she knows the aforesaid sign: she responds: You will not know this from me. Item, it was told to her that this touched the proceedings: she responds: Concerning what I promised to keep secret, I will not tell you. And she further said: I promised in such a place that I cannot tell you without perjury. — Asked to whom she promised this: she responded that to Saints Catherine and Margaret; and this was shown to her King. Item, she said that she promised it to them, without their asking her; and Joan herself did this of her own accord; and she said that too many people would have asked her for that sign, if she had not promised this to those Saints. — Asked if, in the company, when she showed the sign to her King, there was anyone else than himself: she responded: I think that there was no one else than himself, although many people were quite near. — Asked if she saw a crown on her King\u0026rsquo;s head when she showed him the sign: she responds: I cannot tell you this without perjury.\nItem, asked, on Saturday, March 3, if she believes that in that form and in that manner God created them from the beginning, as she saw them: she responds: You will not have anything else for the present, besides what I answered. — Asked if she saw or knew by revelation that she would escape: she responds: That does not touch these proceedings. Do you want me to speak against myself? — Asked if, concerning this, her voices told her anything: she responds: This does not touch these proceedings; I refer myself to the Lord God; and If it all pertained to you, I would have told you everything. And she further said: By my faith, I do not know the hour or the day. — Asked whether, when God revealed to her that she would change her habit, this was by the voice of Saint Michael, Saint Catherine, or Saint Margaret: she responds: You will not have anything else now.\nAsked, on Monday, March 12, whether she had letters from Saint Michael or from her voices: she responded: I have not had permission to tell you, and within eight days, I will gladly answer what I know.\nLXI. ITEM, the said Joan, admonished to submit all her sayings and doings to the determination of the Church Militant, and the distinction between the Church Militant and Triumphant being explained to her, said she submitted to the Church Triumphant, refusing to submit to the Church Militant, declaring that she held an ill opinion in that article, Unam sanctam, etc., and erred concerning it; saying that she was immediately subject to God, referring herself to him and the Saints concerning her deeds, and not to the judgment of the Church.\nTo this article, she responded that she would wish to show honor and reverence to the Church Militant, to the best of her ability. And concerning referring herself concerning her deeds to the aforesaid Church Militant, she said: It is necessary that I refer myself to the Lord God, who made me do this.\nAsked if she refers herself to the Church Militant concerning what she did: she responded: Send me a cleric, next Saturday; and I will answer you about it.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that she wished to show the Church Militant all the honour and reverence in her power. As to submitting her deeds to the Church Militant, she said: I must refer myself to Our Lord, who caused me to do them. Asked whether she would submit to the Church Militant concerning what she had done, she replied: Send me the clerk next Saturday, and I will answer you. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\nItem, on Thursday, March 15, it was declared to her what the Church Triumphant was and what the Church Militant was; and asked that for the present, she submit herself to the determination of the Church, concerning what she did and said, whether it be good or evil: she responded: I will not answer you anything else for the present. And after the admonitions made to her and requests, that, if she did anything that is against our faith, she ought to refer herself to the determination of the Church: she responded that her answers should be seen and examined by the clerics, and afterwards that it should be told to her if there is anything against the Christian faith, and she will well know by her counsel to say what will be about it, and afterwards she will say what she finds by her counsel; and nevertheless, if there is anything evil against the Christian faith which God commanded, she would not wish to sustain it, and would be very angry at coming or going against it. — Item, the same, asked if concerning what she said and did, she wishes to submit and refer herself to the determination of the Church: she responded: All my works and my deeds are in the hand of God; and concerning these I refer myself to him. And I certify you that I would not wish to do or say anything against the Christian faith; and if I had done or said, or what was above me, that the clerics would know how to say that it was against the Christian faith, which our Lord established, I would not wish to sustain it, but I would cast it out. — And again asked if concerning this she would submit herself to the determination of the Church: she responded: I will not answer you anything else now; but, on Saturday, send me a cleric, if you do not wish to come, and concerning this I will answer him, with God\u0026rsquo;s help; and it will be put in writing.\nItem, on Saturday, March 17, asked whether it seems to her that she is bound to answer the truth plainly to our lord the Pope, God\u0026rsquo;s vicar, and concerning all that was asked of her, touching faith and the matter of her conscience: she responded that she requests to be led before him, and afterwards she will answer, before him, all that she ought to answer.\nItem, on Saturday, March 31, asked whether she wishes to refer herself to the judgment of the Church, which is on earth, concerning all that she said and did, whether good or evil, especially concerning the cases, crimes, and offenses that were imputed to her, and concerning all that touches proceedings against her: she responded that, concerning what is asked of her, she will refer herself to the Church Militant, provided that the same Church does not command her anything impossible to be done; and she calls that impossible which she considers impossible, namely that she should revoke the deeds she said and did, declared in the proceedings, concerning the visions and revelations which she said she made on behalf of God; and she will not revoke them for any reason; and concerning this, what our Lord made her do and commanded and will command, she will not cease to do it, for any living man; and it would be impossible for her to revoke those things; and in case the Church wished her to do otherwise, contrary to the command which she says was made to her by God, she would not do it, for any reason. — Asked, if the Church Militant says that her revelations are illusions or diabolical things, or superstitions or evil things, whether she will refer herself to the Church concerning this: she responded that she refers herself to God, whose command she will always obey; and that she knows well that what is contained in proceedings against her comes by God\u0026rsquo;s command; and that what she affirmed, in the said proceedings, to have done by God\u0026rsquo;s command, it would be impossible for her to do the contrary; and in case the Church Militant commanded her to do the contrary, she would not refer herself to any man of the world, but only to God, but would always obey his good command.\n(1) See below, p. 323.\n— Asked whether she believes that she is subject to the Church which is on earth, namely our lord the Pope, the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, and other prelates of the Church: she responded that yes, our Lord being served first, in French nostre Seigneur premier servy.\n— Asked if she has a command from her voices not to submit herself to the Church Militant, which is on earth, nor to its judgment: she responded that she does not answer anything that she takes into her head; but what she answered is by the command of those voices; and they do not command but that she obey the Church, God being served first.\nItem, on Wednesday, April 18, it was told to Joan herself, because of the infirmity which she said she had, that the more she feared for her life, the more she ought to amend her life; and she would not have the rights of the Church, as a Catholic, unless she submitted herself to the Church. And she responded: If my body dies in prison, I expect that you will cause it to be placed in holy ground; and if you do not cause it to be placed, I await myself to the Lord God. — Item, on the same day, asked, since she requests that the Church give her the sacrament of the Eucharist, whether she would submit herself to the Church; and it was promised to give her that sacrament: she responded that concerning that submission, she will not answer otherwise than she has done; and that she loves God and serves him, and is a good Christian; and she would wish to help and sustain the Church with all her power.\n(1) See below the record of the session of April 18.\nLXII. ITEM, the said Joan strives to scandalize the people, to induce them to firmly believe all that is said and to be said by her, assuming to herself the authority of God and angels, and elevating herself above all ecclesiastical power, so as to lead men into error; as false prophets were accustomed to do, introducing sects of error and perdition, and separating themselves from the unity of the body of the Church. Which is pernicious in the Christian religion, and, unless provided for by the prelates of the Church, could subvert all ecclesiastical authority, and men and women will rise up everywhere, feigning to have revelations from God and angels, sowing lies and errors, as has already been experienced by many, since this woman arose and began to scandalize the Christian people and to propagate her fictions.\nTo this article, on Wednesday, March 28, she responded that, on the next Saturday, she will respond concerning this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that she would answer this on Saturday. (2) LXIII. ITEM, that the said Joan in judgment does not fear to lie, with violation of her own oath, asserting many things contradictory and repugnant to each other concerning her revelations; uttering curses against lords and notable persons and a whole nation; shamelessly speaking many trifling and derisive things, which do not befit a holy woman, which show her to be ruled and governed in her actions by evil spirits, and not by the counsel of God and angels, as she boasts; Christ saying of false prophets: By their fruits you will know them.\nTo this article, on the said day, she responded that she refers to what she said concerning this; and, concerning the conclusion of the article, she refers to the Lord God.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I refer to what I have said about this. As to the charge and conclusion of the article, she referred herself to Our Lord. (3) (1) From the word truffa, which in late Latin meant mockery.\n(2) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 29, v°.\n(3) Ibid.\nOn Tuesday, February 27, she said that she had her sword at Lagny, and from Lagny she carried a Burgundian\u0026rsquo;s sword to Compiègne, because it was a good war sword, and good for giving good blows, in French de bonnes buffes ou de bons torchons; and she said that, where she left that sword, this is not part of the proceedings, and now she will not respond about it.\nItem, on Thursday, March 1, she said that she would have died, if it had not been for the revelation that comforts her daily. — Asked if Saint Michael has hair: she responded: Why would he have it cut? And she did not see Saint Michael himself after she departed from the Castle of Crotoy; and she does not see him often.\nLXIV. ITEM, that Joan herself boasts of knowing that she has obtained remission of that sin which she perpetrated with a desperate mind, at the instigation of an evil spirit, when she threw herself from the high tower of the castle of Beaurevoir; although Scripture says that no one knows whether he is worthy of love or hatred, and consequently, neither whether he is purged from sin or justified.\nTo this article, on the said Wednesday, March 28, she responded: I have answered you enough about this, to which I refer myself. And concerning the conclusion, she refers to the Lord.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied: I have answered you about this, and I refer to that answer. As to the charge and conclusion, she referred herself to Our Lord. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 30, v°.\nLXV. ITEM, and that the said Joan often says that she asks God to send her an express revelation concerning her actions, through angels and Saints Catherine and Margaret, for example, if she ought to respond truthfully in judgment concerning some things, and in her other particular deeds. Which is to tempt God and to ask of him what ought not to be asked, and without necessity, and without investigation or inquiry possible to humanity, having been made. And especially, in the aforementioned jump from the tower, she manifestly seems to have tempted God.\nTo this article, on the said Wednesday, she responded that she answered elsewhere concerning this, and that she does not wish to reveal what was revealed to her, without God\u0026rsquo;s permission; and that she does not ask God for what is in the article, without necessity; and she would wish that he would send more, so that it would better appear that she had come from God, namely, that he had sent her.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe replied that she had answered this; that she did not wish to reveal what had been revealed to her without Our Lord’s permission; and that she did not ask without necessity. She wished that He would send still more, so that it might be more clearly perceived that she had come from God—that is, that He had sent her. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 30, r°.\nLXVI. ITEM, that some of the aforesaid things deviate from divine, evangelical, canon, and civil laws, contrary to them and to statutes approved in general Councils; some are sorcerous, some divinations, some superstitions; and some formally, some causatively and otherwise, savor of heresy; they introduce many errors in faith, and foster heretical depravity; some are seditious, some disturbing of peace and hindering; some incite to the shedding of human blood; some also are curses and blasphemies against God, and the Saints, male and female; which also offend the pious ears of men. In and concerning the aforesaid, the said accused, with rash audacity, at the instigation of the Devil, offended God and his holy Church; she exceeded and transgressed against it, was scandalous, and notoriously defamed concerning these things, and therefore the said accused is to be corrected and amended by you.\nTo this article, the said Joan responded that she is a good Christian; and, concerning all the charges placed in the article, she refers to the Lord.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe said that she was a good Christian and referred all the charges set out in the article to Our Lord. (1) LXVII. ITEM, that all and singular the aforesaid things the said accused committed, perpetrated, said, uttered, recited, dogmatized, promulgated, and accomplished in deed, both in the said jurisdiction and elsewhere, in many and diverse places of this kingdom, not only once, but many times, at diverse times, days, and hours; she relapsed into them, and gave and contributed counsel, aid, and favor to those perpetrating them.\nThe said Joan denies this article.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe denies the article. (2) LXVIII. ITEM, from the fact that by clamorous insinuation, striking your ears, not only once but many times, by public fame and information made, concerning and upon the aforesaid, you found the said accused vehemently suspect and defamed; you decreed that an inquiry concerning these things should be made against her, to be proceeded with by you or one of you, and that she should be cited to respond concerning these things, as was done.\nThe said Joan said that this article concerns the judges.\nManchon’s French minute:\nIt concerns the judges. (3) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 30, r°.\n(2) Ibid.\n(3) Ibid.\nLXIX. ITEM, that the said accused was and is vehemently suspect, scandalized, and very much, among good and grave persons, notoriously defamed concerning and upon the aforesaid. Concerning and upon which, nevertheless, she has not yet been corrected, or in any way amended; but she has deferred, defers, refused, and refuses to correct and amend herself concerning these things; and she continued and persevered, and continues and perseveres, in those errors; although, both on your part and on the part of several notable clerics and other honest persons, she was concerning these things both charitably and otherwise, duly and sufficiently admonished, summoned, and requested.\nTo this article, she said that she did not commit the offenses proposed by the promoter against her; and concerning the rest, she refers to the Lord; and that in those offenses proposed against her, she does not believe she did anything against the Christian faith.\nAsked, if she had done anything against the Christian faith, whether she would submit herself to the Church and to those to whom the correction of this pertains: she responded that on Saturday, after dinner, she would respond.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe said that she had not committed the offences alleged against her by the promoter; concerning the rest, she referred herself to Our Lord, and she did not believe that in those alleged offences she had done anything against the Christian faith. Asked whether, if she had done anything against the Christian faith, she would submit herself to the Church and to those responsible for correcting it, she replied that she would answer on Saturday after dinner. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 30, r°.\nLXX. ITEM, that all and singular the aforesaid things are true, notorious, manifest, and concerning these things public voice and fame labored and still labor; and the said accused recognized and confessed them many times and sufficiently to be true, before honest and trustworthy persons, and both in judgment and out of it.\nJoan denies this article, except for what was confessed, etc.\nManchon’s French minute:\nShe denies it, except for what she has confessed. (1) (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 30, r°.\nFROM WHICH and other things to be supplied and corrected by you, and to be reformed for the better, concerning and upon which the said actor asks and supplicates that the said accused be questioned by you: the same actor concludes against the said accused, faith being given to these things in whole or in part, as shall suffice for the intent to be sentenced, uttered, and pronounced by you, for all and singular his aforesaid ends; and further to be said and decreed, as shall be of law and reason; humbly imploring your office concerning these things, as is fitting.\nThe Last Day of March In Prison # Likewise, on the Saturday immediately following, the last day of the month of March, on Easter Eve, in the year of our Lord 1430; we, the aforesaid judges, presiding in the place of the prison of the said Joan, in the castle of Rouen; there being present the lords and masters: Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Pierre Maurice, Gérard Feuillet, doctors;—Guillaume Haiton and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelors in sacred theology;—there being present at this, Lord Guillaume Muton and Jean Gris.\nThe aforesaid Joan was questioned upon some matters for which she had taken a delay to answer, until this day, when she should answer to the aforementioned articles, as is set forth above.\nAnd first she was asked whether she would refer herself to the judgment of the Church which is on earth, concerning all that she has said and done, whether it be good or bad, and especially concerning the cases, crimes, and offenses which are laid to her charge, and concerning all that touches her trial: she answered that, concerning what is asked of her, she refers herself to the Church militant, provided that it does not command her to do anything impossible. And she calls that which she considers impossible, namely, that she should revoke the deeds she has done and said, declared in the said trial, concerning the visions and revelations which she said she had from God; and she will not revoke them for anyone. And, concerning that which God has made her do, and has commanded and shall command, she will not fail to do it for any living man. And it would be impossible for her to revoke them. And in case the Church should wish to make her do otherwise, contrary to the commandment which she said was given to her by God, she would not do it for anyone.\nAsked whether, if the Church militant should tell her that her revelations are illusions or diabolical things, she would refer herself to the Church: she answered that she will always refer herself in this to God, whose commandment she will always do; and that she well knows that what is contained in her trial came by the commandment of God; and that which she affirms in the said trial, that she did by the commandment of God, it would be impossible for her to do the contrary; and in case the Church should command her to do the contrary, she would not refer herself in this to any man in the world, but only to God, so that she might always do the good commandment of God Himself.\nAsked whether she believes she is subject to the Church of God which is on earth, namely to our lord the Pope, the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and other prelates of the Church: she answered yes, God being served first.\nAsked whether she has a commandment from her voices not to submit herself to the Church militant, which is on earth, nor to its judgment: she answered that she does not answer anything that she takes of her own head; but what she answers is by the commandment of her voices; and they do not command that she should not obey the Church, God being served first.\nAsked whether, at the castle of Beaurevoir, or at Arras, or elsewhere, she had files: she answered: If they were found upon me, I have nothing else to answer you about this.\nManchon’s French minute:\nSaturday, the last day of March 1430. Asked whether she wished to submit to the judgment of the Church on earth everything she had said or done, good or bad, and especially the cases, crimes, and offences charged against her and everything touching her trial, she replied that she would submit to the Church Militant what was being asked of her, provided that it did not command her to do something impossible. By impossible she meant revoking the deeds she had said and done, as declared in the trial, concerning the visions and revelations which she said came from God. She would not revoke them for any reason; nor would she cease, for any living person, to do what Our Lord had caused and commanded her to do and would command her to do. It would be impossible for her to revoke those things. If the Church wished to make her act contrary to the command which she said God had given her, she would not do so for any reason.\nAsked whether she would submit to the Church if the Church Militant told her that her revelations were illusions, diabolical things, superstitions, or evil things, she replied that she would refer herself to Our Lord, whose command she would always obey. She knew well that what was contained in her trial had come by God’s command; and it would be impossible for her to act contrary to what she had affirmed in the trial that she did by God’s command. If the Church Militant commanded the contrary, she would refer herself to no one in the world except Our Lord and would always obey His good command.\nAsked whether she believed herself subject to the Church on earth—that is, to our holy father the Pope, the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and other prelates of the Church—she replied that she did, Our Lord being served first.\nAsked whether her voices had commanded her not to submit to the Church Militant on earth or to its judgment, she replied that she answered nothing merely invented in her own head; what she answered came from their command, and they did not command her to disobey the Church, Our Lord being served first.\nAsked whether she had possessed files at Beaurevoir, Arras, or elsewhere, she replied: If any were found on me, I have nothing else to answer you about it. (1)\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 30, r°.\nWhich things being thus completed, we departed from the same place, to proceed further to those things which remained to be done in the present cause of the faith.\nApril 2, 3, 4, 1431 The assertions upon which consultation is to be made are extracted # Likewise, on the Monday immediately following, the second of the month of April, in the year of our Lord 1431, after Easter, and on the Tuesday and Wednesday then immediately following, we, the aforesaid judges, together with some lords and masters called together by us for this purpose, examined the articles described above, the interrogatories, and the answers of the same Joan. From all of these, we caused certain assertions and propositions to be extracted, under the form of twelve articles, containing many of the sayings of the same Joan summarily and compendiously. We resolved to transmit these assertions to doctors and experts, both in divine and human law, requesting their counsels and deliberations upon them, in favor of the faith.\nApril 5 The assertions are transmitted to the consultants # And, on the Thursday following, which was the fifth of the said month of April, we transmitted our requisitionary letter, together with the assertions already mentioned, to those doctors and expert men whom we knew to be present in this city, under this form:\nThe tenor of the letters, together with the aforesaid assertions, transmitted to the doctors to obtain the opinion of each, follows.\nWe, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the Inquisitor, request and require you, [Name], etc., that, in favor of the faith, by next Tuesday, you give us in writing and under your seal your wholesome counsel upon the assertions noted below; namely, whether, all things being considered and weighed, and also compared with one another, they or any of them are contrary to the orthodox faith, or suspect in it, contrary to Holy Scripture, contrary to the determination of the Holy Roman Church, contrary to the determination of the doctors approved by the Church and the canonical sanctions, scandalous, rash, disturbing to the public peace, injurious, involved in crimes, contrary to good morals, or in any way offensive; or what, in the judgment of faith, ought to be said concerning the aforesaid. Written on Thursday, the fifth of April after Easter, in the year of our Lord 1431.\nLikewise, the tenor of the aforesaid assertions follows.\nI. And first, a certain woman says and affirms that, when she was of the age of thirteen years or thereabouts, she saw with her bodily eyes Saint Michael comforting her, and sometimes Saint Gabriel, appearing in bodily form. Sometimes also she saw a great multitude of angels; and from that time Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret showed themselves to the same woman to be seen bodily; whom also she sees daily, and hears their voices, and sometimes embraced and kissed them, touching them sensibly and bodily. She saw the heads of the said angels and Saints; but of the remaining parts of them or of their garments, she would say nothing. And that the aforesaid Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret sometimes spoke to her at a certain spring, near a great tree, commonly called the Fairies\u0026rsquo; Tree; concerning which spring and tree, there is a common rumor that the Fairy Ladies frequent the place, and that many feverish persons go to the said spring and tree for the sake of recovering their health, although they are situated in a profane place. Whom she venerated there and elsewhere many times, and showed them reverence.\nShe says furthermore that the aforesaid Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret appear and show themselves to her, crowned with most beautiful and precious crowns; and from the aforesaid time and many times since, they told the same woman by the command of God, that she must go to a certain secular prince, promising that, by the help and labors of the same woman, the said prince, by force of arms, would recover a great temporal dominion and worldly honor, and would obtain victory over his adversaries; and that the same prince would receive the said woman, and would assign arms to her with an army of men-at-arms, for the execution of the premises. Furthermore, the said Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret commanded the same woman by the command of God, that she should take and wear the habit of a man, which she wore, and still wears, perseveringly obeying this commandment, in so much that the same woman said she would rather die than leave off this habit; saying this simply sometimes, and sometimes, unless it were by the command of God. She also preferred not to assist at the offices of the mass and to lack the holy communion of the Eucharist, at the time ordained by the Church for the faithful to receive this sacrament, rather than to resume female habit and leave off the male. Favoring the said woman also in this, that, without the knowledge and against the will of her parents, when she was of the age of seventeen years or thereabouts, she left her father\u0026rsquo;s house and associated with a multitude of men following arms, living with them day and night, never or rarely having another woman with her. And many other things the said Saints said and commanded the same woman; on account of which she says she was sent by the God of heaven and the victorious Church of the Saints already enjoying beatitude, to whom she submits all her good deeds. But to the Church militant she has deferred and refused to submit herself, her deeds, and her words, though many times requested and warned about this, saying that it is impossible for the same woman to do the contrary of those things which she affirmed in her trial that she did by the command of God, nor concerning these will she refer herself to the determination or judgment of any living person, but only to the judgment of God; and that the same Saints revealed to her that she will be saved in the glory of the Blessed, and will obtain the salvation of her soul, if she preserves her virginity, which she vowed to them the first time she saw and heard them. By reason of which revelation, she asserts herself to be as certain of her salvation as if she were presently and in fact in the kingdom of heaven.\n(1) Read armatorum.\nII. Likewise, the said woman says that the sign which the prince had to whom she was sent, by which he was determined to believe her concerning her revelations and to receive her for carrying on the wars, was that Saint Michael came to the same prince, associated with a multitude of angels, of whom some had crowns, and others had wings, with whom were Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret. Which angel and the woman walked together on the earth, along the way, the steps, and into the chamber, for a long journey, the other angels and the aforesaid Saints accompanying them; and to the same prince a certain angel delivered a most precious crown of the purest gold, and before the said prince the said angel bowed, showing him reverence. And at one time, she said that, when the prince had the sign, she thought that he was then alone, although many others were present quite near; and at another time, that, as she believes, an archbishop received that sign of the crown, and delivered it to the aforesaid prince, in the presence and sight of several temporal lords.\nIII. Likewise, the said woman knew and is certain that he who visits her is Saint Michael, by the good counsel, comfort, and good doctrine which the aforesaid Saint Michael gave and made to the same woman; and by this, that he named himself, saying that he was Michael. And in like manner she knows Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret distinctly from one another, by this, that they name themselves and greet her. On account of which, concerning Saint Michael appearing to her, she believes that he is Saint Michael, and the words and deeds of the said Michael to be true and good, as firmly as she believes that our Lord Jesus suffered and died for our redemption.\nIV. Likewise, the said woman says and affirms that she is certain of certain future things purely contingent, that they will happen, just as she is certain of those things which she actually sees before her; and of some secret things she boasts that she has and has had knowledge, by revelations made to her in words, by the voices of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, namely, that she will be delivered from prison and that the French will perform the finest deed, in her company, that was ever done for all Christendom; and also that, without anyone showing her, by revelation, as she says, she knew some men whom she had never seen before; and that she revealed and made manifest a certain sword hidden in the earth.\nV. Likewise, the said woman says and affirms that, by the command of God and His good pleasure, she took and wore, and continually wears and puts on, a habit for the use of a man. And further she says that, since she had it by the command of God to wear the habit of a man, she had to take a short tunic, a hood, a doublet, breeches, and hose with many points, with the hair of her head cut round above her ears; leaving nothing on her body that approves or shows the female sex, except what nature gave to the same woman for the distinction of the female sex. And that in the aforesaid habit, she many times received the Eucharist. Nor would she or will she resume female habit, though many times charitably requested and warned about this, saying that she would rather die than leave off the male habit, sometimes saying simply, and sometimes, unless it were by the command of God. And that, if she were in the habit of a man among those on whose side she formerly armed herself, and did as she did before her capture and detention, this would be one of the greatest goods that could happen to the whole kingdom of France; adding that, for nothing in the world, would she make an oath not to wear the habit of a man and not to arm herself. And in all the premises, she says she did well and does well, obeying God and His commandments.\nVI. Likewise, the said woman confesses and asserts, that she caused many letters to be written in some of which these names Jesus Maria, with the sign of the cross, were placed; and sometimes she placed a cross, and then she did not wish that what she commanded in her letters should be done. In others, she caused to be written that she would cause those to be put to death who did not obey her letters or warnings, and that by the blows it will be perceived who has the better right from the God of heaven. And she frequently says that she did nothing, except by the revelation and command of God.\n(1) Supply aliis.\nVII. Likewise, the said woman says and confesses that, when she was of the age of seventeen years or thereabouts, she of her own accord and by revelation, as she says, went to a certain squire whom she had never seen before, leaving her father\u0026rsquo;s house against the will of her parents; who, as soon as they knew of her departure, were almost out of their minds. Which squire the said woman requested that he should lead her or cause her to be led to the prince, of whom mention was made before. And then the said squire, a captain, delivered to the said woman the habit of a man with a sword, at the request of the same woman; and for conducting her he deputed and ordained a knight, a squire, and four servants; who, when they had come to the aforesaid prince, the said woman told the same prince that she wished to carry on war against his adversaries, promising him that she would place him in great dominion, and would overcome his enemies, and that for this she was sent by the God of heaven; saying that in the premises she did well, by the command of God and by revelation.\nVIII. Likewise, the said woman says and confesses that she, no one forcing or impelling her, threw herself down from a very high tower, choosing rather to die than to be delivered into the hands of her adversaries, and than to live after the destruction of the town of Compiègne. She says also that she could not avoid this fall; and yet Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret aforesaid forbade her to throw herself down; to offend whom she says is a great sin. But she well knows that this sin was forgiven her, after she confessed it. And of this she says she had a revelation.\nIX. Likewise, the said woman says that the aforesaid Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret promised her that they would lead her to paradise, if she well preserved her virginity, which she vowed to them, both in body and in soul. And of this she says she is as certain as if she were already in the glory of the Blessed. Nor does she think she has committed the works of mortal sin; for, if she were in mortal sin, Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret aforesaid, as it seems to her, would not visit her, as they daily visit her.\nX. Likewise, the said woman says and affirms that God loves certain persons, determined and named, still living, and loves them more than He does the same woman. And this she knows by the revelation of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, who speak to her frequently in French and not in English, since they are not of their party. And after she knew by revelation that the voices were for the prince of whom mention is made above, she did not love the Burgundians.\nXI. Likewise, the said woman says and confesses that to the aforesaid voices and spirits, whom she calls Michael, Gabriel, Catherine, and Margaret, she many times showed reverence, by uncovering her head, bending her knees, kissing the earth on which they walked, and vowing her virginity to them, sometimes embracing and kissing the same Catherine and Margaret; and she touched them bodily and sensibly, and asked counsel and help from them, sometimes invoking them, although they frequently visit her without being invoked; and she acquiesces in and obeys their counsels and commandments, and acquiesced from the beginning, without asking counsel from anyone, namely, from father or mother, curate or prelate, or any other ecclesiastic whatsoever. And nevertheless she firmly believes that the voices and revelations which she had through such Saints, come from God and by His ordination; and she believes this as firmly as the Christian faith, and that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered death for us; adding that, if an evil spirit should appear to her, who feigned himself to be Saint Michael, she would well know how to discern whether he were Saint Michael or not. The same woman also says, that, at her own request, no other person compelling or requiring her, she swore to Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret who appear to her, that she would not reveal the sign of the crown which was to be given to the prince to whom she was sent. And in the end she says, unless she had permission to reveal it.\nXII. Likewise, the said woman says and confesses that, if the Church should wish her to do anything contrary to the commandment which she says was given to her by God, she would not do it for any thing; affirming that she well knows that those things which are contained in her trial come by the commandment of God, and that it would be impossible for her to do the contrary of them. Nor concerning these will she refer herself to the determination of the Church militant, or to any man in the world; but to God our Lord alone, whose commandments she will always do, especially regarding the matter of revelations, and of those things which she says she did by revelations. And this answer and other answers she says she did not make relying on her own head; but she made and gave the same answers by the commandment of the voices and revelations made to her; although to the said woman, by the judges and others there present, the article of faith was often declared, which is, One Holy Catholic Church, expressing to her that every faithful traveler is bound to obey, and to submit his deeds and words to the Church militant, especially in the matter of faith and what touches sacred doctrine and ecclesiastical sanctions.\nThe Tenors of the Deliberations # Next follow the deliberations given upon the aforesaid assertions, which we received on various days following.\nAnd first, sixteen doctors and six both licentiates and bachelors in sacred theology, deliberated as is contained in the present instrument, drawn up on this matter, the tenor of which follows:\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. By this present public instrument, let it appear evidently to all and be known that, in the year of the same Lord 1431, in the ninth indiction, on Thursday, the twelfth day of the month of April, in the fourteenth year of the pontificate of the most holy father in Christ and our lord, Lord Martin, by divine providence Pope V; in the presence of us, the public notaries and witnesses subscribed, there being personally present the reverend fathers and lords and venerable and circumspect men, lords and masters: Érard Emengart, presiding; Jean Beaupère, Guillaume Lebouchier, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midi, Pierre de Miget, prior of Longueville; Maurice du Quesnay, Jean de Nibat, Pierre de Houdenc, Jean Fabri, Pierre Maurice, the lord abbot of Mortemer, Gérard Feuillet, Richard de Prat, and Jean Carpentier, professors of sacred theology; Guillaume Haiton, bachelor in theology; Raoul Silvestre, licentiate in theology; and also Nicolas Couppequesne, Isambart de la Pierre, and Thomas de Courcelles, also bachelors in theology; and Nicolas Loiselleur, master of arts; saying that, since the reverend father in Christ, the lord Bishop of Beauvais, and brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the distinguished doctor, master Jean Gravarent, Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the kingdom of France, judges in a certain cause of faith introduced before them, requested the same doctors and masters and each of them, according to the form of a certain schedule, the tenor of which begins thus: We, Pierre, etc. The articles follow, etc. A certain woman, etc.; after the forenamed doctors and masters duly received the aforesaid requisitionary schedule, and diligently examined the contents of the same, with great and mature deliberation, repeatedly; attending, as they said, that every professor of sacred doctrine is bound by legal sanctions to give wholesome counsel in a matter of faith, as often as he shall be requested by the prelates of the Church and the Inquisitors of heretical depravity in favor of the faith; and wishing, in accordance with the duty of their profession, as far as they could and ought according to God, to comply with the aforesaid lords judges and their requisition: they protested in the first place, that, requested urgently and repeatedly, both in writing and by word of mouth, by the aforesaid lords judges, in favor of the faith, as is set forth, and for satisfying the requisition of the same, they intend to say doctrinally in this matter what shall seem to them to be consonant with Holy Scripture, the doctrines of the Saints, and ecclesiastical sanctions, having only God and the truth of the faith before their eyes. They protested furthermore, that all things to be said and deliberated by them, both in this matter and in all others whatsoever, they submit to the examination, correction, and all-manner of determination of the Holy Roman Church, and of all those to whom the examination, correction, and determination of their sayings belongs, or in the future can and ought to belong; together with the other protestations accustomed to be made in similar matters, in the best manner and form in which such protestations can be made. These protestations being premised, the aforesaid doctors and masters deliberated as follows:\nWe say that, the quality of the person, her words, her deeds, and the manners of her apparitions and revelations, the end, the matter, and the circumstances of all the aforesaid, and all things contained in the aforesaid articles and trial being diligently attended to, compared with one another, and weighed: it is to be judged that the aforesaid apparitions and revelations which she boasts and asserts she had from God through the angels and Saints, were not from God through the said angels and Saints; but rather certain fictions invented by human ingenuity, or proceeded from an evil spirit; nor had she sufficient signs for believing and knowing this; and that in the aforesaid articles are contained invented lies; some things not probable, lightly believed by her; superstitious divinations also; scandalous and irreligious deeds; some rash, presumptuous words, full of boastings; blasphemy against God and the Saints; impiety toward parents; some things not consonant with the commandment of love of neighbor; idolatry or, at least, a lying fiction; schismatic statements concerning the unity, authority, and power of the Church; pernicious opinions, and vehemently suspect of heresy. And believing that those who appeared are Saint Michael, Saint Catherine, and Saint Margaret, and that their words and deeds are good, as firmly as she believes the Christian faith, she is to be held suspect of erring in the faith; because, if she understands that the articles of faith are not to be more firmly believed than that those whom she says appeared to her are Saint Michael and Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, and that their words and deeds are good, she errs in the faith. To say also that she did well in doing all things contained in the fifth article, including also that which is placed in the first article, concerning not receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist at the time ordained by the Church, and that she did all the aforesaid by the command of God, is blasphemy against God and error in the faith.\nConcerning which premises, the said doctors and masters requested of us, the public notaries, and wished a public instrument to be delivered to them by the aforesaid lords judges. These things were done in the chapel of the archiepiscopal manor of Rouen, under the year, indiction, month, day, and pontificate aforesaid, there being present at this the discreet men, lords Jean de la Haye and Jean Bareton, priests beneficed in the church of Rouen, witnesses called and requested to the premises.\nThus signed:\nAnd I, Guillaume Manchon, priest of the diocese of Rouen, public notary by apostolic and imperial authorities, and sworn notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, was present at all and singular the premises, while they were thus, as is set forth, said, done, and performed, together with the notary below and the witnesses above-written, and thus saw and heard them done. Therefore, to this present public instrument, faithfully written with my own hand, I have subscribed and placed my accustomed sign, together with the sign and subscription of the public notary, being requested in faith and testimony of the premises. G. Manchon.\nAnd I, Guillaume Colles, called of Boisguillaume, priest of the diocese of Rouen, public notary by apostolic authority and in the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, and sworn scribe in this cause, was present at all and singular the premises, while they were thus, as is set forth, said, done, and performed, together with the forenamed witnesses and the notary above-named; and saw and heard them thus done. Therefore, being requested and asked in faith and testimony of the truth of the premises, I have signed the present public instrument, faithfully made therefrom, though written by another\u0026rsquo;s hand, with my accustomed and usual sign and name. Colles.\nMaster Denis Gastinel, licentiate in both laws, deliberated in this manner:\nWith the protestations accustomed to be made in a matter of faith, submitting myself to the correction of my lords the judges, of any other doctors in the sacred page, and of the other experts in the canon and civil laws, whom it becomes to clear up this matter: it seems to me that it should be said that the matter in itself is infected, suspect in faith, vehemently erroneous, schismatic, heretical; and a perverse dogma, contrary to good morals, contrary to the determination of the Church, general Councils, and the sacred canons, civil, human, or political laws; scandalous, seditious, to the injury of God, the Church, and of all the faithful; which renders its author, doctor, and master, suspect in faith, vehemently erroneous, schismatic, heretical, if she pertinaciously defends the subject matter of which inquiry is made; seditious, disturbing of the peace. Which author, follower of such perverse or false doctrine, unless immediately after the detection of such erroneous and perverse doctrine, she spontaneously returns to the unity of the Catholic faith, and publicly consents to abjure her erroneous doctrine or heretical stain, at the discretion of her judge, and to show suitable satisfaction, is to be left to the discretion of the secular judge, to receive due punishment according to the quality of her crime. Who, if she wishes to abjure, let the benefit of absolution be bestowed upon her, and let there be enjoined upon her what is accustomed to be enjoined upon such persons; and let her be shut up in prison, to perform penance, to be sustained with the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction, that she may bewail her offenses, and not commit further things to be bewailed. Thus signed: D. Gastinel.\n(1) In French: au pain de douleur et à l\u0026rsquo;eau d\u0026rsquo;angoisse [on the bread of sorrow and the water of anguish].\nMaster Jean Basset, licentiate in canon law, Official of Rouen, deliberated in the manner which follows:\nFew or no things, reverend fathers and lords, my fellow-judges in this part, can I say in so great, so arduous, and so difficult a matter of faith, especially as to the pretended revelations of which mention is made in the articles transmitted to me by your lordships. Nevertheless, the protestations accustomed to be made in such matters being premised, under the kind correction of those whom it concerns, for the present there seem to me to be said, upon the same articles, the things which follow:\nAnd first, as to the pretended revelations themselves, I say that, although the sayings of this woman upon the premised articles are possible with God; yet, because the said woman does not prove them by the working of a miracle or the testimony of Holy Scripture, of which there is no evident proof, no credit is to be given to such sayings and assertions of the said woman upon the same pretended revelations.\nLikewise, as to the putting off of her female habit, if indeed she had no commandment for this from God, which is not believed, she acts contrary to the honor and decency of the female sex, and contrary to good morals.\nLikewise, and in the case premised in this, that she would not receive the Eucharist at least once in the year, she goes expressly against the determination and commandment of the Church.\nLikewise, and in this that she would not submit herself to the judgment of the militant Church, she seems to go against the article of faith, One Holy Catholic Church.\nYet I always understand the premises, provided that these pretended revelations do not come from God; which I do not believe. Nay, concerning these and other things and her spoken propositions to be qualified and characterized, I refer myself to the judgment of the lords theologians, to whose science it more belongs to determine these things. As to the manner and form of the trial of this woman, upon which deliberation is to be made, if it is shown and explained to me according to the last chapter de Haereticis in the Sext, according to the measure of my understanding, I offer myself, though unworthy and ignorant of the law, to labor according to my power.\nYour Jean Basset, unworthy licentiate in the decretals, Official of Rouen, the archiepiscopal see being vacant. Thus signed: Jo. Basset.\nThe reverend father in Christ, Lord Gilles, abbot of the Holy Trinity of Fécamp, doctor of sacred theology, deliberated conformably to the aforesaid lords and masters, as is contained in his schedule signed with his own hand, the tenor of which follows:\nReverend father and most singular preceptor, with most humble recommendation premised with readiness of service to your most reverend fatherhood; I received letters yesterday, at about the tenth hour, containing summarily how your aforesaid reverend fatherhood and the vicar of the Inquisitor, doctors of sacred theology lately being in the city of Rouen, requested that, upon certain articles touching the matter of faith, they should wish to deliberate doctrinally; which was done. Your already mentioned most reverend fatherhood desires, moreover, to receive my deliberation upon the same articles. But what, most reverend father and most singular preceptor, after so many and such men, whose like are perhaps not to be found in the world, could my ignorance conceive, or my unlearned speech bring forth? Assuredly nothing. I stand therefore with them in all things and through all things, and adhere to the things agreed upon by them, the submissions being presupposed and the accustomed protestations; placing my own manual sign, in testimony of the premises. Most reverend father and most singular preceptor, if any things please you, command me; since in executing your commands, power may fail, but not the will. May the Most High deign to preserve your most reverend fatherhood as desired, with happy moments of prosperous successes. Written at Fécamp, the 21st of the month of April.\nThe disciple of your most reverend fatherhood, the abbot of Fécamp. Thus signed: G. Fécamp.\nMaster Jacques Guesdon, of the order of Friars Minor, doctor of sacred theology, deliberated conformably as the said lords and masters, according to the tenor of the schedule signed with his own hand, the tenor of which follows:\nOn Wednesday, the 13th of April, there appeared before the lord of Beauvais, the venerable father, master Jacques Guesdon, master in theology, of the convent of Friars Minor of Rouen; affirming that he was present with the lords theologians and masters of this city, assembled in the archiepiscopal chapel of Rouen, in the same chapel for the deed of Joan, who is commonly called the Maid, for having their deliberations upon her deed. Who all, and also the said master Jacques, agreed in one and the same opinion; with whom also the same master Jacques stands, and joins himself to their opinions. And because, having to do business elsewhere, he asked permission of the same lord to depart and withdraw; so however that as often as necessary, he is ready to obey in this business, as he is bound, when he shall have returned, in this trial. Thus signed: It is so. Guesdon.\n(1) The manuscripts read habeii. The entire sentence is defective.\nMaster Jean Maugier, canon of Rouen, licentiate in canon law, deliberated conformably to the aforesaid lords and masters, as is contained in his schedule, written with his own hand, the tenor of which follows:\nReverend father, and you, lord vicar of the lord Inquisitor, may you deign to know, if it please you, that I received your schedule with all humility and obedience that is fitting; and have seen the contents and questions in the same by you, and indeed the qualifications and opinion of the reverend lords and masters, notable professors in the sacred page, even to a great number agreeing in one sentence and determination, and responsive to your said questions. Which determination or their opinion seems to me good, just, and holy, and to be embraced; since it seems to me to agree and not to disagree with the sacred canons and canonical sanctions and the sayings of our doctors. Therefore, following the said opinion of my said lords and masters, I determine for it; and hold it in all things and through all things. Under the protestations however made by the same my lords and masters, in the rendering of their said opinion, and those things which are accustomed to be done in such an act.\nReady at your good pleasures, Jo. Maugier.\nMaster Jean Brûlot, licentiate in canon law, Cantor and canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated conformably to the aforesaid lords and masters, as is contained in his schedule written with his own hand and signed with his manual sign, the tenor of which follows:\nHaving seen the confessions and assertions delivered in writing to several others and to me by you, reverend father and religious man, lord vicar of the lord Inquisitor of the faith, deputed in the kingdom of France by the apostolic see; communication also having been had with several experienced and skilled in both divine and human law; because, by the turning over of books and the deeds of the woman of whom treaty is made; having considered also what can move me to this, to the opinion of my lords and masters, skilled in divine law and more experienced in such matters, and agreeing with one another in great number; because it seems to me consonant with the canon laws, I refer and determine myself, and stand in the same opinion with them; with the protestations however accustomed to be made in such matters. Thus signed: J. Brûlot, Cantor and canon of Rouen.\nMaster Nicolas de Venderès, licentiate in canon law, archdeacon of Eu and canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated conformably to the aforesaid lords and masters, as is contained in his schedule, signed with his own hand, the tenor of which is such:\nUnder the protestations accustomed to be made in such acts, and made by my lords and masters, distinguished professors in the sacred page, in the rendering of their opinion; because I have seen their said opinion, the qualifications upon the assertions and confessions, sent to me by you, reverend father and lord vicar of the lord Inquisitor; answering to your questions, according to the faculty granted to me by God, as best I can, I say and hold, that the same my lords and masters proceeded and behaved well, piously, and mildly in rendering their opinion; and, by the turning over of my books, I found their said opinion good, lawful, and reasonable, and indeed not disagreeing with canonical sanctions, but rather agreeing, and consequently, in my view, to be embraced by me, and following the same my lords and masters, I confirm myself to their opinion in all things and through all things. Thus signed: Your servant and chaplain, N. de Venderès.\nMaster Gilles Deschamps, licentiate in civil law, Chancellor and canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated conformably to the aforesaid lords and masters, according to the tenor of his schedule, signed with his own hand, the tenor of which follows:\nReverend father in Christ, and you lord vicar of the reverend lord, the lord Inquisitor of heretical depravity; upon certain assertions extracted by your same lordships, sent to me upon the deed of a certain woman; the submissions and protestations accustomed to be made in a matter of faith being presupposed, asserting nothing rashly, and intending in nothing to derogate from the divine power, all things being considered and weighed; having attended to and considered the charitable warning and multiple summons and choice given to her, yesterday, in the presence of the venerable assembly of prelates and doctors of both laws, by your same most reverend fatherhoods and the lord archdeacon of Évreux, deputed for this by you, concerning submitting her deeds and words, contained in the aforesaid articles and her trial, to the determination and ordination of the universal Church, of our lord the Supreme Pontiff, of a general Council, or of four notable men of her obedience and of the church of Poitiers; (which summons and exhortations made to her, were justly and reasonably made, as it appears to me; and by all reasonable means, the aforesaid charitable warnings and exhortations, laudably begun by you, to the honor of God, seem to me ought to be continued, for her salvation): which aforesaid things being attended to and the answers given by her, and especially that she would in no way comply with the aforesaid exhortations and choice given to her; unless something else appear and be proved to me concerning the correction and amendment of her words, or other sounder interpretation: the aforesaid assertions seem to me to be suspect in faith, and to be contrary to good morals and canonical sanctions; although concerning the more discreet and clearer qualification of the said assertions, the determinations of the doctors of both laws, namely of theology and of the decretals, seem to me highly to be attended to. Given in the year of our Lord 1431, on the third day of the month of May, under my manual sign, here placed. Thus signed: G. Deschamps.\nMaster Nicolas Caval, licentiate in civil law, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated conformably to the aforesaid lords and masters, according to the tenor of the schedule written with his own hand, the tenor of which is such:\nHaving seen the assertions sent to me by you, reverend father and lord in Christ, the lord Bishop of Beauvais, and the lord vicar of the lord Inquisitor, under the signs of public notaries; and having seen and heard the concordant opinion of very many notable masters in the sacred page, in great number, and of others, given to your reverend fatherhood: because their said opinion, in my judgment, is consonant with canonical sanctions, I join myself to their said opinion; under your corrections however, and the protestations accustomed to be made in such matters.\nYour humble Nicolas Caval, canon of the church of Rouen.\nMaster Robert Barbier, licentiate in canon law, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated conformably to the aforesaid lords and masters, according to the tenor of the schedule signed with his hand, the tenor of which is such:\nThe assertions of that woman being delivered to me on the part of your most reverend fatherhood, my lord most redoubtable lord Bishop, and of your lordship, lord vicar of the lord Inquisitor; having seen them together with certain qualifications made in the same matter by several lords and masters, professors of sacred theology; deliberation also having been had with some of them and several experienced in canon law: to the opinion of the said masters in theology, delivered to you, I refer and determine myself for the present; saving however the protestations accustomed to be made in a matter of faith. For in my small judgment, and saving other better judgment, the aforesaid assertions, for the good of the matter and the justification of the trial, ought to be sent to our mother the University of Paris, and especially to the Faculty of theology and of the decretals, and their opinions obtained, before the matter is concluded. Thus signed: Barbier.\nMaster Jean Alespée, licentiate in civil law, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated conformably to the oft-mentioned lords and masters, as is contained in his schedule, written with his own hand and manual sign, as follows:\nTo the father in Christ, the reverend and my redoubtable lord, the lord Bishop of Beauvais, ordinary judge in the present matter; and to you, venerable father, master Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the lord Inquisitor, reverence and honor with all readiness of service. Because you commanded me, not worthy nor sufficient in smaller things, and afterwards requested me, and under the penalties of the law, that, by next Thursday (fixing this one delay for all for me, Monday, April 16, in the year of our Lord 1431), I should give you in writing my deliberation, namely, whether the assertions in the articles already sent to me with the first command, or any of them, are contrary to the orthodox faith, or suspect in it, contrary to Holy Scripture, contrary to the determination of the Holy Roman Church, contrary to the determination of the doctors approved by the Church, canonical sanctions, scandalous, rash, injurious, involved in crimes, contrary to good morals, or in any way offensive; or what in the judgment of faith ought to be said: I, Jean Alespée, a son of obedience, although the possibility of my capacity does not taste of so much; lest however I should seem disobedient (which God forbid); under the protestations made by my reverend fathers and lords and masters, the lords of theology, who have digested the matter better than I, and delivered to you by them in writing: believe and hold the assertions and propositions sent and delivered by them, to be well, duly, justly, and holily qualified, and, as it seems to me, according to canonical sanctions. Wherefore, to their deliberation and opinion I ought to refer myself, as indeed I do refer and wish to adhere. If however you shall have had, or it shall happen that you have, deliberation with the University our mother of Paris, the Faculties of theology and of the decretals, or either of them, I do not indeed exclude myself from reducing myself to their or its deliberation; but rather submit myself to the determination of them or it, and also of the Holy Roman Church and of a sacred general Council. Thus signed: J. Alespée.\nMaster Jean Hulot de Châtillon, archdeacon and canon of Évreux, doctor in sacred theology, deliberated conformably to the forenamed lords and masters, according to the tenor of the schedule signed with his own hand, the tenor of which follows:\nWith the protestations accustomed to be made in such matters, I say concordantly and conformably with the aforesaid professors of sacred theology, in nothing disagreeing from them, that, the quality of the person, her words, her deeds, etc. And these things I say under the correction of those to whom it belongs to reduce those who err into the way of truth, under the aforesaid protestations and submissions, and under my sign and with my own hand, in testimony of the premises, according to the form of the requisition. Thus signed: Jean de Châtillon.\n(1) The remainder is as in the deliberation of the sixteen consultants. See above, p. 339.\nMaster Jean de Bouesgue, doctor in theology, almoner of Fécamp, deliberated in the manner which follows; and it is such:\nI, Jean de Bouesgue, doctor in theology in the University of Paris, for 25 years past, and almoner of the venerable monastery of Fécamp; having attended to those things which are written above concerning the said woman and against her words and deeds; the quality of the person, and the manners of her apparitions and revelations, etc.; it is to be judged, etc., schismatic concerning the unity, authority, and power of the Church, and fallen into heresy, her pertinacity being attended to, and those things which she says of Saint Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine, of the sacrament of the Eucharist, etc.; that she does all things by the command of God, etc. Wherefore let her be punished and let justice be done upon her, to the honor of God and the exaltation of the faith. Thus signed: J. de Bouesgue.\n(1) See p. 339.\nMaster Jean Guarin, doctor of decretals, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated conformably to the lords and masters, named above in the public instrument, as is contained in the schedule, signed with his hand:\nReverend father and lord, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and you, brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the Inquisitor, etc., know that I have received with reverence and honor certain propositions, contained in a certain codicil, sent to me by you, and have seen them and the contents in the same, and have studied upon these, according to my small understanding, the doctors of the sacred canons; afterwards with the doctors both of divine and human law, and very many others skilled in the said laws, assembled together, hearing the qualifications of our reverend masters, distinguished professors in sacred theology, upon the said propositions and assertions, specially assembled in great number, comparing each to each, as is of law, I have conferred; and that the said qualifications, in my small judgment, do not disagree from the determination of the Holy Roman Church, the determination of the doctors approved by the Church, and canonical sanctions, or otherwise, according to the doctrine of the sacred canons; but rather are consonant with the sacred canons. Wherefore, with the protestations of the said our reverend masters made in the present matter, and also of the doctors of decretals of whom I am the least, accustomed to be made in so great and such a matter: I stand in the opinion of the said our masters, thus qualified, as lawful, rational, and, in my small judgment, consonant with the doctrine of the sacred canons; and with a willing mind I am always most prompt to obey the commands of the Church and yours in all things, to the extent of my power. Thus signed: Yours in all things, J. Guarin.\nThe venerable Chapter of the church of Rouen deliberated in this manner:\n(1) I owe to the kindness of M. Floquet, chief clerk of the Royal Court of Rouen, two extracts from the cathedral’s chapter register. They show how difficult it was to assemble enough votes to decide Pierre Cauchon’s request, and how cautiously the final decision was taken. The extracts follow:\nIn the year of our Lord 1431, on April 13, the following lords and masters being assembled in chapter: J. Brûlot, cantor; Raoul Roussel, treasurer; Nicolas de Venderès, archdeacon of Eu; J. Guarin, archdeacon of French Vexin; H. Gorieu; J. Rubé; J. de l’Épée; J. Basset; J. Maugier; Raoul de Hangest; Nicolas Caval; Guillaume Desjardins; Nicolas Aucupis; Guillaume Fabri; Nicolas Coppequesne; Pierre Maurice; Guy de Besançon; J. Pinchon; J. Geoffroi; and Raoul Veret; the dean, J. Beaupère, being absent. The aforesaid lords concluded that all the lords named above, and the others who were absent, should be summoned for the following day to deliberate upon the requests made by the Bishop of Beauvais, and should appear under penalty, for each defaulter, of losing all distributions for eight days. (Register of the Chapter of Rouen, 1429–1432, p. 97.)\nIn the year of our Lord 1431, on April 14 after Easter, the following lords and masters being assembled in chapter: J. Brûlot, cantor; Raoul Roussel, treasurer; Nicolas de Venderès, archdeacon of Eu; André Marguerie, archdeacon of Petit-Caux; J. Guarin, archdeacon of French Vexin; L. Depoungh; Gilles Deschamps; H. Gorieu; Robert Barbier; J. Rubé; J. de l’Épée; J. Basset; J. Régis; Denis Gastinel; J. Maugier; Guillaume de Baudribosc; Raoul de Hangest; Guillaume Desjardins; Nicolas Aucupis; Guillaume Le Machrier; Pierre de Clinchamp; Nicolas Coppequesne; Guillaume Fabri; Guillaume du Désert; Pierre Maurice; J. Beaupère; Guy de Besançon; J. Pinchon; Raoul Veret; and J. Geoffroi; the dean being absent. On the year and day aforesaid, the said lords, following the conclusion taken in chapter the preceding day, having been summoned to deliberate upon the matter proposed and explained in the said chapter by the reverend father in Christ, the Bishop of Beauvais, after mature deliberation among themselves, concluded by a majority of votes: first, that all the assertions made by the woman detained in prison, of whom the said matter treats, should be explained to her in French, and that she should be charitably admonished to submit herself to the disposition of the Church; and also, so that they might give more wholesome counsel concerning the premises, that the said matter should be examined and considered by the renowned University of Paris, especially by its theologians and jurists, and that the deliberation of the said University should be seen in chapter before the chapter deliberated concerning the premises. (Ibid., p. 98.)\nSince you, reverend father, and you venerable lord, vicar of the lord Inquisitor of heretical depravity, requested us, the Chapter of the church of Rouen, in favor of the faith, to give wholesome counsel upon several assertions extracted and elicited from the confessions and sayings of a certain woman, commonly called the Maid; namely, whether such assertions or any of them, all things being attended to and considered, are contrary to the orthodox faith, etc., or how they ought to be judged in the judgment of faith, as is more fully contained in the preamble of the schedule of the said assertions; and for that time, having weighed the greatness of the matter, we deferred giving an answer, desiring for the safer and firmer giving of counsel by us, that the consultation, deliberation, and determination of the famous University of Paris, especially of the Faculties of theology and of the decretals of the same, should be had beforehand; but afterwards, having seen and attentively considered the determinations of very many doctors of sacred theology being in this city, and a certain celebrated assembly of prelates, doctors of theology and of canon law, licentiates in both laws, namely, canon and civil or either, and of other scientific men experienced in divine and human law, on the second day of this month of May, solemnly celebrated by you, presiding in the same; in which, very many sweet and pious warnings, charitable exhortations, and summons having been made to the same woman both by you, and also by the venerable lord, the lord archdeacon of Évreux, distinguished professor of sacred theology, specially commissioned for this by your authority and ordination, so that, for the salvation of the soul and body of the same woman, to the honor and praise of God and the restoration of the Catholic faith, she should wish to correct and amend her indecent deeds and words, and submit the same words and deeds, as becomes every Catholic, to the judgment and determination of the universal Church, of our lord the Supreme Pontiff, of a general Council, and of other prelates of the Church to whom it could belong, or even of four notable and scientific ecclesiastical men of the temporal obedience and dominion of her party, acquiescing in the counsel of the doctors and others forenamed there then being; which indeed just warnings, exhortations, and charitable summons the aforesaid woman in no way wished to receive or to acquiesce in them, but so many times rejected and repelled them, damnably and perniciously, though offered to her most urgently and many times out of zeal for the salvation of her soul and body; utterly refusing to undergo the determination and judgment of the aforesaid Church, of the Supreme Pontiff, and of any of the others oft-mentioned; notwithstanding the explanation and declaration of her defects and errors and also of the danger of perpetual damnation to which she was exposing herself, were most clearly shown to her: IT IS THEREFORE, the submissions and protestations accustomed to be made in such a matter of faith being presupposed, that we say in favor of the same faith the things which follow. Namely, that the determinations and qualifications given by the forenamed doctors of theology, upon the said assertions, were mildly, justly, and reasonably made; and we adhere to them together with them, adding that, the aforesaid warnings, summons, charitable exhortations, and declarations and also the answers and refusals of the same woman being attended to and weighed with the pertinacity of her mind, she seems to us to be judged a heretic. These things were done in our Chapter, in the year of our Lord 1431, on the 4th day of the month of May. Thus signed: R. Guérould.\nMasters Aubert Morel and Jean de Chemin, licentiates in canon law, advocates of the court of the Official of Rouen, had deliberated in this manner:\nUnder the protestations accustomed to be made in a matter of faith, submitting ourselves to the correction of our lords the judges, and of other doctors in the sacred page, and of other experts of the law, whom it becomes to clear up this matter; it seems to us to be said: First, namely as to the pretended revelations, that, of written law, although the said pretended sayings of this woman upon the premised articles are possible with God; nevertheless, because the said woman does not prove them by the working of a miracle or the testimony of Holy Scripture, of which there is no evident proof, no credit is to be given to such sayings and assertions of the said woman. Likewise, as to the putting off of her female habit, provided however she had no commandment from God, (which is not to be believed, both because she did it alone, and because she did it in her own affair, contrary to the honor and decency of her sex and contrary to good morals), and being duly warned on this account, if she contemns, she was and is to be excommunicated or anathematized. Likewise the said woman, a reasonable cause ceasing and by the counsel of her own priest, is bound to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least once in the year; otherwise, the said woman goes against the determination and commandment of the Church. Likewise the said woman is bound to submit herself to the judgment of the militant Church; and being competently warned upon this, unless she does this, she seems to go against the article of faith, One Holy Catholic Church. We understand the premises, provided that these revelations do not come from God. And concerning these and other propositions and assertions and other pretended things to be qualified and characterized, we refer ourselves to the judgment of the lords theologians, to whom it more belongs. From which things it seems to us that this matter is suspect in faith, contrary to good morals, contrary to the determinations of the Church, also scandalous and seditious, rendering its author suspect in faith, if she pertinaciously defends the present matter. And on this account she is to be punished with the penalty of perpetual prison, to be sustained with the bread of sorrow and the water of affliction, that she may bewail her offenses and not commit further things to be bewailed, or with another extraordinary penalty, to be moderated at the discretion of the lords judges. Thus signed: A. Morel. J. de Chemin.\nEleven advocates of the court of Rouen, of whom some are licentiates in canon, others in civil, and others in both laws, deliberated in the manner which follows, as appears in the instrument drawn up on this; and whose names follow: Guillaume de Livet, Pierre Carré, Guérould Poustel, Geoffroy de Crotey, Richard de Saulx, Bureau de Cormeilles, Jean Ledoux, Laurent Dubust, Jean Colombel, Raoul Anguy, Jean Tavernier. The tenor of the said instrument follows:\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. Let all know who shall inspect this present public instrument that, in the year of the same Lord 1431, in the ninth indiction, on the penultimate day of the month of April, in the fourteenth year of the pontificate of the most holy father in Christ and our lord, Lord Martin, by divine providence Pope V; in the chapel or oratory of the archiepiscopal manor of Rouen, there being assembled and present the venerable and circumspect men, advocates of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen to the number of eleven, their names and surnames not being expressed in this instrument; and for a cause, being requested as skilled in the law under the penalties of the law on the part of the reverend father in Christ and lord, Lord Pierre, by the grace of God Bishop of Beauvais, and of the religious man, brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the lord Inquisitor, to deliberate upon certain articles transmitted to the same advocates by the same lords judges, and to transmit their deliberations in writing to the same lords judges, by next Monday, as these and other things in a certain paper schedule, signed with the manual signs of lords Guillaume Colles, called of Boisguillaume, and Guillaume Manchon, priests, public notaries, seemed to be contained; and in the presence of me, public notary, and of the witnesses underwritten called and specially requested for this, there being personally present the said lords advocates, who being ready to obey and comply with the commands of the said lords judges to the extent of their power, and not wishing to incur the penalties of the law; but as true sons of obedience, by unanimous consent and with one will, no one disagreeing upon such articles, in the manner and form written below, deliberated in this manner:\nUnder the kind correction of the reverend fathers and lords, the lords fellow-judges, and of all others whom it concerns, although we can say or deliver in writing few or no things in so great and so arduous a matter, of which mention is made in the articles transmitted to us by your lordships; nevertheless, under the protestations accustomed to be made in such a matter, it seems to us to be said in the matter: And first, as to the revelations of which mention is made in the said articles, that, although the sayings of the woman, upon the articles delivered, are possible with God, yet the same woman is not to be believed, since she does not prove her sayings by the workings of a miracle or by the testimony of Holy Scripture. Likewise, as to the putting off of her female habit and the refusal of the resumption of the same habit, it seems that she did first contrary to the honor of the female sex; likewise that she can be warned to resume the female habit, otherwise, it can be proceeded against her to the sentence of excommunication; unless she had a commandment for this from God, which is not to be presumed. Likewise in this that she says she prefers to lack the communion of the Eucharist of Christ, at the time when the faithful are accustomed to communicate, rather than to leave off the male habit, in this, as it seems, she acts expressly against the sacred sanctions, since every faithful person is bound once in the year to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. Likewise, because she does not wish to submit herself to the judgment of the militant Church, she seems to go against the article of faith, One Holy, etc., and the determination of the law. And we always understand the aforesaid, as we have said and declared, unless the asserted revelations come from God, which is not probably to be believed. Nevertheless concerning these and other propositions to be qualified and determined, contained in the articles and trial, we refer ourselves to the judgment of the lords theologians of our mother the University of Paris, to whose science it more conveniently belongs to determine these things.\nOf and upon which premises all and singular, the said lords advocates assembled in the aforesaid number, whose names and surnames I have retained with me, the public notary, requested of me, the public notary underwritten, a public instrument, one or more, to be made and delivered to them. These things were done in the said chapel, in the morning hour, in the year, indiction, month, day, and pontificate aforesaid; there being present at this the discreet men, lords Pierre Cochon and Simon Dany, priests, sworn notaries of the said archiepiscopal court of Rouen, witnesses called and specially requested to the premises.\nAnd I, Guillaume Lecras, priest of the diocese of Rouen, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority and of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, and deputed examiner of witnesses in this cause, was present with the aforesaid witnesses at all and singular the premises, while they were thus, as is set forth, said and done by the said lords advocates, in the place, day, and hour aforesaid; and saw and heard them thus done and deliberated, and received them into note. Therefore, being requested and asked in testimony of the truth of the premises, I have placed my accustomed sign to this present public instrument written with my hand, subscribing myself here. G. Lecras.\nThe reverend father in Christ, Lord Philibert, Bishop of Coutances, deliberated in this manner:\n(1) Philibert de Montjeu, a Burgundian nobleman, was first a canon of Amiens and was then raised to the see of Coutances through the protection of the Duke of Bedford. At the end of 1431 he left his diocese to attend the Council of Basel and never returned to France, death overtaking him during an embassy in Bohemia on June 20, 1439. (Gallia Christiana, vol. XI, col. 891.)\n(2) The source reads quaterno for quaternione.\nTo the reverend father and lord in Christ, Lord Pierre, by the grace of God Bishop of Beauvais, my dearest lord. Reverend father and lord in Christ, with cordial recommendation premised, I received the letters of your reverend fatherhood brought to this city in my absence, together with a certain quire containing the confession and assertions of a certain woman divided into twelve articles, and signed with the manual signs of three notaries and with the royal seal. And, as I was able to gather from the same articles, the aforesaid woman asserts that the angels Michael and Gabriel with a multitude of angels, and Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret appeared to her, and sometimes at the fatal tree; and that she touched the same Saints bodily; and that they comforted her, and spoke to her and frequently, and that she promised to the same Saints that she would preserve her virginity; and that the said Saints told the same woman by the command of God that she should go to a certain prince, and that by his help she would recover a great dominion; also that she should take and wear the habit of a man, which she took and wears; that she went to the said prince, Michael and a multitude of angels and the said Saints accompanying her, a most precious crown being given to the same king by an angel; and that by revelation she knows she will escape from prison, and that the French will perform in her company the finest deed that was ever done in all Christendom; and that, if she were in the habit of a man with the French, as she was before her capture, this would be one of the greatest goods that could happen to the whole kingdom of France; and from him she would receive arms with an army; and also she many times made mandatory letters in which, when Jesus or Maria, or the sign of the cross was inserted, she did not wish that what was commanded by her should be done; in others under threat of death she commanded, if she commanded anything; and that she threw herself down from a tower against the prohibition of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, which was a great sin, but yet forgiven through confession; and this she knows by revelation; she threw herself down however choosing rather to die than to be in the hands of her enemies and to see the destruction of the town of Compiègne; and that she would rather die and lack holy communion, than leave off the habit of a man; and that she believes she has committed no mortal sin, and knows she is certain of the salvation of her soul as if she were already in the kingdom of heaven; and that of certain future things purely contingent, she has certain knowledge as if she actually saw them; and furthermore she knows, as she asserts, and by the revelation of the said Saints, that God loves certain living persons, certain and named, more than her; and besides, she asserts that she showed reverence to the said angels and Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, by uncovering her head, bending her knees, and kissing the earth on which they walked; and that she says she is secure and certain that the said revelations proceed from God, and this she firmly believes as she believes the Catholic faith, and that our Lord Jesus suffered for our salvation; and that, if the Church should wish her to do anything contrary to the commandment made to her, she would not do it for any thing, nay, it would be impossible for her; and she well knows that those things which are contained in this trial come from God; nor concerning these will she refer herself to the determination of the Church militant or to any man, but to God whose commandments especially, as to the matter of revelations, she will do. And these are the things which in some way, reverend father, I was able to gather from the already said articles extracted from the original trial, lawfully, as I think, made; since it is in no way to be presumed that your reverend fatherhood and so learned and experienced lords and masters, called by you in this matter, have deviated from the path of truth, especially in this matter. And although, after the most learned and exact deduction of this matter, anything valid or premeditated cannot be explained by me in this matter, what I think, as best I can, upon these, I will disclose, being compelled by your same reverend fatherhood requiring and commanding; the qualification of each assertion being omitted, lest I should seem to wish to teach Minerva. Truly, reverend father, I think such a woman has a subtle spirit, prone to evil, agitated by diabolical instinct, and void of the grace of the Holy Spirit. For in her those two signs which, as Saint Gregory witnesses, testify a person to be filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, namely, virtue and humility, are in no way manifest to concur, if the sayings of the same woman are attended to with due consideration. Nay, even her assertions (always saving better judgment), seem some contrary to the Catholic faith, and heretical or at least vehemently suspect of heresy; and these and others vain, superstitious, scandalous, disturbing of the peace and of the public weal, and in many ways and perhaps more than can be expressed, offensive and dangerous. Which assertions indeed, with closed eyes, are not to be dissembled or passed over without the timely remedy of justice, nor does the execution of them, as justice persuades, seem to be delayed; although some might think that the discussion and decision of this cause ought to be referred to another judgment. Which woman indeed, even if she should wish to revoke the assertions to be revoked, would seem ought to be kept under safe custody, until, as is necessary, her correction and amendment shall sufficiently appear. But if she will not revoke what is to be revoked, it seems that it is to be done with her as it is established ought to be done with a pertinacious person against the faith; always saving better judgment. And these are, reverend father and lord, the things which, with all better amendment in this matter, occur to me at present to be said. Ready to execute whatever is pleasing to your same reverend fatherhood, whom may the Most High deign to preserve as desired and happily. Written at Coutances, the fifth day of May. The servant of your same reverend fatherhood in all things, Philibert, Bishop of Coutances. Thus signed: Saintigny.\nThe reverend father in Christ, the lord Bishop of Lisieux, deliberated in this manner:\n(1) Zano di Castiglione, a Milanese, obtained the see of Lisieux through the resignation of Cardinal Branda, his uncle, to whom Pope Martin V had given that bishopric in commendam. Zano was installed on April 27, 1424. On January 28, 1430, he obtained the expectancy of the bishopric of Bayeux, to which he was transferred in 1432. (Gallia Christiana, vol. XI, col. 793.)\nTo the reverend father and lord in Christ, Lord Pierre, by the grace of God and of the apostolic see, Bishop of Beauvais, and to the man of great circumspection and science, master Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the lord Inquisitor of heretical depravity, Zanon, by the same grace Bishop of Lisieux, greeting in the Lord; and to comply with your requisitions with a willing mind. Your missive letters, reverend father and lord, with several confessed assertions in the trial of a certain woman, whom the common people call the Maid, reduced into the form of articles in a paper book, lately made, sent to me on your part, know that I received with no less purity of mind than with the reverence which was fitting. Which being seen, maturely considered, and examined, I send back to you the same articles enclosed together with my judgment or opinion in these under my signet. Given at Lisieux, the 14th day of the month of May, in the year of our Lord 1431. Thus signed: Langlois.\nAlthough, reverend father, it is most difficult to establish a certain judgment in the matter of apparitions and revelations, contained in the articles, sent to me by your fatherhood under the authentic signs of certain notaries, since, according to the sentence of the Apostle, the sensual man does not perceive those things which are of the Spirit of God, nor is there anyone who has known the mind of the Lord or been His counselor; because however, as Saint Augustine places in the book De spiritu et anima, in such visions or apparitions, the soul is often deceived and illuded, because those things which it sees, sometimes are true, sometimes false, and sometimes a good, sometimes an evil spirit assumes it; nor can it easily be discerned by what spirit it is assumed; therefore, to anyone simply and nakedly asserting himself sent by God to manifest some secret and invisible judgment of God in the world, faith is by no means to be given, unless by the appearance of some signs and miracles or by the special testimony of some scripture (this is placed in the decretal, Cum ex injuncto, de Haereticis); but no conjectures nor external appearances, nor any signs of wondrous sanctity or singular life have been proved to me, by which it is to be presumed that God infused the spirit of prophecy into this woman, in the virtue of which she performed so many wonderful works, as she boasts: these things therefore being considered, I, Zanon, Bishop of Lisieux, the protestations and submissions accustomed to be made in similar matters being premised, mature consultation and deliberation having first been had; say that, the low condition of the person, the foolish and some presumptuous assertions of the same woman being attended to, the form also and manners by which she affirms she had her visions and revelations, and certain other probable circumstances of her words and deeds being weighed: it is to be presumed that the visions and revelations themselves did not proceed from God Himself through the ministry of Saints, as she asserts; nay, one of two things would be to be presumed, namely either that they are illusions and fallacies of demons, who transfigure themselves into angels of light, and sometimes shape themselves into the species and likenesses of various persons; or that they are some fabricated lies invented by human ingenuity, to deceive the simple and ignorant. Likewise, at first sight, several of the aforesaid articles contain scandalous and erroneous novelties, several rash and presumptuous assertions, full of boastings and offensive to pious ears, irreligion and irreverence toward the sacrament of the Eucharist; and since she says she does not wish to submit her words and deeds to the determination and judgment of the Church militant, in this she detracts very much from the power and authority of the Church. If therefore she shall be duly and charitably warned and exhorted and solemnly requested and summoned, to submit the interpretation of her confessed assertions, as every faithful traveler is bound, to the judgment and determination of our lord the Pope, of the universal Church assembled in general Council; or of other prelates of the Church having power for this; and she despises and refuses to do this with a pertinacious mind: she is to be judged schismatic and vehemently suspect in faith. These are the things which seem to me to be said in the present matter, saving better judgment. Witness my usual manual sign here placed, the year and day aforesaid. Thus signed: Zanon of Lisieux.\nThe reverend fathers in Christ, lords and masters, Nicolas of Jumièges and Guillaume of Cormeilles, abbots, doctors of decretals, deliberated in the manner which follows, according to the schedule signed with their own hands, the tenor of which follows:\nUpon the petition or requisition on the part of you, our reverend father in Christ, Pierre Bishop of Beauvais, and brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the lord Inquisitor, to us two humble abbots, Nicolas of Jumièges and Guillaume of Cormeilles, by a certain schedule made concerning giving to you, by next Monday, our deliberations in writing; deliberating namely whether the assertions noted in certain articles touching a certain woman, also sent to us on your part at another time, are contrary to the orthodox faith or suspect in it, etc., as is more fully contained in the said schedule; although at another time being requested by you we gave our answer in writing, also under our signets, that the whole trial concerning the said woman should be referred to our mother the University of Paris, whose opinion we have always desired especially to follow, in so arduous a business; with which answer not content, being repeatedly requested by you, as is set forth, first submitting our said things to the determination of the Holy Roman Church and of a general Council, reducing the deed of the said woman to four points, AND FIRST, to the submission of the Church militant, we say that the said woman should be warned charitably, also openly and publicly, the dangers being explained to her; and, if being lawfully warned, she perseveres in her malice, she is judged suspect in faith. As to the revelations made to her and also the wearing of the habit, which she says she has from God, it does not seem to us at first sight that she is to be insisted upon or believed, nor faith given, since it does not appear concerning sanctity of life or miracles. As to the fourth, that she is not in mortal sin, God alone knows, who searches the hearts of men; and since these things are unknown to us who have not to judge of occult things, especially since we were not always present in the examination of the said woman, concerning further qualification we refer ourselves to the lords of theology. Our signets being placed as witnesses to this present schedule, Sunday, April 29, in the year of our Lord 1431. Thus signed: N. of Jumièges. G. Abbot of Cormeilles.\nMaster Raoul Roussel, doctor of both laws, Treasurer of the church of Rouen, deliberated in the manner which follows:\nReverend father in Christ and my lord most redoubtable, and you, our honorable lord and master, may your lordships deign to know that, beyond what I have already delivered to you in writing, I should not know what more to say, except that I believe that those assertions are false, lying, and craftily invented by the woman herself and her accomplices, for coming to their ends, for her part. And of the further qualification of those propositions, I refer myself to the lords theologians to whose qualification I intend to adhere. And let these things be said with the protestations accustomed to be made in such arduous matters. Done in the year of our Lord 1431, the last day of April. Thus signed: By your servant, R. Roussel.\nMasters Pierre Minier, Jean Pigache, and Richard de Grouchet, bachelors in sacred theology, deliberated in this manner:\nThe protestations otherwise expressed by us, to which we adhere, being presupposed; upon those things which were required of us by your reverend fatherhood and the vicar of the lord Inquisitor, namely, that we should formally answer to certain assertions of a certain woman, which we heard, whether they are contrary to the orthodox faith, Holy Scripture, or suspect in faith, etc.: it seemed to us, both at another time, and still seems, that the formal answer to the said assertions, saving better judgment, depends upon the certainty of the discernment of the origin of the pretended revelations (which we are by no means sufficient to reach), of which mention is made in the articles sent by your same reverend fatherhood, upon which the said assertions rely. Because, if they proceeded from an evil spirit or demon or were invented by her own industry, it seems to us that very many of the said assertions would be suspect in faith, injurious, contrary to good morals, or infected in some other of the manners contained in the schedule. If however the pretended revelations proceeded from God or a good spirit, which however is not proved to us, it would not be lawful for us to interpret them in an unfavorable part. These are, most reverend father and lord, the things which our consciences dictate upon those things which you required of us, without any rashness and with all due correction. Thus signed: P. Minier. J. Pigache, R. Grouchet.\nMaster Raoul Silvestre, bachelor in sacred theology, deliberated according to the tenor of a certain schedule signed with his hand, the tenor of which seems to be such:\nThe due protestations and submissions, made at another time in my deliberation, to which I adhere and which I pray to be held as repeated, being presupposed, reverend father in Christ and my lord redoubtable, and you, my reverend lord, lord vicar of the lord Inquisitor; of the assertions, upon certain pretended revelations, sent at another time, as I said at another time, some at first sight, and in the form as they lie, appear to me scandalous; some suspect in faith, some rash, inductive of errors and bad examples; and of their own qualification, I referred myself, as I said, and still refer, to my lords and masters superior. For now however, asserting nothing except what is to be asserted, submitting myself and my said words humbly to your kind correction, reverend father and my lord, and of my lords and masters superior, when in the first proposition she says she saw bodily Saint Michael, etc., and so of the eleventh proposition, I do not know whether she speaks the truth; but I fear lest it be a fantastic and invented lie. Of this that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret commanded her by the command of God, that she should take the habit of a man, etc., and that she would rather die than leave off the habit of a man, this seems to me rash. Of this that she preferred not to assist at the offices of the mass, and to lack the communion of the Eucharist, at the time ordained by the Church, rather than to leave off such male habit, seems scandalous and inductive of bad examples. Of this that she deferred and refused to submit herself and her deeds to the militant Church, though many times warned and requested, and, in the twelfth proposition, that of the things revealed to her she does not wish to refer herself to the determination of the Church militant or to any man in the world, this seems schismatic, suspect of error, and inductive of bad examples, because she is bound to believe more, more firmly, and more certainly the sayings of the Church and to obey its commands, than an apparition made to her, perhaps fantastic and diabolical; because evil spirits sometimes transform themselves into the likeness of good angels. As to the second proposition, of the sign which she says the prince had to whom she was sent, etc., I do not know; perhaps it is a fiction and an invented lie. As to the third proposition, that she is certain that he who visited and visits her is Saint Michael, because he named himself such, etc., this seems rash, because not every spirit is to be believed, and perhaps it is an illusion of an evil spirit, as before. Of this that she believes those things to be true and good, as firmly as that Christ suffered for us and died, this seems suspect of error, and to expose our faith to derision, and to diminish its firmness. Of the fourth proposition, that she is certain of certain future things purely contingent that they will happen, as certain as of those things which she actually sees before her, this seems presumptuous, because future things do not happen of necessity; and, granted that this was revealed by God, this is perhaps by a certain communication, as of Jonah the prophet who foretold: Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. Of this that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret revealed to her that she will be delivered, etc., perhaps this is an invented lie, and a certain boasting. Of the sword revealed, perhaps it was revealed by an evil or human spirit, nor is she to be believed. Of the fifth proposition, that by the command of God she took the habit of a man, etc., this is not probable, but rather scandalous, indecent, and dishonest, especially to a woman and a maid, as she says she is, unless she did this for the preservation of violence to be inflicted, for the sake of preserving her virginity. Of the sixth proposition, when in the letters which she caused to be written, she placed the sign of the cross, it was a sign that those to whom she wrote should not do what she commanded, although signs signify at pleasure, yet it could be suspected that, the evil spirit instigating, in contempt and blasphemy of Christ crucified, who is the supreme truth and whom he hates, this was done. Of the remainder of the same proposition, it seems a certain proud boasting. Of the seventh, when she associated with a squire whom she had never seen, etc., she did rashly and exposed herself to danger; as also by the eighth proposition, when she threw herself down from a very high tower can be open. And when she spontaneously left her father\u0026rsquo;s house against the will of her parents, etc., there was less than due love and honor of parents, and contrary to the commandment of honoring parents; and perhaps it was a certain obstinate malice and hardness of heart. Of the eighth, as is said, when she threw herself down from the tower, etc., she had foolish and bad counsel, and seems to have been impelled by an evil spirit, and showed a sign of despair. The remainder of the same proposition can be a certain boasting. Of the ninth, that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret promised her, etc., I do not know; but perhaps it can be a rash fiction and a proud lie. That she does not think she has committed the works of mortal sin, seems to be of presumption, and contrary to the deed of throwing herself down from the tower. Concerning the tenth, when she affirms that God loves certain persons, etc., this stands well; but when she says that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret do not speak English, etc., it seems a rash assertion and a certain blasphemy, because God is Lord of all and supreme provider, both of the English and of others; and so, she seems to speak against the commandment of love of neighbor. Of the eleventh, that she embraced and kissed bodily and sensibly Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, etc., it seems to be a fantastic and invented lie, or an illusion of demons; and if she venerated them simply and without condition, perhaps she rashly submitted herself to the danger of a certain idolatry. Of the twelfth proposition, it is said as in the first is touched. Nevertheless, reverend father and my lords, the fragility of the female sex being attended to, the aforesaid propositions and assertions are to be repeated to her in French, and she is to be charitably warned that she should correct herself and not presume so much in pretended revelations, which perhaps were said and fabricated to her by an evil spirit or otherwise. And consequently I said, so that the conclusion and sentence to be had upon these may be more certain and firmer, and cannot be calumniated on any part, it seems to me, always saving better judgment, to the honor of the royal majesty and yours, and the quiet and pacification of the consciences of very many, that the aforesaid assertions with their due qualifications, secured with the signets of the notaries, are to be transmitted to the Holy Apostolic See. These are, reverend father in Christ, and my lord vicar of the Inquisitor, the things which in this matter come to be said, with all-manner of correction and support, etc. Thus signed: R. Sauvage.\nApril 18. Charitable Exhortation Made to Joan. # Subsequently, on Wednesday, the eighteenth day of the said month of April, in the year 1431, we, the aforesaid judges, recognizing now from the opinions and deliberations of very many doctors of sacred theology as well as of canon law, and also of licentiates in the same law and other masters in the said faculties, that there are great and serious defects in the answers and assertions of the aforesaid Joan, to which, unless she corrected them, she was exposing herself to grave dangers; therefore, we deemed it proper that she be charitably exhorted and gently admonished, and that she be caused to be admonished by several upright and learned men, both doctors and others, so that she might be brought back to the way of truth and a sincere profession of our faith. For the sake of this, on the day mentioned above, we went to the place of imprisonment of the said Joan; there assisting with us were Guillaume Boucher, Jacques de Touraine, Maurice de Quesnay, Nicolas Midi, Guillaume Adelie, and Gérard Feuillet, doctors; and Guillaume Haiton, bachelor in sacred theology.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 30, recto and verso.\nIn whose presence, we, the aforesaid bishop, addressed the said Joan, who then said she was ill, telling her that the aforementioned doctors and masters had come to her in a familiar and charitable manner, visiting her in her illness for her consolation and comfort. Next, we related to her how, on many and various days, in the presence of many wise men, she had been questioned on great and difficult matters concerning the subject of the faith; to which she had also given various and diverse answers, which literate and learned men, attending to and diligently considering them, had noted that many things said and confessed by her were dangerous to the faith; and because she was an illiterate woman and ignorant of the Scriptures, we offered to provide her with learned, scientific, upright, and well-disposed men, who would instruct her properly. And we exhorted the doctors and masters there present that, under all due fidelity by which they were bound to the true doctrine of the faith, they should offer fruitful counsel to the said Joan for the salvation of her soul and body; and if Joan knew of any others besides them who were suited for this, we offered to provide others to her to give her counsel and instruction on what she ought to do, hold, and believe; adding that we were churchmen called to this, willing and inclined, and ready to attend to procuring the salvation of her soul and body by all possible ways, just as we would do for our own relatives and for ourselves. And we were content to provide her with such men every day for her proper instruction, and generally to do all that the Church is accustomed to do in such cases, which does not close her bosom to one who returns. Finally, we told the said Joan to consider well this present salutary admonition and to follow it effectively. For if she opposed these things, relying on her own judgment and inexperienced head, we would have to abandon her; from which she could consider what danger would then happen to her, which we sought to avoid with all our strength and all our affection.\nTo which the said Joan answered that she thanked us for what we said to her for her salvation, saying further: It seems to me, seeing the sickness that I have, that I am in great danger of death; and if it be so that God wills to do His pleasure with me, I request of you that I may have confession, the sacrament of the Eucharist, and that I may be buried in holy ground.\nThen she was told that, if she wished to have the sacraments of the Church, she must confess as a good Catholic, and also that she must submit herself to the Church; and that, if she persevered in that purpose of not submitting herself to the Church, the sacraments she asked for could not be administered to her, except the sacrament of penance, which we were always ready to offer. But she answered: I would not know how to say anything else to you.\nIt was also said to her that the more she feared for her life because of the sickness she had, the more she ought to amend her life; and she would not have the rights of the Church as a Catholic unless she submitted herself to the Church. She answered: If my body dies in prison, I expect that you will have it put in holy ground; if you do not have it put there, I place my expectation in God.\nIt was also said to her that she had said elsewhere in her trial that if she had said or done anything that was contrary to our Christian faith ordained by God, she would not wish to maintain it. She answered: I refer to the answer that I made concerning this, and to our Lord.\nAlso, because she said she had many revelations from God through Saint Michael and Saints Catherine and Margaret, she was asked if some good creature should come affirming that they had a revelation from God touching the deeds of the said Joan, whether she would believe them. She answered that there is no Christian in the world who could come to her and say he had a revelation, but that she would know well whether he spoke the truth or not; and this she would know through Saints Catherine and Margaret.\nAsked whether she imagines that God can reveal something to some good creature that is unknown to Joan herself: she answered that it is good to know that He can; but I would not believe, she said, any man or woman unless I had some sign.\nAsked whether she believes that Holy Scripture was revealed by God: she answered: You know it well, and it is good to know that it is so.\nAlso, she was summoned, exhorted, and required to take good counsel from the clergy and notable doctors, and to believe the same counsel for the salvation of her soul.\nAsked again whether she would submit her sayings and deeds to the Church militant: she answered finally: Whatever must happen to me, I will not do or say anything other than what I have said before in the trial.\nAnd these things having been thus done by us, the venerable doctors already named, assisting there, exhorted her especially to this: that she should be willing to submit herself and her deeds to the Church militant, alleging to her many authorities of Holy Scripture and examples, and explaining them. And signally one of the doctors, in making his exhortation, adduced that passage of Matthew, xviii: If your brother sins against you, etc.; and it follows, if he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican, etc. Which he explained in French words to the said Joan, telling her finally that unless she would submit herself to the Church and obey it, she would have to be abandoned like a Saracen.\nTo which the said Joan answered that she was a good Christian and well baptized, and as a good Christian she would die.\nAsked, since she requests that the Church administer to her the sacrament of the Eucharist, whether she would submit to the Church militant, and it would be promised to administer the aforesaid sacrament to her: she answered that concerning that submission she will not answer otherwise; and that she loves God, serves Him, and is a good Christian; and she would wish to help and maintain the Church with all her power.\nAsked whether she would wish that a beautiful and notable procession be ordained to restore her to a good state, if she is not in it: she answered that she is very willing that the Church and Catholics pray for her.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nOn Wednesday, April 18, 1431, the lords judges and masters Guillaume Boucher, Jacques de Touraine, Maurice de Quesnay, Nicolas Midi, Guillaume Adelie, and Gérard Feuillet, masters in theology, together with Guillaume Haiton, appeared in the chamber where Joan was being held prisoner.\nFirst, the lord bishop explained that Joan had been questioned over many days upon great and difficult matters, in the presence of notable clerics. He also said that the clerics had examined many things which Joan had said and done, and that in their judgment she had failed in several respects. Since she would not know how to recognize and discern whether some of the matters contained in her trial were contrary to our faith, sacred doctrine, and the doctors approved by the Church, they offered to give her good and salutary counsel for her guidance. She was to consider choosing one or more of those present to advise her how she ought to conduct herself. If she did not choose, the lords judges would send some of the doctors to counsel her and bring her back. The judges also offered to provide her with advisers who were doctors of sacred theology and of canon and civil law.\nShe was also told that, unless she would accept counsel and act according to the counsel of the Church, she would be in the greatest danger.\nShe answered: It seems to me, seeing the illness that I have, that I am in great danger of death. And if God wills to do His pleasure with me, I ask you to let me have confession and my Saviour also, and to be buried in holy ground.\nShe was told: If you wished to have the rights and sacraments of the Church, you would have to act as good Catholics ought to act and submit yourself to Holy Church. She answered: I would not know what else to say to you about it now.\nShe was also told that the more she feared for her life because of the illness, the more she ought to amend her life, and that she would not have the rights of the Church as a Catholic unless she submitted herself to the Church. She answered: If my body dies in prison, I expect you to have it placed in holy ground. If you do not have it placed there, I entrust myself to our Lord.\nShe was also told that she had formerly said in her trial that, if she had done or said anything contrary to our Christian faith ordained by our Lord, she would not wish to maintain it. She answered: I rely on the answer I have given about it and on our Lord.\nBecause she said that she had several times received revelations from God through Saint Michael and Saints Catherine and Margaret, she was asked whether, if some good person came and affirmed that they had received a revelation from God concerning her case, she would believe that person. She answered that there was no Christian in the world who could come to her claiming a revelation without her knowing whether that person spoke the truth; and she would know it through Saints Catherine and Margaret.\nAsked whether she imagined that God could reveal something to a good person which was unknown to her, she answered: It is well to know that He can; but I would believe neither man nor woman unless I had some sign.\nAsked whether she believed that Holy Scripture was revealed by God, she answered: You know it well, and it is well to know that it was.\nShe was summoned, exhorted, and required to accept the good counsel of the clerics and notable doctors, and to believe it for the salvation of her soul.\nHer final answer, when asked whether she would submit herself and her deeds to Holy Mother Church, was: Whatever may happen to me because of it, I will do or say nothing else about it, for I have spoken of it already in the trial.\nThese things having been done, the venerable doctors present—masters Guillaume Le Boucher, Maurice de Quesnay, Jacques de Touraine, Guillaume Adelie, and Gérard Feuillet—especially exhorted her to submit herself and her deeds to our mother the Church, setting out and explaining to her many authorities and examples from Holy Scripture. Among the other exhortations, master Nicolas Midi cited the passage from Matthew.\nJoan answered that she was a good Christian and so forth.\nAsked, since she requested that the Church give her her Creator, whether she would submit herself to the Church if she were promised that He would be given to her, she answered that concerning that submission she would give no answer other than the one she had already given; that she loved and served God and was a good Christian; and that she wished to help and uphold Holy Church with all her power.\nAsked whether she wished a fine and notable procession to be arranged to restore her to a good state, if she was not in it, she answered that she was very willing for the Church and Catholics to pray for her.\nMay 2. Public Admonition Made to the Maid. # Also, on Wednesday, the second day of May, in the year of our Lord 1431, we, the aforesaid judges, presiding in the chamber of the castle of Rouen, near the great hall of the same castle; assisting there and by our order convoked thither, the reverend fathers, lords, and masters: Nicolas, abbot of Jumièges, Guillaume, abbot of Cormeilles, doctors of decrees; the Abbot of Saint-Ouen; the Prior of Saint-Lô; also Pierre, prior of Longueville; Jean de Nibat, Jacques Guesdon, Jean Fouchier, Maurice de Quesnay, Jean Fabri, Guillaume Boucher, Pierre Houdenc, Jean de Châtillon, Erard Emengart, Richard Praty, Jean Carpentier, Pierre Maurice, doctors; Nicolas Coppequesne, Guillaume Haiton, Thomas de Courcelles, Richard de Grouchet, Pierre Minier, Raoul Silvestre, Jean Pigache, Jean Mauger, and Jean Eude, bachelors in sacred theology; Raoul Roussel, treasurer of the church of Rouen, doctor in both laws; Jean Garin, doctor in canon law; Robert Barbier, Denis Gastinel, Jean Ledoux, doctors in both laws; Nicolas de Venderès, archdeacon of Eu; Jean Pinchon, archdeacon of Josas; Jean Brulot, cantor of the church of Rouen; Richard de Saussay, Laurent Dubust, Aubert Morel, Jean de Chemin, Jean Colombel, Raoul Anguy, Jean Tavernier, Guérould Postel, in canon law; André Marguerie, archdeacon of Petit-Caux; Jean de l\u0026rsquo;Épée, Gilles Deschamps, chancellor; Nicolas Caval, canons of the church of Rouen; Guillaume de Livet, Pierre Carré, Geoffroy de Crotey, Burel de Cormeilles, licentiates in civil law; Guillaume Desjardins, Jean Tiphaine, doctors; Guillaume de La Chambre, licentiate in medicine; brother Isambart de La Pierre, Guillaume Legrant; Jean de Rosay, curate of Duclair; brother Jean de Bastes, Eustache Cateleu, Regnault Lejeune, Jean Mahomet, Guillaume le Cauchois, Jean le Tonnellier, and Laurent Leduc, priests;\nWe, the aforesaid bishop, addressed the lords and masters above-mentioned in this manner:\n(1) Today Duclair, chief town of a canton in the arrondissement of Rouen.\nAfter this woman had been fully questioned, and had answered to the articles judicially proposed to her on behalf of the promoter; we sent her confessions, compendiously reduced into a certain form of assertions, to doctors and experts, both in sacred theology and in canon and civil law, so that we might have their consultation upon these matters. And already, from the sentence and opinions of very many, we have sufficiently recognized that this woman seemed to be defective in many things, although the matter has not yet been ultimately determined by us; and before we proceed to such an ultimate determination of the business, it seemed to many upright, conscientious, and also learned men to be highly expedient that we should labor by all means to instruct her upon those things in which she seemed to fail, and with all our power to bring her back to the way and knowledge of the truth. Which indeed we have desired and do desire to accomplish with all our wishes. This also we all ought to seek, and especially we who are engaged in the Church and the administration of divine things, that we should charitably show her what, in her sayings or deeds, dissents from the faith, truth, and religion; and charitably admonish her that she be mindful of her salvation. For which cause, we first attempted to bring her back through several notable doctors in theology, whom we sent to her at various times and on various days, now these, now others; who to the best of their power worked at this matter with all gentleness, and with any coercion whatsoever ceasing. But the cunning of the Devil prevailing, they have not yet been able to profit anything in this. Since, however, we saw that such private admonition brought no fruit, it seemed opportune that, you all being solemnly assembled, this woman should be gently and charitably admonished concerning her aforesaid return; because perhaps your presence and the exhortation made by many will lead her more easily to humility and obedience, so that she does not acquiesce too much in her own opinion, but believes the counsel of upright and wise men who know divine and human laws, lest she expose herself to grave dangers, by which both her soul and body could perish. And to make this admonition, we have deputed a most learned, ancient master in theology, singularly experienced in such matters, namely master Jean de Châtillon, archdeacon of Évreux, who, if it pleases him, will at present accept this burden of opening to the same woman certain specific points in which she seems to fail, as we have gathered from the counsels and deliberations of experts, and inducing her to withdraw from such defects and crimes, and to acknowledge the way of truth. Therefore, this woman will now be brought here before you, and, as was said before, she will be admonished; and if anyone can do or say anything good for her easier return and salutary instruction, for the salvation of her soul and body, we ask that he do not refuse to open it to us or bring it into our midst.\nAnd she arriving and being brought that day before us, the aforesaid judges, we, the aforesaid bishop, on our own behalf and that of our co-judge, admonished the same Joan that she should acquiesce in the counsel and admonitions to be made to her by the aforesaid lord archdeacon, professor of sacred theology, who would say many good things to her for the salvation of her soul and body, and that she should acquiesce in them. Which if she did not do, she would expose herself to danger of body and soul; explaining many things to the said Joan according to the tenor of the schedule inserted below.\nAnd then we, the aforesaid judges, requested the same lord archdeacon that he proceed charitably in the matter of the said admonitions. Which lord archdeacon, obeying our commands, beginning to teach and instruct the same Joan, first explained to the same Joan that all Christ\u0026rsquo;s faithful were bound and obligated to hold and believe the Christian faith and the articles of the faith; and he admonished and required her, by way of a general admonition, that she should be willing to correct and amend herself and her deeds and sayings according to the deliberation of the venerable doctors and masters, learned both in divine and in canon and civil law.\nTo which general admonition, Joan herself answered: Read your book, meaning the schedule which the said lord archdeacon held, and then I will answer you. I place my expectation in God, my creator, for everything; I love Him with all my heart.\nAnd then asked if she wished to answer further to the said general admonition: she answered: I place my expectation in my judge: He is the King of heaven and earth.\nAfterward, indeed, the said lord archdeacon, proceeding to make the particular admonitions to the same Joan, according to the tenor of the following schedule, began thus:\nI. First, he recited how she had said elsewhere that if anything perverse should be found in her sayings and deeds, and this were shown to her by churchmen, she would wish to amend it. In which she spoke well and laudably, for every Christian ought to have this humility, to render himself always ready to obey those wiser than himself and to believe the judgment of good and wise men more than his own opinion. Subsequently, however, her sayings and deeds were diligently examined for many days by doctors and churchmen. In which are found many and great defects; which nevertheless, if she will humbly amend them, as becomes a good and devout Christian, churchmen are ready to deal with her mercifully and charitably for her salvation. If, however, through pride and arrogance, she wishes to persist in her own opinion, believing that she understands more in those things which are of the faith than doctors and literate men, she would expose herself to grave dangers.\nII. Also, he explained to her how, concerning the revelations and apparitions which she said she had, she does not wish to submit herself to the Church militant nor to any living man, but to God alone she wishes to refer her sayings and deeds. And he declared to her, concerning this, what the Church militant is, and what authority it has from God, and in whom that authority resides; and how every Christian is bound to believe that there is one holy Catholic Church, which is always ruled by the Holy Spirit and never errs or fails; to which also every Catholic is bound to obey as a son to a mother, and to submit all his sayings and deeds to its determination; nor ought anyone, whatever apparitions or revelations he may have, to withdraw himself on that account from the judgment of the Church, since even the apostles submitted their writings to the Church; and the whole Scripture which was revealed by God is delivered to us to be believed through mother Church, which is the infallible rule to which we must conform in all things, without any schism or division whatsoever, as the apostle Paul teaches in many places, etc. Also, a revelation made by God always induces to the keeping of obedience and humility in order to superiors and to the Church, and never to the contrary; nor does the Lord wish that anyone presume to say he is subject to the Lord alone, or to refer his sayings and deeds to Him alone; rather, He delivered to churchmen and committed to them the authority and power of knowing and judging concerning the deeds of the faithful, whether good or bad; whom he who despises, despises God, and he who hears them, hears God. Finally, he admonished her that she believe the Catholic Church itself cannot err or judge anyone unjustly, because he who does not believe this, errs against that article of the faith, One holy, etc., which then was explained to her at length; and if anyone remains obstinately in this, he is deemed a heretic. She was also admonished consequently that she submit all her sayings and deeds, whatever they may be, purely and simply, to the judgment of holy mother Church and to its determination, because he who does not do this is a schismatic, and shows himself to think ill of the holiness of the Church itself and its infallible direction by the Holy Spirit; adding the heavy penalties which canon laws decree to be inflicted on those who thus deviate.\nIII. Also, it was declared to the same how she has now for a long time persevered in wearing, contrary to the decency of her sex, a male habit, in the manner of men-at-arms, and assiduously wears it without any necessity; which is scandalous, contrary to good and decent manners; having also her hair cut in a round fashion; and these things are also contrary to the precept of God, placed in Deuteronomy xxii: A woman shall not be clothed, etc.; contrary to the precept of the Apostle, saying that a woman ought to veil her head; contrary to the prohibitions of the Church made in sacred general Councils; contrary to the doctrine of Saints and doctors, both of sacred theology and of canon law; and that they are things of bad example among other women, etc. And especially in this the said Joan failed gravely: that, for the curiosity of wearing that deformed habit, she preferred not to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at the time ordained by the Church, rather than to leave off such a habit and take another in which she could decently and reverently receive the sacrament itself; contemning in this the precept of the Church because of such curiosity, although she had been admonished upon this many times, and especially around the Easter feasts, when she said she wished to hear mass and receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, and greatly desired this; and then she was told to take a woman\u0026rsquo;s dress, which she had refused and was refusing to do: in which things she showed herself to sin gravely. Wherefore, he admonished her to desist from these things, and that she should be willing to leave off the aforesaid male dress.\nIV. Also, that the said Joan, not content to wear this habit with the aforesaid circumstances, even wished to maintain that she did well and did not sin. But to say that anyone does well in coming against the doctrines of the Saints, the precepts of God and the Apostles, contemning also the precept of the Church, for the curiosity of an indecent and dishonest habit, is an error in the faith; and whoever would wish to defend this obstinately would fall into heresy. Furthermore, she also wished to attribute these sins to God and the Saints; in which she blasphemes God and the Saints, attributing to them what does not befit them; for God and the Saints wish that all decency be observed, and that sins, curiosities, and other things be avoided; nor do they wish that the precepts of the Church be contemned for such things. Therefore, he admonished her that she should cease to speak such blasphemies, nor presume to attribute such things to God and the Saints, and to defend them as licit.\nV. Also, that very many solemn and notable churchmen have considered and diligently seen those things which the said Joan had brought forward concerning revelations and apparitions, and, having attended to the evident lies which she had feigned concerning the crown brought to Charles and the coming of angels to him, which both by those who were in those parts thereafter, and by others, are sufficiently known to be false and feigned; having considered also those things which she said of the kisses and embraces of Saints Catherine and Margaret, and that she said they came to her daily, even many times, without special effect, without appearance for which it would befit them to come so frequently, which Saints never have been accustomed to do in such miraculous apparitions; and that she said she knew nothing of their limbs and circumstances, except of their heads, which in no way agrees with such frequent vision; having attended also to many things which she said were commanded her about wearing the habit, about making these answers such as she made in judgment, which do not agree with the precepts of God and the Saints, nor are they to be believed to be commanded by them; together with many other things which doctors and experts in this matter have well considered: they see and recognize that such revelations and apparitions were not given to her by God, as she boasted. And it was shown to her how great a danger it is for anyone to presume so much of themselves that they repute themselves fit to have such apparitions and revelations, and on that account to lie about those things which pertain to God, falsely prophesying and divining what they do not have from God, but find out from the fiction of their own heart; whence can follow the seduction of peoples, the raising up of new sects, and many other unspeakable things to the subversion of the Church and the Catholic people. How also it is a grave danger to search curiously into things that are above oneself, and to wish to believe in new things, contrary to the counsel of the Church and prelates, or even to invent new and unusual things; for demons are accustomed to mingle in such curiosities, either by occult instincts or by manifest apparitions, transfiguring themselves into angels of light, and, under the appearance of piety or of some good, drawing to pestiferous pacts and casting into error, God permitting this because of the presumption of men who dare to implicate themselves in such curiosities. Therefore, he admonished her that she should cease to speak such vanities and lies, and return to the way of truth.\nVI. Also, that from this root (namely, of revelations so feigned), she has brought forth many other crimes, as that, usurping to herself that which is proper to God, she presumes to predict future contingencies and to assert them, and also occult present things, such as a sword hidden under the earth; and also she had boasted that she certainly knew of certain persons that they are beloved by God; and of herself, that she knew she was forgiven the sin she had committed by casting herself down from the tower of Beaurevoir: which things are divinatory, presumptuous, and temerarious; and also that she said she had adored unusual things appearing to her, when nevertheless she related that she had no sufficient certainty by which she ought to believe them to be good spirits; nor had she upon this had the counsel of her own curate or of any other churchman, boasting of a thing, in this, which borders on idolatry, and is temerarious; thinking that she ought not to believe so lightly, even if things appeared to her in this way (which nevertheless seems to be said). She dared also besides this to say that she believed the things appearing to her to be Saints Catherine and Margaret and angels, as firmly as she believed the Christian faith; in which she believed temerariously, and seemed to think that there is no greater or stronger reason for believing the Christian faith and its articles delivered to us through the Church, than some things appearing in a new and unusual way; concerning which no determination, no consultation of the Church is had, rather it is commanded by Christ, the Saints, and the Church, that light belief be not given to such apparitions. And it was said to her that she should advise herself well.\nAnd when the aforesaid archdeacon had explained the premises to Joan in French words, according to the tenor of the aforesaid memorial, she answered those things which follow:\nAnd first, to those things which had been said to her in the first and second articles of the same memorial, she answered: I answer only as much to these things now as I have answered at other times.\nAnd when it was declared to her what the Church militant is, and she was admonished concerning holding and believing that article One holy, etc., and that she should submit herself to the Church militant, according to the tenor of the second article of the aforesaid memorial: she answered: I believe well the Church existing here below; but of my deeds and sayings, as I have said at other times, I expect and refer myself to the Lord God. Also she says: I believe well that the Church militant cannot err or fail; but, as for my sayings and deeds, I place and refer them entirely to God, who made me do whatever I have done. Also she says that she submits herself to God, her creator, who made her do these things; and she refers herself to Him and to her own person.\nAsked whether she wishes to say that she has no judge on earth, and whether our lord the Pope is her judge: she answered: I will not say anything else to you of this. I have a good master, namely God, in whom I place my expectation for everything, and not in another.\nAlso, when it was said to her that, if she would not believe the Church and also believe that article One holy Catholic Church, she would be a heretic in maintaining this, and would be punished by other judges with the penalty of fire: she answered: I will not say anything else to you of this. And if I saw the fire, I would say all that which I say to you, and I would not do otherwise in this.\nAsked whether, if a holy general Council, such as our Holy Father the Pope, the Cardinals, and others of the Church were here, she would be willing to refer and submit herself to the same holy Council: she answered: You will not draw anything else from me concerning this.\nAsked if she would submit herself to our lord the Pope: she answered: Lead me to him, and I will answer him. Nor would she answer otherwise.\nAlso, concerning those things which were said to her about the habit, etc., according to the third and fourth articles of the aforesaid memorial: she answered that, concerning that habit, she had been well willing to assume a long tunic and a woman\u0026rsquo;s hood to go to church and receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, as she answered at other times, provided that, immediately after, she might lay aside that habit and resume the one she now wears. And as for the other things which were explained to her concerning this, about wearing this habit without necessity, especially while she is in prison, etc.: she answered: When I shall have done that for which I am sent on behalf of God, I will take a woman\u0026rsquo;s habit.\nAsked whether she believes she does well, taking a male habit: she answered: I place my expectation in God.\nAlso, when she was admonished and those things were explained to her which are contained in the fourth article of the aforesaid memorial: she answered that she did not blaspheme God or the Saints.\nAdmonished again that she should desist from wearing a male habit and from believing that she does well in wearing it, and that she should receive a woman\u0026rsquo;s habit: she answered that she will not do otherwise concerning this.\nAlso, asked whether, as often as Saints Catherine and Margaret come to her, she signs herself with the sign of the cross: she answered that sometimes she makes the sign of the cross, and sometimes not.\nAlso, concerning those things which were said to her about revelations, etc., according to the tenor of the fifth article of the aforesaid memorial: she answered that concerning this she refers herself to her judge, namely God. And she said that her revelations are from God, without any other medium.\nAsked whether, concerning the sign delivered to her king, she would refer herself to the archbishop of Reims, the lord of Boussac, Charles de Bourbon, the lord of La Trémoille, and Étienne called La Hire, to whom or to some of whom she said at other times she had shown that crown of which mention is made above, and that they were present when the angel brought the aforesaid crown to him whom she calls her king, which he delivered to the aforesaid archbishop; or whether she would refer herself to others of her party, who might write under their seals what there is of this: she answered: Provide me a messenger, and I will write to them of this whole trial. And otherwise she would not believe or refer herself to them.\nAlso, concerning those things which were said to her about the presumption of divining future contingencies, etc., according to the sixth article of the aforesaid memorial, she answered: I refer myself concerning this to my judge, namely God, and to that which I answered of this at other times, which is written in the book.\nAlso, asked whether, if there be sent to her three or four churchmen of her party who may come here under safe conduct, she would refer herself to them concerning her apparitions and those things which are contained in this trial: she answered that let it be done that they come; afterward she will answer. And otherwise she would not refer herself to them or submit concerning this trial.\nAsked whether she would refer herself or submit to the church of Poitiers, where she was examined: she answered: Do you believe you can catch me in this manner and by this draw me to you?\nAlso, in conclusion, abundantly and anew, the same Joan was generally admonished to submit herself to the Church under penalty of being abandoned by the Church; because if the Church abandoned her, she would be in great danger of body and soul, and could put herself in danger of incurring the penalties of eternal fire, as to her soul, and temporal, as to her body, by the sentence of other judges. To which she answered: You will not do that which you say against me, but that evil will happen to you in body and soul.\nAsked to say one reason why she does not refer herself to the Church: to this she would make no other answer.\nAfter these things, several doctors and men expert in different states and different faculties, admonished and induced her charitably, and exhorted her to submit herself to the universal Church militant, to our lord the Pope, and to the holy general Council, explaining to her the dangers to which she exposed herself, as to soul and body, unless she submitted herself and her deeds to the Church militant. She answered as before.\nAnd finally, we, the aforesaid bishop, said to the same Joan that she should consider well and advise herself upon the aforesaid admonitions, counsels, and charitable exhortations, and think otherwise. To which the said Joan answered, asking: Within what time shall I advise myself? And we told her that she should advise herself then in the present and answer what she wished. And when she answered nothing further, we departed from that place, and the same Joan was led back to the place of her imprisonment.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nWhen Joan had arrived and was brought before the lords judges that day, the lord bishop admonished her to accept the counsel and admonitions which master Jean de Châtillon, doctor of sacred theology, would give her, since he would tell her many good things for the salvation of her soul and body, and to heed him. Master Jean de Châtillon admonished her as contained in the schedule entitled: Here follow certain matters to be kept in mind while Joan is being admonished, etc.\nBefore beginning, he said first that the faithful were bound to hold and believe the Christian faith and the articles of faith.\nThe preceding general admonition was explained to her.\nAsked whether she wished to correct and amend herself according to the deliberation of the experts, she answered: Read your book—meaning the schedule which the lord archdeacon held—and then I will answer you. I entrust everything to God, my Creator; I love Him with all my heart.\nAsked whether she wished to answer anything further to that general admonition, she answered: I entrust myself to my judge: He is the King of heaven and earth.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 26, recto.\nShe was told: You have said before that your deeds should be seen and examined in comparison with what is contained in the preceding schedule. She answered now as she had answered before.\nIt was explained to her what the Church militant is, and she was admonished to believe and hold the article One holy Church, and to submit herself to the Church militant. She answered: I do indeed believe in the Church here below; but as to my deeds and words, as I have said before, I entrust and refer myself to God. She also said: I do indeed believe that the Church militant cannot err or fail; but as to my words and deeds, I place and refer them wholly to God, who caused me to do what I have done. She said that she submitted herself to God, her Creator, who caused her to do these things, and referred herself to Him in His own person.\nAsked whether she meant that she had no judge on earth, and whether our Holy Father the Pope was her judge, she answered: I will say nothing else to you about it. I have a good master, namely our Lord, to whom I entrust myself entirely, and to no other.\nShe was told that, if she would not believe the Church and the article the holy Catholic Church, she would be a heretic for maintaining this and would be punished by being burned under the sentence of other judges. She answered: I will say nothing else to you about it; and if I saw the fire, I would still say everything that I am saying to you, and would do nothing else.\n(1) In the margin: A proud answer.\nAsked whether, if the General Council—our Holy Father, the cardinals, and the others—were here, she would refer and submit herself to it, she answered: You will draw nothing else from me about it.\nAsked whether she wished to submit herself to our Holy Father the Pope, she answered: Take me to him, and I will answer him. She would answer nothing further.\nConcerning her clothing, she answered that she was willing to take a long gown and a woman\u0026rsquo;s hood in order to go to church and receive her Saviour, as she had answered before, provided that immediately afterward she might take it off and resume the clothing she wore.\nConcerning the rest that was explained to her about having taken a man\u0026rsquo;s clothing without necessity, especially while she was in prison, she answered: When I have done that for which I was sent by God, I will take a woman\u0026rsquo;s clothing.\nAsked whether she believed that she did well to take a man\u0026rsquo;s clothing, she answered: I entrust myself to our Lord.\nIn response to the exhortation that, by saying she did well and did not sin in wearing that clothing in the circumstances concerning its adoption and use, and by saying that God and the saints caused her to do it, she blasphemed them—as is more fully contained in the schedule—and that she erred and did wrong, she answered that she did not blaspheme God or His saints.\nAdmonished to cease wearing the clothing and believing that she did well to wear it, and to resume a woman\u0026rsquo;s clothing, she answered that she would do nothing else about it.\nAsked whether she made the sign of the cross every time Saints Catherine and Margaret came, she answered that sometimes she did and sometimes she did not.\nConcerning the revelations, she answered that she referred herself to her judge, namely God, and said that her revelations were from God without any other intermediary.\nAsked whether, concerning the sign given to her king, she would refer herself to the archbishop of Reims, the lord of Boussac, Charles de Bourbon, La Trémoille, and La Hire, to whom or to some of whom she had previously said she showed the crown, and who were present when the angel brought that crown and gave it to the archbishop; or whether she would refer herself to others of her party who might write under their seals what the truth was, she answered: Give me a messenger, and I will write to them about this whole trial. She was otherwise unwilling to believe or refer herself to them.\n(1) Jean de La Brosse, marshal of France for Charles VII, is called in the chronicles sometimes the marshal of Boussac and sometimes the marshal of Sainte-Sévère, because he possessed the lordships of Boussac and Sainte-Sévère.\n(2) Étienne de Vignoles, so well known by the name La Hire, was bailiff of Vermandois for Charles VII.\n(3) There is probably a copying error here. In place of ainsné, I would propose au sire.\nConcerning rash belief and future contingencies, she answered: I refer myself to my judge, namely God, and to what I answered before, which is in the book.\nAsked whether, if two, three, or four knights of her party were sent to her under safe conduct, she would refer herself to them concerning her apparitions and the things contained in this trial, she answered that they should be brought and then she would answer. Otherwise she was unwilling to refer or submit herself to them concerning this trial.\nAsked whether she wished to refer and submit herself to the church of Poitiers, where she had been examined, she answered: Do you think you can catch me in this way and thereby draw me to you?\nIn conclusion, she was abundantly and anew admonished in general to submit herself to the Church, under penalty of being abandoned by the Church; and that, if the Church abandoned her, she would be in great danger of body and soul and could expose herself to the penalties of eternal fire as to her soul, and temporal fire as to her body, under the sentence of other judges. She answered: You will not do what you say against me without evil coming upon you in both body and soul.\nAsked to give one reason why she did not refer herself to the Church, she would make no other answer.\nAfterward several doctors of different ranks and faculties charitably admonished, urged, and exhorted her to submit herself to the Church. She answered as before.\nFinally, the lord bishop told Joan to consider the matter carefully. Joan asked: Within what time am I to consider it? The lord bishop answered that she should consider it then and answer as she wished.\n(2) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 26, recto and verso.\nMay 9. Under Threat of Torture. # Also, in the same year, on Wednesday, the ninth day of the aforesaid month of May, the said Joan was brought before us, the aforesaid judges, being in the great tower of the castle of Rouen, there being present: the reverend father lord abbot of Saint-Corneille of Compiègne; masters Jean de Châtillon, Guillaume Érard, doctors of sacred theology; André Marguerie and Nicolas de Venderès, archdeacons in the church of Rouen; Guillaume Haiton, bachelor in sacred theology; Aubert Morel, licentiate in canon law; Nicolas Loyseleur, canon of the church of Rouen, and master Jean Massieu.\n(1) Jean Dacier, abbot of Saint-Corneille of Compiègne in the diocese of Soissons, licentiate in law and former chaplain of Pope Martin V, was deprived of his temporalities by Charles VII and died on May 4, 1437, after attending the Council of Basel as representative of the abbots of the province of Reims. Gallia Christiana.\nThe same Joan was required and admonished to answer the truth concerning many and diverse points contained in her trial, which she had at other times denied, and in which she had answered falsely, since certain informations, proofs, and vehement presumptions were had concerning this; and many of the aforesaid points were read and explained to her, and she was told that, unless she confessed the truth upon these, she would be put to the torture, which was then shown to her prepared in the same tower. There also were present the officers who, by our command, were ready to put her to such torture, for her reduction to the way and knowledge of the truth, so that by this the salvation of her soul and body might be procured, which she by false inventions was exposing to grave dangers.\nTo which Joan herself answered in this manner: Truly, if you should make me have my limbs torn apart, and make my soul depart from my body, I would not say anything else to you; and if I should say anything of this to you, afterward I would always say that you had made me say it by force. Also she said that on the last feast of the Holy Cross, she had comfort from Saint Gabriel; and she believes it was Saint Gabriel; and this she knew through her voices, that he was Saint Gabriel. Also, she says that she asked counsel of her voices whether she should submit herself to the Church because the churchmen were pressing her strongly to submit herself to the Church; and those voices told her that, if she wishes God to help her, she should place her expectation in Him for all her deeds. Also, she says she knows well that the Lord has always been the master of all her deeds, and that the Devil had never had power over her deeds. Also, she says she asked her voices whether she would be burned, and that the same voices answered her that she should place her expectation in the Lord, and He will help her.\nAlso, asked concerning the sign of the crown which she says was delivered to the archbishop of Reims, whether she would refer herself to the same archbishop: she answered: Make him come, and afterward I will answer you concerning this; nor would he dare to say the contrary of what I have told you of it.\nBut seeing the obstinacy of her mind and her manner of answering, we, the aforesaid judges, fearing lest the torments of torture would profit her little, deemed it proper to desist from inflicting them for the present, until we should have fuller counsel upon this.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nOn Wednesday after Vocem jucunditatis, May 11, in the great tower of the castle of Rouen, Joan was brought before the lords judges and masters Jean de Châtillon, Guillaume Érard, the lord abbot of Saint-Corneille, Guillaume Haiton, André Marguerie, Nicolas de Venderès, Aubert Morel, Nicolas Loyseleur, and Jean Massieu, dean of the rural deanery.\nAfter the judges had made requests and admonitions to her, she answered: Truly, if you were to have my limbs torn apart and my soul driven from my body, I would still tell you nothing else; and if I did tell you anything about it, afterward I would always say that you had made me say it by force.\nShe said that on the feast of the Holy Cross she heard the comfort of Saint Gabriel, and believed it was Saint Gabriel; she knew from the voices that it was he.\n(1) The feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross, May 3.\nShe said that she had asked counsel of her voices whether she should submit herself to the Church, because the churchmen were pressing her strongly to submit; and they told her that, if she wished our Lord to help her, she should entrust all her deeds to Him. She said that she knew well that our Lord had always been master of her deeds and that the Enemy had never had power over them. She also said that she had asked her voices whether she would be burned, and that they answered that she should entrust herself to our Lord and He would help her.\nConcerning the sign of the crown which she said had been given to the archbishop of Reims, asked whether she would refer herself to him, she answered: Have him come here, let me hear him speak, and then I will answer you; nor would he dare say the contrary of what I have told you about it.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 31, recto.\nMay 12. Resolved that Joan is Not to be Tortured. # Also, on Saturday, the twelfth day of the said month of May, immediately following, in the house of our habitation, of the aforesaid bishop of Beauvais; we, the aforesaid judges, presiding, and there assisting the venerable lords and masters: Raoul Roussel, treasurer; Nicolas de Venderès and André Marguerie, archdeacons and canons of the church of Rouen; Guillaume Érard, master in sacred theology; Robert Barbier, Denis Gastinel, Jean Ledoux, and Aubert Morel, licentiates in canon law; Thomas de Courcelles, Nicolas Coppequesne, bachelors in sacred theology; Nicolas Loyseleur and brother Isambart de La Pierre.\nWe, the aforesaid bishop, recited those things which on Wednesday last past had been done; asking counsel from the same assistants what remained to be done, and signally whether it was expedient to put the aforesaid Joan to the torture. Having heard the opinions of each and considered those things which on the aforesaid Wednesday had been answered by Joan herself, and having attended also to her disposition, will, and circumstances in that matter: we concluded that there was no need nor was it expedient to put her to the aforesaid torture, and that we would proceed further to other things thereafter.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nOn Saturday, May 12, at the hour of vespers, there assembled in the house of the lord Bishop of Beauvais, before him and the lord vicar of the Inquisitor, the lords and masters Raoul Roussel, treasurer; Nicolas de Venderès, archdeacon; André Marguerie; Guillaume Érard, doctor of theology; Robert Barbier; Denis Gastinel; Aubert Morel; Thomas de Courcelles; Nicolas Coppequesne; Jean Ledoux; Isambart de La Pierre; and Nicolas Loyseleur.\nThe events of the preceding Wednesday were explained, and they were asked what should be done next and whether it was expedient to put Joan to torture.\nFirst, master Raoul Roussel said that it seemed to him that she should not be tortured, lest so well-conducted a trial be open to challenge.\nMaster Nicolas de Venderès said that it seemed to him inexpedient to put her to torture for the present.\nMaster André Marguerie said that it was inexpedient for the present.\nMaster Guillaume Érard said that she would be put to torture in vain, since there was already sufficiently ample material without torture.\nMaster Robert Barbier agreed with the preceding opinions. She should be charitably admonished one final time to submit herself to the Church; and if she would not, they should proceed further in the name of the Lord.\nMaster Denis Gastinel said that it was inexpedient to put her to torture.\nMaster Aubert Morel said that it seemed expedient to put her to torture in order to learn the truth about her lies.\nMaster Thomas de Courcelles said that it seemed good to put her to torture. He also said that she should be asked whether she wished to submit herself to the judgment of the Church.\nMaster Nicolas Coppequesne said that it was inexpedient to put her to torture, but that she should again be charitably admonished to submit herself to the determination of the Church.\nMaster Jean Ledoux agreed with the preceding opinions.\nBrother Isambart de La Pierre agreed with the preceding opinions, but said she should be given a final admonition to submit herself to the Church militant.\nMaster Nicolas Loyseleur said that it seemed to him that, as a remedy for her soul, it would be good to put her to torture; nevertheless, he deferred to the opinions of those already named.\nMaster Guillaume Haiton arrived and was of the opinion that she should not be put to torture.\nMaster Jean Le Maistre, vicar, said that she should again be asked whether she believed she ought to submit herself to the Church militant.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 31, recto and verso.\nMay 19. The deliberations of the University of Paris having been read, the assisting lords deliberated in conformity with them. # Likewise, on the Saturday immediately following, the nineteenth day of the said month of May, before us, the aforesaid judges, present in the chapel of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen and sitting as a tribunal, there appeared the venerable men, lords, fathers, and masters: Gilles of Fécamp, Guillaume de Mortemer, doctors of sacred theology; Nicolas de Jumièges, Guillaume de Cormeilles, doctors of canon law, abbots; as well as the Abbot of Préaux and the Prior of Saint-Lô, the Prior of Longueville, Jean de Nibat, Jacques Guesdon, Jean Foucher, Maurice de Quesnay, Jean Fabri, Guillaume Le Boucher, Pierre Houdenc, Jean de Châtillon, Érard Emengart, Jean Beaupère, Pierre Maurice, Nicolas Midi, doctors; Guillaume Haiton, Nicolas Coppequesne, Thomas de Courcelles, Richard de Grouchet, Pierre Minier, Raoul Silvestre, Jean Pigache, bachelors in sacred theology; Raoul Roussel, doctor of both laws; Jean Guérin, Pasquier de Vaux, doctors of canon law; Robert Barbier, Denis Gastinel, in canon law; André Marguerie, in civil law; Nicolas de Venderès, Jean Pinchon, in canon law; Jean de l\u0026rsquo;Épée, Gilles Deschamps, Nicolas Caval, in civil law; Jean Brûlot, in canon law, licentiates; Nicolas Loiselleur, canons of the church of Rouen; Jean Ledoux, Guillaume de Livet, Pierre Carrel, Geoffroy de Crotay, Richard de Saussay, Burel de Cormeilles, Aubert Morel, Jean de Chemin, Laurent Dubust, Jean Colombel, Raoul Anguy, Guérould Postel, some licentiates in canon law, others in civil law.\nIn whose presence, we, the oft-mentioned bishop, explained how we had recently received the deliberations and opinions of notable doctors and masters, in a copious multitude, upon the assertions given and confessed by the prenamed Joan; which deliberations having been obtained, we could have proceeded further to the conclusion of the case, since they seemed deservedly sufficient. But in order that we might show honor and reverence to our mother, the University of the study of Paris, and that we might have a fuller and clearer elucidation of the matter, for the greater peace of consciences and the edification of all, we deemed it proper to transmit the mentioned assertions to the aforesaid mother University, and especially to the Faculties of Theology and of Decrees, requesting the deliberations of the doctors and masters of the same University and most especially of the said two Faculties. Which University, and signally the two Faculties themselves, kindled with no small zeal for the faith, diligently, maturely, and solemnly gave their deliberations upon each point, and transmitted them to us under a public instrument. Which deliberations contained in the instrument itself, we then caused to be read through word for word, openly and intelligibly, in the hearing of all the prenamed doctors and masters. Thereafter, indeed, having heard these deliberations of the University and of the aforesaid Faculties, the aforesaid lords spoke and explained their own deliberations in conformity with the said Faculties and University, beyond those things which they had otherwise deliberated upon this matter, both concerning the qualifications of the aforesaid assertions and concerning the manner of proceeding which we ought to hold further. The tenors of which deliberations and also of the letters of the said University we have caused to be written here.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nIn the year of our Lord 1431, on Saturday, May 19, there assembled in the chapel of the archiepiscopal manor, before the lords Bishop of Beauvais and vicar of the lord Inquisitor, the lords and masters Raoul Roussel; Nicolas de Venderès; the Abbot of Fécamp; André Marguerie; Jean Pinchon; Jean de Châtillon; Érard Emengart; Guillaume Le Boucher; the Prior of Longueville; Jean Beaupère; Nicolas Midi; Maurice de Quesnay; Pierre de Houdenc; Jean Fabri; the Abbot of Mortemer; the Prior of Saint-Lô; Pierre Maurice; Jacques Guesdon; Jean Fouchier; the Abbot of Cormeilles; Thomas de Courcelles; Nicolas Coppequesne; Raoul Silvestre; Jean Pigache; Richard de Grouchet; Nicolas Loyseleur; Pasquier de Vaux; Denis Gastinel; Jean Mauger; Jean Fécart; Jean de l\u0026rsquo;Épée; Geoffroy de Crotay; Guillaume de La Chambre; Jean de Chemin; Martin Lavenu; Isambart de La Pierre; Guillaume de Livet; Jean Ledoux; Jean Colombel; Richard de Saussay; Laurent Dubust; Pierre Le Minier; Pierre Carré; and Raoul Anguy.\nFirst, the lord bishop recited the course of the trial at length.\nThen, by order of the lords judges, the instrument containing the deliberation of the University of Paris was read.\nAfter it had been read, the schedule of the deliberations given at Rouen by many masters and doctors was also read, together with the deliberations of other masters.\nThese things having been done, the Bishop of Beauvais asked how they should proceed further.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 31, verso.\nAnd first follows the tenor of the letters of the said University, transmitted to our lord the King:\nTo the most excellent, most high, and most puissant prince, the King of France and of England, our most redoubted and sovereign lord. Most excellent prince, our most redoubted and sovereign lord and father, your royal excellence above all things ought to be carefully applied to conserving the honor, reverence, and glory of the divine majesty and of his holy Catholic faith, entirely, by causing errors, false doctrines, and all other contrary offenses to be extirpated. In continuing this, your highness in all your affairs will find in effect aid, succor, and prosperity, by high grace with great increase of your high renown. Having regard to this, your most noble magnificence, by sovereign mercy, has commenced a very good work touching our holy faith: that is to say, the judicial trial against that woman who is called the Maid, and her scandals, faults, and offenses also, as they are manifest in all this kingdom, of which we have written several times the form and manner. Of which trial we have known both the content and the conduct, by the letters delivered to us, and the report made on behalf of your excellence in our solemn assembly, by our members, the most honored and most reverend masters, Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, and Nicolas Midi, masters in theology; who also have given and reported to us the response upon the other points with which they were charged. And in truth, having heard and well considered this report, it has seemed to us that in the matter of this woman a great gravity, holy and just manner of proceeding has been held, with which everyone ought to be well content. And for all these things we render thanks most humbly to the sovereign majesty first, and afterwards to your most high nobility, with humble and loyal affections; and finally to all those who, for divine reverence, have put their pain, labor, and diligence into this matter, for the good of our holy faith. But for the rest, our most redoubted and sovereign lord, according to what by your said letters and those reverend masters it has pleased you to send, enjoin, and require of us, we, after several convocations, great and mature deliberations had and held among us on this several times, send back to your excellence our advice, conclusions, and deliberations upon the points, assertions, and articles which have been delivered and exposed to us; and we are always ready to employ ourselves entirely in such matters directly touching our said faith, as also our profession expressly wills, and as we have shown at all times with all our power. And if anything remained to be said or explained on this by us, those honored and reverend masters who at present return to your noble highness, and who have been present at our said deliberations, will be able more amply to declare, explain, and say, according to our intention, all that shall appertain; to whom it will please your magnificence to give faith, in what is said, for this time on our behalf, and to have them singularly recommended; for truly they have used very great diligence in the aforesaid things, with holy and entire affections, without sparing their pains, persons, and resources, and without having regard to the great and imminent perils which are notoriously on the roads; and also by means of their great ordered wisdoms and discreet prudences, this matter has been and will be, if God pleases, conducted to its end wisely, holily, and reasonably. Nevertheless, finally, we humbly supplicate your excellent highness that very diligently this matter be by justice brought to a brief end; for, in truth, length and delay are very perilous, and a notable and great reparation is very necessary on this, so that the people who have been much scandalized by this woman may be reduced to good and holy doctrine and belief. All to the exaltation and integrity of our said faith, and to the praise of the eternal divinity, which may it please to maintain your excellence by its grace in prosperity unto everlasting glory. Written at Paris in our congregation solemnly celebrated at Saint-Bernard, the fourteenth day of the month of May, the year one thousand four hundred and thirty-one. Your most humble daughter, the University of Paris. — HÉBERT.\nLikewise follows the tenor of the letters of the said University of Paris transmitted to us, the aforesaid bishop:\nTo the reverend father in Christ and lord, the lord Bishop of Beauvais. The immense fervor of most singular charity, reverend father and lord, is proved to incite the labor of pastoral vigilance to be tireless, where with stable and most constant skill for the defense of the sacred faith, most solid rectitude does not cease to work, with pious affection for the public safety. Indeed, the manly and most celebrated struggle of your most sincere fervor has been proven, by which at last, with most powerful virtue prevailing, that woman who is loudly called the Maid has been, by the favoring grace of Christ, delivered into the hands of your justice; by whose widely dispersed venom the Christian fold of almost the entire western world is manifest to be infected; to withstand whom openly, the vigilant solicitude of your reverence, eager to perform the works of a true shepherd, does not fail. Furthermore, against the grave offenses of that perfidious woman, the trials begun and the form and conduct of them, with several assertions, propositions, or articles, and also the letters, credentials, and requests of our lord the King and of your reverend paternity, were openly and elegantly explained to us by the most famous doctors of sacred theology and our alumni, masters Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, and Nicolas Midi. After their discourses were fully received, we resolved to offer the greatest expressions of gratitude to your reverend lordship, which does not know how to grow sluggish in any way in this most celebrated work for the exaltation of the divine name, the integrity and glory of the orthodox faith, and the most wholesome edification of all the faithful people; moreover, observing the celebrated form of the trials, conformable to the sacred laws, we have approved it as having emanated from the greatest and most eloquent prudences. We have also most graciously granted all the requests which the aforesaid doctors presented by letters or by the oracle of their own voice, out of regard for our same lord the King and the long-standing favor of your reverend lordship, zealously desiring with sincere affections to please your reverend paternity in all things to the best of our power. But upon the principal matter, we took care to have many consultations and most grave deliberations, wherein, the matter having been debated many times and the truth freely discussed, we willed that our deliberations and determinations, at last concluded by us with unanimous consent, be reduced to writing, which the aforesaid doctors and alumni, returning to the presence of the serenity of our same lord the King and of your reverence, will faithfully present. They will also take care to explain other things on our behalf, which it may happen to unfold more widely, as the letters which we now direct to the same lord our King, a copy of which is enclosed with these presents, will manifest more fully in their tenor. Nevertheless, let your reverence receive as specially recommended those eminent doctors who, sparing neither their persons, perils, nor labors, do not cease to toil in this matter of the faith. Intending nonetheless with persevering labor the untiring care of your fatherly skill for this most celebrated work begun, until, according to the requirement of reason, by a worthy reparation of the offenses, the divine majesty being appeased, the truth of the orthodox faith remains unimpaired, and the wicked and scandalous edification of the peoples ceases, so that at last the Prince of Shepherds, when he shall appear, may deign to render to your reverend pastoral solicitude an unfading crown of glory. Written at Paris, in our general congregation, solemnly celebrated at Saint-Bernard, the fourteenth day of the month of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand four hundred and thirty-one. Your Rector and the University of the study of Paris. Thus signed: HÉBERT.\nLikewise follows the deliberation of the University of the study of Paris:\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. By the tenor of this present public instrument let it appear evidently to all and be known that, in the year of the same Lord one thousand four hundred and thirty-one, in the ninth indiction, on the nineteenth day of the month of April, the apostolic see, as is asserted, being vacant of a pastor; the alma University of the study of Paris being solemnly convoked and congregated at Saint-Bernard upon two articles; of which articles the first and principal was to hear letters and certain things to be proposed on behalf of the most Christian prince, our lord the King, and his council, and the lords judges, in the matter of the trial of a certain woman, by name Joan, commonly called the Maid, in a matter of faith, and to deliberate upon the same; and the second article was common, upon supplications and injuries; which articles having been thus explained by the man of venerable circumspection, master Pierre de Gonda, master of arts, Rector of the same University, and presiding in the same congregation; and the aforesaid letters having been opened and read, and the credentials contained in the same letters having been explained by the mouth of one of the ambassadors of our lord the King, his council, and the judges aforesaid destined to the same University, and the twelve articles annotated here below having been read: likewise, the lord Rector opened, proposed, and declared that the matter contained in the articles, of which mention is made above, was great and arduous, concerning the orthodox faith, the Christian religion, and the sacred sanctions; the determination of which and the qualification of such articles chiefly regarded and belonged to the venerable Faculties of Theology, namely, and of Decrees, according to their professions; subjoining that the said University should deliberate and conclude upon the determination of this matter and the qualification of the articles, of which mention is made above, by committing it to the aforesaid Faculties; the determination and qualification of which Faculties should be reported to the same University by them, or in their names. Which things having been thus explained, the same lord Rector put all and singular the things then explained in the said congregation into the deliberations of all and singular the masters and doctors there present, and thereafter the individual Faculties and Nations went apart and retired to the place where they have hitherto been accustomed to assemble for deliberating on the most arduous causes and business, to deliberate both upon the premises and other things; each making their accustomed session in the same places. After the mature deliberation of which Faculties and Nations, the individual deliberations of the same having been, as is the custom, published and repeated in common; at last the oft-mentioned University, by the mouth of the aforesaid lord Rector, from the concordant deliberation of the individual Faculties and Nations, concluded that it committed the determination of the aforesaid matter, with the qualification of the articles, of which above, to the said Faculties of Theology and of Decrees, to be made and reported to the same University.\n(1) Duboulai names a certain Jacobus de Gonda, an Englishman, who was Rector of the University of Paris in 1415 (Hist. Univ. Paris., vol. V, p. 620). Pierre doubtless belonged to the same nation.\nLikewise, in the year and indiction aforesaid, on the fourteenth day of the month of May, the apostolic see, as is said, being vacant of a pastor, the aforesaid alma University of the study of Paris being solemnly congregated at Saint-Bernard aforesaid upon two articles, of which the first and principal was to hear the deliberations of the venerable Faculties, namely of Theology and of Decrees aforesaid, in a matter of faith, formerly, namely on the twenty-ninth day of the month of April last past, committed to them by the aforesaid University; the matter of which article having been clearly and seriously explained by the mouth of the said lord Rector, the same lord requested the said Faculties present in the same congregation that they should openly open and report their determinations in the aforesaid matter, and the qualifications of the articles, in the sight of the said University. Which having been requested, as is premised, the venerable Faculty of Theology, by the mouth of the venerable and circumspect man, master Jean de Troyes, then acting as dean of the same Faculty, responded that frequently and repeatedly each of the aforesaid Faculties of Theology and of Decrees, both in its entirety and in those deputed by it, had been congregated upon the aforesaid matter, for having a determination in the same and making the qualification of the articles, of which above; and at last each of them, after mature and long deliberation, had determined by way of doctrine upon the premises, in the manner and form contained word for word in a certain paper quire which the aforesaid master Jean held in his hands, and exhibited to be read publicly in the sight of the University itself, and caused to be read in a high and intelligible voice, with the articles qualified as above. Of which articles, determinations, and qualifications contained in the aforesaid paper quire, the tenors follow word for word and are such:\nFollow the articles of the sayings and deeds of Joan, commonly called the Maid.\nAnd first, a certain woman says and affirms that, when she was of the age of thirteen years or thereabouts, etc.\n(1) We do not reproduce these twelve assertions, which have already been set out above, p. 326 and following.\nFollow the things deliberated and concluded by the sacred Faculty of Theology, in the University of Paris, in the qualifications of the articles of the sayings and deeds of Joan, commonly called the Maid, composed and described above, which qualifications, and the things deliberated and concluded by the same Faculty, and all and singular things concerning this matter, the said Faculty submits to the absolute determination of our lord the Supreme Pontiff and of the holy general Council.\nI. And FIRST, as to the first article, the Faculty says by way of doctrine, having weighed the end, manner, and matter of the revelations, the quality of her person, and the place with other circumstances, that either they are feigned lies, seductive and pernicious, or the aforesaid apparitions and revelations are superstitious, proceeding from evil and diabolical spirits, Belial, Satan, and Behemoth.\nII. Likewise, as to the second article, that what it contains does not seem true, but rather is a presumptuous lie, seductive, pernicious, and feigned, and derogatory to angelic dignity.\nIII. Likewise, as to the third article, that there are no sufficient signs contained in it, and the said woman easily believes and rashly asserts. Moreover, in the comparison which she makes, she believes ill and errs in the faith.\nIV. Likewise, as to the fourth article, that in it is contained superstition, a divinatory and presumptuous assertion with empty boasting.\nV. Likewise, as to the fifth article, that the said woman is a blasphemer against God and a despiser of God in his sacraments, a prevaricator of the divine law, sacred doctrine, and ecclesiastical sanctions, ill-savoring and erring in the faith, and boasting emptily, and is to be held suspected of idolatry and execration of herself and her garments, by imitating the rites of the gentiles.\nVI. Likewise, as to the sixth article, that the said woman is treacherous, deceitful, cruel, and thirsting for the shedding of human blood, seditious and provoking to tyranny; a blasphemer of God in his commandments and revelations.\nVII. Likewise, as to the seventh, that the said woman is impious toward her parents, a prevaricator of the commandment on honoring parents, scandalous, a blasphemer against God; and she errs in the faith, and made a rash and presumptuous promise.\nVIII. Likewise, that in the eighth article is contained a pusillanimity verging on despair, interpretatively tending to her own homicide; a presumptuous and rash assertion concerning the pretended remission of her fault; and that the said woman thinks ill concerning the freedom of human will.\nIX. Likewise, that in the ninth article is contained a presumptuous and rash assertion, and a pernicious lie; and she contradicts herself in the preceding article, and savors ill in the faith.\nX. Likewise, that in the tenth article is contained a presumptuous and rash assertion, superstitious divination, blasphemy against Saints Catherine and Margaret, and a transgression of the commandment on the love of neighbor.\nXI. Likewise, as to the eleventh article, that the said woman, supposing that she had the revelations and apparitions of which she boasts, with the things determined about the first article, is an idolater, an invoker of demons, and errs in the faith, rashly asserts, and uttered an unlawful oath.\nXII. Likewise, as to the twelfth article, that the said woman is schismatic, thinking ill of the unity and authority of the Church, apostate; and hitherto pertinaciously errs in the faith.\nFollows the deliberation and determination by way of doctrine of the venerable Faculty of Decrees in the University of Paris, upon the twelve articles concerning the sayings and deeds of Joan, commonly called the Maid, annotated and described above; which deliberation and determination the said Faculty submits to the ordination and determination of the Supreme Pontiff, of the Holy Apostolic See, and of the holy general Council.\nIf the said woman, being of sound mind, shall have pertinaciously affirmed the propositions declared in the twelve articles written above, and shall have fulfilled in deed the facts contained in the same, the propositions aforesaid having been diligently examined, it seems to the Faculty of Decrees, by way of counsel or doctrine, speaking charitably:\nI. First, that the said woman is schismatic, since schism is an unlawful division, made through disobedience, from the unity of the Church, and she separates herself from the obedience of the Church Militant, as she says, etc.\nII. Likewise, that the same woman is erroneous in the faith; she contradicts the article of the faith contained in the minor creed, One holy Catholic Church; and, as blessed Jerome says, anyone contradicting this article will prove himself not only unskilful, malevolent, and non-Catholic, but a heretic.\nIII. Likewise, and that the same woman is also an apostate, both because she caused the hair which God gave her for a veil to be cut off with an evil purpose, and also because, with the same purpose, having left female attire, she imitated the attire of men.\nIV. Likewise, and that the same woman is deceitful and a diviner, since she says she was sent by God, and speaks with angels and Saints, and does not show it by the working of a miracle or by the special testimony of Scripture; whereas, when the Lord willed to send Moses into Egypt to the children of Israel, so that they might believe him that he was sent by Him, He gave them a sign that he should turn his rod into a serpent, and the serpent into a rod. Again, so that John the Baptist also might reform, he brought forward a special testimony of his mission from Scripture, saying: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness; make straight the way of the Lord, as says Isaiah the prophet.\nV. Likewise, and that the same woman, by presumption of law and by law, errs in the faith, both first because she is anathema by authority of the canon, and remained in the same state for a long time; and secondly, because she says she would rather not receive the body of Christ, and not confess, at the time established by the Church, than, having put off male attire, reassume the attire of women. She is also most vehemently suspected of heresy, and to be diligently examined upon the articles of the faith.\nVI. Likewise, the same woman also errs in this, that she says she is as certain that she will be led into paradise as if she were already in the glory of the Blessed; since, in this pilgrimage, it is unknown whether a traveler is worthy of praise or of affliction, but is known by the supreme Judge alone. Wherefore, if the aforesaid woman, having been charitably exhorted and duly warned by a competent judge, shall refuse to run back spontaneously to the unity of the Catholic faith, and publicly to abjure her error at the discretion of the said judge, and to offer worthy satisfaction, she is to be left to the discretion of the secular judge, to receive a punishment due to the quality of her crime.\nAfter the reading of which articles, determinations, and qualifications, the aforesaid lord Rector publicly and in a high voice asked of the aforesaid venerable Faculties of Theology and of Decrees, if the aforesaid deliberations, determinations, and qualifications, thus read as is premised, contained in the aforesaid quire, were thus deliberated and concluded by the aforesaid Faculties. Which having been heard, the said Faculties responded separately, namely, the Faculty of Theology by the mouth of the aforesaid master Jean de Troyes, and the Faculty of Decrees by the mouth of the venerable man master Guérould Boissel, dean of the same Faculty of Decrees, that the aforesaid determinations and qualifications were the qualifications and determinations given and concluded by the aforesaid Faculties. Which things having been thus said, the aforesaid lord Rector opened and declared how the aforesaid University had committed the aforesaid matter, and the determinations and qualifications of the articles to be made, of which above, to the aforesaid Faculties of Theology and of Decrees, formerly as is said; and that the University itself held the aforesaid determinations and qualifications, thus made as is premised by the aforesaid Faculties of Theology and of Decrees, as ratified and pleasing, and reputed them as its own. Which things having been said in effect and substance similar to this, the oft-mentioned lord Rector put all and singular the things explained, said, and narrated in the said congregation into the deliberations of all and singular the masters and doctors there present. And thereafter, the individual Faculties and Nations went apart and retired to the places where they have hitherto been accustomed to assemble for deliberating on the most arduous causes and business, to deliberate both upon the premises and several other arduous businesses touching the University itself, each making their accustomed session in the same places. After the mature and long deliberation of which Faculties and Nations, the individual deliberations of the same having been, as is the custom, published and repeated in common, at last the aforesaid University, by the mouth of the said lord Rector, from the concordant deliberation of the individual Faculties and Nations, concluded that it held the aforesaid determinations and qualifications made by the said Faculties of Theology and of Decrees, as is premised, as ratified and pleasing, and also reputed them as its own. Of and upon all and singular of which premises, the men of venerable circumspection, masters Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, and Nicolas Midi, professors of sacred theology, requested, and each of them requested, that there be made and delivered to them a public instrument or public instruments, one or more, by us the public notaries underwritten.\nThese things were done at Paris, where above, under the year, indiction, days, and months aforesaid, being present there the venerable and circumspect men, lords and masters, namely, while the premises, on the said twenty-ninth day of the month of April, were being done: Pierre de Dierrey, professor of sacred theology; Guérould Boissel, doctor of decrees; Henri Tybout, master in arts and medicine; Jean Barrey, Gerolf de Holle, and Richard Abessore, masters in arts; Jean Vacheret, principal beadle of the venerable Faculty of Theology, and Boemund de Lutrea, principal beadle of the venerable Gallican Nation; — and while the other things, on the aforesaid fourteenth day of the month of May, were being said and done: Jean Sounet, Jean Gravestain, professors in the sacred page; the aforesaid Guérould Boissel; Simon de Mara, master in arts and medicine; André Pelé, Guillaume Oscohart, Jacques Nourry, Jean Trophard, and Martin Bereth, masters in arts; with a copious multitude of other doctors and masters of the individual Faculties, as well as the aforesaid Jean Vacheret and Boemund de Lutrea, beadles, witnesses to the premises specially called and requested.\n(1) In the registers of Parlement, Pierre Dierre or Dierré is described as professor at the Collège de Navarre, curate of Saint-André-des-Arcs, canon of the Sainte-Chapelle, dean of the Faculty of Theology, and vice-chancellor of the church of Paris. (Duboulai, Hist. Univ. Paris., vol. V, p. 912.)\n(2) André Pelé was Rector of the University in 1434 and a councillor in the Parlement of Paris in 1465. (Hist. Univ. Paris., vol. V, p. 867.)\n(3) Martin Bereth was an Englishman and Rector of the University in 1432. (Ibid., p. 921.)\nThus signed:\nAnd I, Jean Bourrilliet, called of François, priest, master in arts and licentiate in decrees and bachelor in theology, and public notary by apostolic and imperial authorities, was present at all and singular the premises while they were thus, as is premised, said, explained, put into deliberation, and by the same deliberated and concluded in the said congregations of the University, together with the venerable man master Michel Hébert, clerk of the diocese of Rouen, master in arts, public notary by apostolic and imperial authorities and scribe of the alma University of Paris aforesaid, and the witnesses written above; and I saw and heard them so done. And therefore to this present public instrument thence made, faithfully written by the hand of another, I have apposed my accustomed sign, subscribing myself here with my own hand, being requested and asked in faith and testimony of the truth. J. BOURRILLIET.\nAnd I, Michel Hébert, clerk of the diocese of Rouen, master in arts, public notary by apostolic and imperial authorities and scribe of the alma University of the study of Paris, who was present at all and singular the premises while they were thus, as is premised, said, explained, and put into deliberation, and by the same deliberated and concluded in the said University, together with the venerable man master Jean Bourrilliet, called of François, public notary, and the witnesses written above, and saw and heard them so done. Therefore, this present public instrument thence made, written with my own hand, I have apposed my accustomed sign, subscribing myself here, being requested and asked in faith and testimony of the truth of the premises. HÉBERT.\nDeliberations of the doctors and masters then present at Rouen, who deliberated according to the University of Paris. # (1) For this deliberation, the clerk\u0026rsquo;s minute differs so little from the definitive redaction that I have judged it unnecessary to reproduce it. It would be a continual repetition. I shall confine myself to indicating in a note a passage from the first text that is not found in the other.\nThen master Raoul Roussel, treasurer and canon of the church of Rouen, doctor of both laws, then present there, deliberated that the cause has been notably and solemnly debated, and that it remained to conclude and define in the cause, in the presence of the parties; and unless the said Joan returns to the way of truth and salvation, she is to be judged a heretic. And he stands with the deliberation of the University of the study of Paris.\nMaster Nicolas de Venderès, licentiate in canon law, archdeacon of Eu and canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated as master Raoul Roussel, with this added, that it can be concluded and sentence given on one and the same day, and she be left to the secular justice.\nThe reverend father in Christ, lord Gilles, abbot of the Holy Trinity of Fécamp, doctor in sacred theology, deliberated that, on a certain day, the promoter ought to be asked whether he wishes to say anything else, and then the said Joan can be warned; and, this done, unless she wishes to revoke her sayings and return to the way of truth, she will be judged a heretic, and sentence be brought, and she be left to the secular justice.\nMaster Jean de Châtillon, doctor in sacred theology, archdeacon of Évreux, deliberated that those who have not fully deliberated are bound to deliberate according to the deliberation of the University of Paris. And as much as is in him, he himself stands with the deliberation of the aforesaid University. And concerning other things, as the lord of Fécamp.\nThe reverend father in Christ, lord Guillaume, abbot of Cormeilles, doctor of decrees, deliberated as the University of the study of Paris.\nMaster André Marguerie, licentiate in laws, and bachelor in decrees, archdeacon of Petit-Caux and canon of the church of Rouen, having observed the warnings made to the same Joan, stands with the deliberation of the University of Paris. And as to the trial, he says that at one and the same time the conclusion can be made and sentence given.\nMaster Érard Emengart, doctor in sacred theology, deliberated that the said Joan be warned again, and, this done, unless she shall have returned to the way of truth, he stands with the deliberation of the Faculty of Theology of the University of the study of Paris.\nMaster Guillaume Le Boucher, doctor in sacred theology, stands in the deliberation otherwise given by him, with other doctors, masters, and bachelors, on the ninth of April, adding that the said Joan be warned again charitably, and the deliberation of the University of Paris be declared to her; and, this done, if she shall refuse to obey, we must proceed further. And he stands with the deliberation of the said University of the study of Paris.\nLord Pierre, prior of Longueville-Giffard, doctor of sacred theology, deliberated as master Guillaume Le Boucher.\nMaster Jean Pinchon, licentiate in canon law, archdeacon of Josas and canon of the church of Paris, stands in the deliberation of master Guillaume Le Boucher.\nMaster Pasquier de Vaux, doctor of decrees, canon of the churches of Paris and Rouen, deliberated as the University of the study of Paris.\nMaster Jean Beaupère, doctor of sacred theology, canon of the churches of Rouen and Besançon, deliberated as the University of the study of Paris; and concerning the manner of proceeding further, he refers himself to us, the judges.\nMaster Denis Gastinel, licentiate in both laws, canon of Rouen, said that, the said Joan having been warned, unless she shall obey, he stands with the deliberation of the said University of the study of Paris.\nMaster Nicolas Midi, doctor in sacred theology, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated that, on the same day, it can be concluded and sentence brought; and concerning other things, he refers himself to those things otherwise deliberated by him, with other doctors and bachelors, on the ninth day of April last past.\nMaster Maurice de Quesnay, doctor of sacred theology, deliberated that the said Joan is to be warned again charitably; and, unless she shall obey, he stands with the deliberation of the Faculty of Theology of the University of the study of Paris.\nMaster Pierre Houdenc, doctor of sacred theology, deliberated that, for the salvation of the soul and body of Joan, she ought to be warned charitably, before the lords judges come to the conclusion; and the said warnings having been made, unless she shall return to the Church, she seems pertinacious and a heretic; and concerning the conclusion to be made, he refers himself to us, the judges.\nMaster Jean Fabri, doctor of sacred theology, stands in his other deliberation otherwise given by him, with other doctors and masters, on the ninth day of April, and with the deliberation of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris; adding that the said Joan is still to be warned charitably, and a day assigned to her.\nThe religious man brother Martin Ladvenu stands with the deliberation of the aforesaid master Jean Fabri.\nThe venerable and discreet men, advocates of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, of whom some are licentiates in both laws, others in canon, and others in civil law, namely, masters Guillaume de Livet, Pierre Carré, Guérould Postel, Geoffroy de Crotay, Richard de Saussay, Burel de Cormeilles, Jean Ledoux, Aubert Morel, Jean de Chemin, Laurent Dubust, Jean Colombel, Raoul Anguy, and Jean Tavernier, deliberated that the said Joan, having first been warned to return to the way of truth and salvation and to submit herself to the Church, unless she shall wish to obey, we must proceed further according to the deliberation of the Faculty of Decrees of the University of the study of Paris, with which deliberation stand the thirteen aforesaid advocates.\n(1) The minute adds: and brother Thomas Amouret, a person whose name is found nowhere else.\nThe reverend father in Christ, the religious man, lord abbot Guillaume of the monastery of Mortemer, professor of sacred theology, deliberated that the said Joan be warned again charitably, and, unless she shall wish to obey, we should proceed further; and he stands with the deliberation of the Faculty of Theology of the University of the study of Paris.\nThe religious man, master Jacques Guesdon, professor of sacred theology, deliberated in conformity with the lord abbot of Mortemer.\nThe religious man, master Jean Foucher, doctor of sacred theology, deliberated in conformity with the lord abbot of Mortemer.\nMaster Jean Mangier, licentiate in canon law, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated that the said Joan is still to be warned charitably, and, unless she shall wish to obey, that we should proceed further.\nMaster Nicolas Coppequesne, canon of the church of Rouen, bachelor in theology, deliberated in conformity with the University of Paris.\nMaster Raoul Silvestre, bachelor in sacred theology, stands in his first deliberation, otherwise given by him, according to the tenor of a certain schedule signed with his hand; adding that the said Joan ought to be warned again privately and also publicly, before the people; and, if she shall refuse to return to the way of truth and salvation, concerning the manner of proceeding further, he refers himself to us, the judges.\nMaster Pierre Minier, bachelor in sacred theology, deliberated in conformity, as the aforesaid master Raoul Silvestre.\nMaster Jean Pigache, bachelor in sacred theology, deliberated in conformity with the deliberation of the University of the study of Paris.\nMaster Richard de Grouchet, bachelor in sacred theology, deliberated that the said Joan is still to be warned charitably; and, she having been warned, unless she obeys the Church, she is to be judged a heretic.\nThe religious man, brother Isambart de la Pierre, stands in his deliberation, otherwise given by him with others on the ninth of April; adding that the said Joan is still to be warned charitably, and that, if she shall refuse to obey the Church after warning, concerning the manner of proceeding further, he refers himself to us, the judges.\nMaster Pierre Maurice, canon of the church of Rouen, doctor of sacred theology, stands in the deliberation otherwise given by him with other doctors on the ninth day of April; adding that, on one day, the said Joan be warned again charitably and the punishment she will suffer be declared to her, if she shall refuse to obey and submit herself to the Church; in which case, namely that she remains disobedient, we must proceed further.\nMaster Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor in sacred theology, canon of the churches of Laon and Thérouanne, stands with those things deliberated by him otherwise with others on the ninth day of April. In other things he deliberated as the aforesaid master Pierre Maurice, adding that, if the said Joan shall refuse to obey the Church after warning, she is to be judged a heretic.\nMaster Nicolas L\u0026rsquo;Oiseleur, canon of the churches of Chartres and Rouen, master of arts, deliberated in conformity, as master Thomas de Courcelles, immediately named.\nMaster Jean de l\u0026rsquo;Épée, licentiate in laws, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated that the said Joan is to be warned charitably on one day; and if she remains disobedient, let the cause be concluded and sentence brought.\nThe religious man, master Bertrand de Chêne, doctor of decrees, dean of Lihons-en-Santerre, of the order of Cluny, deliberated in conformity, as the Faculty of Decrees of the University of the study of Paris.\n(1) Superior of the deanery of Lihons-en-Santerre, in the diocese of Amiens.\nMaster Guillaume Érard, doctor in sacred theology, sacristan and canon of the church of Langres, deliberated in conformity, as the venerable Chapter of the church of Rouen and the University of the study of Paris.\nFor all of which at last we, the oft-mentioned judges, thanked the same reverend fathers, lords, and masters, concluding that we would still warn the aforesaid Joan charitably so that she might wish to return to the way of truth and the salvation of soul and body, and further, according to their good deliberation and sound counsels, we would proceed to other things which remained to be done, concluding in the cause, and assigning a day for rendering justice.\nMay 23. The defects of Joan are explained to her by Master Pierre Maurice. — The cause is concluded. # Likewise, on the Wednesday immediately following, the twenty-third of the said month of May, we the aforesaid judges sitting as a tribunal, and the said Joan being brought before us in a certain chamber of the castle of Rouen, near the place of the prison of the same Joan; present the reverend fathers, lords bishops of Thérouanne and Noyon, — as well as the lords and masters, Jean de Châtillon, archdeacon of Évreux; Jean Beaupère, Nicolas Midi, Guillaume Érard, Pierre Maurice, doctors in sacred theology; — André Marguerie, in laws; Nicolas de Venderès, in decrees, licentiates, archdeacons and canons in the church of Rouen.\n(1) The bishops of Thérouanne and Noyon. The former was Louis de Luxembourg, chancellor of France for the King of England, who died in 1443 as Archbishop of Rouen, Bishop of Ely, and cardinal. The Bishop of Noyon was Jean de Mailly, councillor to the King of England and president of the Paris Chamber of Accounts, who later returned to the favour of Charles VII and was heard as a witness in the revision trial.\nWe caused to be explained, before the oft-mentioned Joan, certain points in which, according to the deliberation of the Faculties of Theology and of Decrees of the University of the study of Paris, the said Joan had erred and failed; and the defects, crimes, and errors which were contained in the individual points, according to the same deliberation, to be declared to her; warning her and causing her to be warned that she should wish to depart from the aforesaid defects and errors, to correct and amend herself, and to submit herself to the correction and determination of holy mother Church; as all these things are contained more fully in the schedule written below, then explained to the same Joan in French words, by master Pierre Maurice, canon of the church of Rouen, eminent doctor in sacred theology.\nOf which schedule the tenor follows:\nI. First, you, Joan, said that, from the age of thirteen years or thereabouts, you had revelations and apparitions of angels and of Saints Catherine and Margaret, whom you frequently saw with your bodily eyes; and they spoke with you and often speak, and told you many things, more fully declared in your trial.\nAs to this point, the clerks of the University of Paris and others considered the manners of those revelations and apparitions, the end, the matter of the things revealed, the quality of your person; and, all things being considered which were to be considered, they said that these are falsely feigned, seductive, and pernicious, or that such revelations and apparitions are superstitious, proceeding from evil and diabolical spirits.\nII. Likewise, you said that your king had a sign, by which he knew you were sent by God, namely, because Saint Michael, accompanied by a multitude of angels, of whom some had wings, others crowns, with whom were Saints Catherine and Margaret, came to you in the town of Château-Chinon; and all these walked with you up the steps of the castle, into the chamber of your king, before whom the angel inclined himself, who was carrying a crown. And at one time, you said that, when your king himself had that sign, he was alone; at another time, you said that the crown itself, which you call a sign, was delivered to the archbishop of Reims, who delivered it to your aforesaid king, in the presence of many princes and lords whom you named.\nAnd as to this, the aforesaid clerks say that this is not believable, but is a presumptuous lie, seductive, pernicious, a feigned matter, and derogatory to angelic dignity.\nIII. Likewise, you said that you know the angels and Saints by the good counsel, comfort, and doctrine which they gave to you, and by this, that they named themselves to you, and that the Saints saluted you; you believe also that it is Saint Michael who appeared to you, and that their deeds and words are good, as firmly as you believe the faith of Christ.\nAs to this, the clerks say that those are not sufficient signs for knowing the aforesaid angels and Saints, and that you easily believed and rashly asserted; and further, as to the comparison which you make of believing as firmly, etc., you err in the faith.\nIV. Likewise, you said that you are certain of certain future contingencies, and that you knew hidden things; you also recognized men whom you had never seen before, and this by the voices of Saints Catherine and Margaret.\nAnd as to this, the clerks say that in this is superstition, divination, a presumptuous assertion, and empty boasting.\nV. Likewise, you said that, by the commandment of God and His good pleasure, you wore and continually wear male attire; and because you had a commandment of God to wear this attire, you took a short tunic, a doublet, hose fastened with many points; you also wear your hair cut round above the top of your ears, leaving nothing upon you that approves or demonstrates the female sex, except that which nature gave you; and you often received in this attire the sacrament of the Eucharist; and, although you were many times warned to put it off, nonetheless you refused to do so, saying that you would rather die than put off this attire, at least unless this were by the commandment of God; and that, if you were still in this attire, with others of your party, it would be one of the great goods of France. You say also that, for nothing, would you make an oath not to wear this attire and arms; and in all these things, you say you did well and by the commandment of God.\nAs to this point, the clerks say that you blaspheme God and despise Him in His sacraments; you transgress the divine law, sacred Scripture, and canonical sanctions; you savor ill and err in the faith; you boast emptily and are suspected of idolatry and execration of yourself and your garments, by imitating the rites of the gentiles.\nVI. Likewise, you said that you often placed in your letters these names, Jesus Maria, and the sign of the cross, designating that those to whom you wrote should not do the things contained in the letters. In other letters, however, you boasted that you would cause all those to be killed who did not obey, and that by blows it would be seen who had the better right from the God of heaven; and you often said you did nothing except by revelation and the commandment of the Lord.\nAs to this, the clerks say that you are treacherous, deceitful, cruel, desiring cruelly the shedding of human blood, seditious, provoking to tyranny, blaspheming God in His commandments and revelations.\nVII. Likewise, you say that, by revelations which you had at the age of seventeen years, you departed from the house of your parents, against their will, because of which they were almost out of their minds; and you went to Robert de Baudricourt, who, at your request, delivered to you male attire and a sword with certain people, for conducting you to your king; and, when you came to him, you told him that you came for fighting his adversaries; and you promised him that you would place him in great dominion, and that he would have victory over his adversaries, and that God was sending you for this. You say also that you did these things well, obeying God, and by revelation.\nAs to this, the clerks say that you were impious toward your parents, transgressing the commandment of God on honoring parents, scandalous, a blasphemer against God, erring in the faith, and you made a presumptuous and rash promise.\nVIII. Likewise, you said that you spontaneously leaped from the tower of Beaurevoir, wishing rather to die than to be delivered into the hand of the English and to live after the destruction of Compiègne; and although Saints Catherine and Margaret forbade you to leap, yet you could not contain yourself; and although also it was a great sin to offend those Saints, yet you knew by the voices that God had forgiven you, after you were confessed of it.\nAs to this point, the clerks say that in this was pusillanimity verging on despair, interpretatively tending to your own homicide; also in this you spoke a rash and presumptuous assertion concerning the remission which you pretend to have of the sin; and you think ill concerning the freedom of human will.\nIX. Likewise, you said that Saints Catherine and Margaret promised to lead you to paradise, provided you keep the virginity which you vowed and promised to them; and of this you are as certain as if you were already in the glory of the Blessed; nor do you believe you have done works of mortal sin, and it seems to you that, if you were in mortal sin, the Saints would not visit you daily, as they do.\nAs to this, the clerks say that in this you spoke a presumptuous and rash assertion, a pernicious lie; and it contradicts that which you said before; and further, that you think ill in the Christian faith.\nX. Likewise, you said you know well that God loves certain living persons more than you, and that you knew this by revelation of Saints Catherine and Margaret; also that these Saints speak French, not English, since they are not of their party; and after you knew those voices were for your king, you did not love the Burgundians.\nAs to this, the clerks say that in this is a rash and presumptuous assertion, superstitious divination, blasphemy against Saints Catherine and Margaret, and a transgression of the commandment on the love of neighbor.\nXI. Likewise, you said that to those whom you call Saint Michael, Saints Catherine and Margaret, you showed many reverences, by bending knees, removing your hood, kissing the ground upon which they walked, vowing to them virginity; that you also kissed and embraced the Saints themselves, and invoked them; also you believed their commandments from the beginning when they came to you, without asking counsel from your curate or another ecclesiastical man, and nonetheless you believe those voices come from God, as firmly as you believe the Christian faith, and that our Lord Jesus Christ suffered. Further, you said that if any evil spirit appeared to you in the figure of Saint Michael, you would well know how to recognize and discern him. You also said that, at your request, you swore that you would not tell the sign given to your king, and finally you added, unless this were by the commandment of God.\nAs to this, the clerks say that, supposing you had the revelations and apparitions of which you boasted, in the manners in which you said, you are an idolater, an invoker of demons, erring in the faith, rashly asserting, and you made an unlawful oath.\nXII. Likewise, you said that, if the Church willed that you should do the contrary of the commandment which you say you have from God, you would not do it for anyone; and that you know well the contents of your trial come from the commandment of God, and that it would be impossible for you to do the contrary; nor concerning these do you wish to refer yourself to the judgment of the Church which is on earth, nor of any living man, but to God alone. And you say further, that you do not make these responses from your own head, but by the commandment of God, although the article of the faith which is One holy Catholic Church, etc., was many times declared to you, and that every Christian ought to submit all his sayings and deeds to the Church Militant, especially in the matter of revelations and such things.\nAs to this, the clerks say that you are schismatic, thinking ill of the unity and authority of the Church, an apostate, and hitherto pertinaciously erring in the faith.\nAfter indeed the aforesaid assertions were in this manner narrated and declared to Joan herself, with the qualifications given by the aforesaid University of Paris, at last she was warned by the said doctor also in French words, that she should most of all take heed concerning her sayings and deeds and especially concerning the last article; and it was said to her in this manner:\nJoan, dearest friend, now is the time, near the end of your trial, to think well upon what has been said; because, although by the lord of Beauvais and the lord Vicar of the Inquisitor, and other doctors sent on their behalf, publicly and privately now for four times, and so on, for the honor and reverence of God, the faith and law of Jesus Christ, the peace of consciences, the calming of the scandal arisen, for the salvation of your soul and body, you have been most diligently warned; and at the same time there have been declared to you the damages both of soul and body which you are to incur, unless you correct and amend yourself and your sayings, by subjecting yourself and your deeds to the Church, and accepting her judgment; to which thing hitherto you have refused to attend. And although from the deeds done toward you, already very many could have been satisfied, yet the lords judges aforesaid, zealous for your salvation both of soul and body, transmitted your sayings to the University of Paris, which is the light of all sciences and the extirpator of errors, so that they might be examined by it; and having received their deliberations, the lords judges themselves ordained, for the aforesaid end, that you be warned again, directing your attention to the errors, scandals, and other defects committed by you; asking, exhorting, and warning you by the bowels of our Lord Jesus Christ, who willed to suffer so cruel a death for the redemption of humankind, that you correct your sayings and subject them to the judgment of the Church, as every faithful person is bound and obliged; nor permit yourself to be separated from the Lord Jesus Christ, who created you that you might be a partaker of His glory; nor wish to choose the way of eternal damnation with the enemies of God, who every day strive to trouble men, sometimes transfiguring themselves into the likeness of Christ, of an Angel, and of Saints, saying and asserting themselves to be such, as is contained widely enough in the lives of the Fathers and the Scriptures. Therefore, if any things have appeared to you in such a way, do not believe them; rather, utterly repel the belief or imagination had of such things, acquiescing in the sayings and opinions of the University of Paris and other doctors, who know the law of God and sacred Scripture, to whom it seems that such apparitions are not to be believed, nor any unusual apparition or prohibited novelty, unless by sacred Scripture or a sufficient sign and miracle; of which you had neither; but you easily believed such, not turning yourself to God by devout prayer, that He might make you certain of such, nor did you run back to any prelate or other learned ecclesiastical man, who could inform you; which, however, you ought to have done, having regard to your state and the simplicity of your knowledge. And take an example: if your king by his authority had committed to you some fortress to be guarded, forbidding that you should receive anyone coming; even though he should say he came by authority of the king, unless he brought letters or another certain sign to you, you ought not to believe him nor receive him. So when our Lord Jesus Christ, ascending into heaven, committed the government of His Church to Blessed Peter the apostle and his successors, He forbade that, for the future, they should accept any coming in His name, unless it were sufficiently clear otherwise than by their sayings. Nor for certain ought you to have given faith to those whom you say so came; nor ought we to give faith to you, since the Lord commands the opposite.\nFirst, Joan, you ought to take heed that, if in the dominion of your king, while you were there, a knight or any other whomsoever born of his dominion and obedience had arisen, saying: I will not obey the king, nor submit myself to him or his officers, would you not have said he was to be condemned? What therefore will you say of yourself, who were begotten in the faith of Christ, made a daughter of the Church and spouse of Christ by the sacrament of baptism, if you do not obey the officers of Christ, namely, the prelates of the Church? What judgment will you give of yourself? Cease, I pray, to say these things, if you love God, your Creator, your precious spouse, and your salvation; and obey the Church, by undergoing her judgment. Know that unless you shall so do and shall persevere in this error, your soul will be condemned to eternal punishment, to be perpetually tormented, and concerning your body I doubt much lest it come to destruction. Nor let human shame and useless embarrassment hold you back, by which perhaps you are detained, since you have already been in great honors, which you think to lose, as I speak, by so doing. The honor of God and your salvation both of body and soul are to be preferred; all of which perish, unless you shall do what I say, because in such a manner you divide yourself from the Church and the faith which you promised in holy baptism, and you cut off the authority of God from the Church, which however is led, ruled, and governed by His authority and spirit. He said also to the prelates of the Church: He who hears you, hears me, and he who despises you, despises me; when therefore you do not wish to be subjected to the Church, in deed you depart; and by refusing to subject yourself to the same, you do not subject yourself to God, and you err in that article, One holy Church; what kind it is and of what authority, was otherwise sufficiently declared to you in the preceding warnings.\nYou therefore, having regard to these things on behalf of my lords, the lord of Beauvais and the lord vicar of the Inquisitor, your judges, I warn, ask, and exhort that, by that piety which you bear toward the passion of your Creator and the love which you have for the salvation of your soul and body, you correct and amend all the aforesaid things, and reduce yourself to the way of truth, by obeying the Church, undergoing her judgment and determination, as to the aforesaid. And by so doing, you will save your soul, you will redeem, as I think, your body from death; if indeed you shall not do this, but shall persevere, know that your soul is overwhelmed with damnation, and concerning the destruction of your body I doubt. From which may Jesus Christ deign to preserve you.\nAfter indeed Joan herself was warned in this manner and heard these exhortations, consequently to these, she responded under this form: As for my sayings and deeds which I have said in the trial, I refer myself to that, and I wish to maintain them.\nLikewise, being asked whether she believes that she is bound to submit her sayings and deeds to the Church Militant or to any other than God: she responded: I wish to maintain that manner, as to this, which I have always said and held in the trial. Likewise she said that, if she were in judgment and saw the fire kindled, the wood prepared, and the executioner or him who ought to put in the fire, ready to do this, and she herself were within the fire: yet she would not say anything else, and would maintain what she said in the trial, even unto death.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nTo the first and the other articles, after master Pierre Maurice had solemnly explained their qualifications to Joan and made charitable admonitions and requests to her, she answered: As for my deeds and words which I have spoken in the trial, I refer myself to them and wish to maintain them.\nAsked whether she thought and believed that she was not bound to submit her words and deeds to the Church militant or to anyone other than God, she answered: As to this, I wish to maintain the position which I have always stated and held in the trial. She also said that, if she were at judgment, saw the fire lit and the bundles of wood burning, with the executioner ready to set the fire, and she herself were within the fire, she would still say nothing else and would maintain what she had said in the trial even unto death.\nImmediately afterward, since the promoter and Joan wished to say nothing further, the cause was concluded as contained in the schedule whose tenor begins: And we, as competent judges in this part, etc.\n(1) In the margin: Joan\u0026rsquo;s proud answer.\nThereafter we, the aforesaid judges, asked of the promoter in this cause and of the same Joan, whether they wished to say anything further. Who said that they were to say nothing further. And then we proceeded to conclude in the cause, according to the form of a certain schedule, which we, the aforesaid bishop, held in our hands, of which the tenor follows:\nAnd we, as competent judges in this part, as also, if and in as far as is necessary, we decree and declare ourselves to be competent, it having been renounced by you, or held as renounced, in the cause itself, we CONCLUDE; and it having been concluded by us, we assign tomorrow to you for hearing justice rendered by us or our sentence brought in such cause, and for doing and proceeding further, as shall be of law and reason. Present at these things, brother Isambart de la Pierre, lord Mathieu le Bateur, priests, and Louis Orsel, clerk, of the dioceses of Rouen, London, and Noyon, witnesses called to these things.\nMay 24. Public Preaching. — Abjuration made by Joan, the sentence is mitigated. # Item, in the same year, on Thursday after the feast of Pentecost, the twenty-fourth day of the month of May, we, the aforementioned judges, went in the morning to a public place, in the cemetery of the Abbey of Saint-Ouen of Rouen, Joan herself being present there before us, on a scaffold or pulpit. Where, first, we caused a solemn sermon to be delivered by Master Guillaume Erard, an excellent man, Doctor of Sacred Theology, for the salutary admonition of Joan herself and of all the people, of whom a copious multitude was present there; with us assisting: the most reverend father in Christ Henry, by divine permission, presbyter of the Holy Roman Church of the title of Saint Eusebius, commonly called Cardinal of England; — the most reverend fathers in Christ, the Lords Bishops of Thérouanne, Noyon, Norwich; — the Lords Abbots of Sainte-Trinité of Fécamp, Saint-Ouen of Rouen, Jumièges, Bec-Hellouin, Cormeilles, Mont Saint-Michel-in-peril-of-the-sea, Mortemer, Préaux; — the Priors of Longueville-Giffard and Saint-Lo of Rouen; — Masters Jean de Châtillon, Jean Beaupère, Nicolas Midi, Maurice de Quesnay, Guillaume Boucher, Jean Fabri, Pierre de Houdenc, Pierre Maurice, Jean Foucher, Doctors; — Guillaume Haiton, Nicolas Coppequesne, Thomas de Courcelles, Raoul Silvestre, Richard de Grouchet, Pierre Minier, Jean Pigache, Bachelors in Sacred Theology; — Raoul Roussel, in both laws, Jean Garin, Doctors in Canon Law; — Nicolas de Vendères, Jean Pinchon, Jean Doucet, Robert Barbier, in Canon Law; André Marguerie, Jean Ad-Ensem, in Civil Law; Aubert Morel, Jean Colombel, Jean de Quemino, Licentiates in Canon Law; — and very many others.\n(1) Henry Beaufort, former Chancellor of England, Bishop of Winchester and cardinal, great-uncle of King Henry VI.\n(2) William Alnwick, doctor of canon law, keeper of the King of England\u0026rsquo;s privy seal, Bishop of Norwich, and later transferred to the see of Lincoln. (Wharton, Anglia Sacra, vol. I, p. 417.)\n(3) Thomas Frique, Abbot of Bec-Hellouin, died in 1446.\n(4) The Abbot of Mont Saint-Michel was Robert Jolivet, called the Breton. He had taken refuge in Rouen because he could not agree with the monks of his community, and the Duke of Bedford had made him Chancellor of Normandy. (Gallia Christiana, vol. XI, col. 527.)\n(1) The minute additionally names Denis Gastinel.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nIn the year of our Lord 1431, on Thursday after Pentecost, May 24, in a public and solemn assembly held in the cemetery of the monastery of Saint-Ouen of Rouen, before the lords Bishop of Beauvais and vicar of the lord Inquisitor, with the most reverend father in Christ, Henry, Cardinal of England, and the others assisting. (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 32, recto.\nAnd the aforesaid Doctor began his sermon, taking the Word of God as his theme, written in John XV: The branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it remains in the vine. And then he solemnly said how all Catholics ought to remain in the true vine of Holy Mother Church, which the right hand of Christ planted; showing that the aforesaid Joan, by many errors and grave crimes, had been separated from the unity of the same Holy Mother Church, and had scandalized the Christian people in many ways; admonishing and exhorting her and all the people with salutary doctrines.\nWhen this sermon was finished, the aforesaid Doctor addressed Joan in these words: Behold my lords the judges, who have repeatedly summoned and required you to submit all your words and deeds to Holy Mother Church, explaining and demonstrating to you that in your words and deeds there were many things which, as it seemed to the clerics, were ill-spoken and erroneous.\nTo which, the said Joan replied: I will answer you. As for submission to the Church, I have answered them on that point. As for all the works that I have said and done, let them be transmitted to Rome, to our Lord the Supreme Pontiff, to whom and to God first, I refer myself. And as for the words and deeds that I have done, I did them on God\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Item, she said that concerning her deeds and words, she does not burden any person, neither her king, nor anyone else; and if there is any fault, it is in herself and not in another.\nAsked whether she wished to revoke all her words and deeds which are reprobated by the clerics: she replied: I refer myself to God and to our Lord the Pope.\nAnd it was said to her that this was not sufficient, and that it was not possible to go so far to seek our Lord the Pope; also that the Ordinaries were judges, each in his own diocese, and therefore it was necessary that she refer herself to Holy Mother Church, and that she should hold to what the clerics and men knowing in this matter said and had determined concerning her words and deeds. And concerning this, she was admonished by us up to a third admonition.\nThen, since the said woman would say nothing else, we, the aforesaid bishop, began to pronounce our definitive sentence. When we had read a large part of it, the same Joan began to speak, and said that she wished to hold to all that the Church should ordain, and that we, the judges, should say and sentence, saying that she would entirely obey our ordination. And she said several times that, since the ecclesiastics said that the apparitions and revelations, which she said she had had, were not to be sustained or believed, she would not sustain them, but entirely referred herself to Holy Mother Church and to us, the judges.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nAfter the sermon, the lord preacher said to Joan: Here are my lords the judges, who have several times summoned and required you to submit all your deeds and words to our mother Holy Church, and have told you that in your words and deeds there were several things which, as it seemed to the clerics, were not good to say or maintain.\nShe answered: I will answer you. Concerning submission to the Church, she said: I have told them on this point that all the deeds I have done, and the words, should be sent to Rome to our Holy Father the Pope, to whom and first to God I refer myself. As to the words and deeds I have done, I did them on God\u0026rsquo;s behalf. She also said that by her deeds and words she accused no person, neither her king nor anyone else; and if there was any fault, it was hers and no other\u0026rsquo;s.\nAsked whether she wished to revoke the deeds and words which were condemned, she answered: I refer myself to God and to our Holy Father the Pope.\nBecause she was told that this was not sufficient, that they could not go so far away to seek the Holy Father, and that the ordinaries were judges, each in his own diocese, it was necessary for her to refer herself to our mother Holy Church and to accept what the clerics and those knowledgeable in the matter said and had determined about her words and deeds. She was admonished about this three times.\nAfterward, when the sentence had begun to be read, she said that she wished to accept everything that the judges and the Church wished to say and sentence, and to obey their ordinance and will entirely. Then, in the presence of those named above and a great multitude of people, she revoked and made her abjuration in the manner which follows.\nShe said several times that, since the churchmen said her apparitions and revelations were not to be maintained or believed, she did not wish to maintain them, but referred herself entirely to the judges and to our mother Holy Church.\nAfterward sentence was given by the lords judges, as it is contained in that sentence.\n(1) In the margin: The said sentence is written at the end of this book. See below, May 30, p. 473.\n(2) In the margin: Before the end of the sentence, Joan, fearing the fire, said that she wished to obey the Church.\n(3) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 32, verso.\nThen also, in the presence of those named above, and in the sight of a copious multitude of clergy and people, she made and pronounced a revocation and abjuration, according to the form of a certain schedule then read to her, composed in French words, which she herself also pronounced, and she signed the said schedule with her own hand, in the form which follows:\n[Tenor of the abjuration in French.] Every person who has erred and transgressed in the Christian faith, and since, by the grace of God, has returned to the light of truth and to the union of our Holy Mother Church, must take great care that the enemy of hell does not cast him back and make him fall again into error and damnation. For this reason, I, Joan, commonly called the Maid, a miserable sinner, after I have recognized the snares of error in which I was held, and that, by the grace of God, I have returned to our Holy Mother Church, so that it may be seen that not feignedly, but with a good heart and good will, I have returned to her, I confess that I have most grievously sinned, by falsely pretending to have had revelations and apparitions from God, by angels and Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, by seducing others, by foolishly and lightly believing, by making superstitious divinations, by blaspheming God, His Saints and His Holy Women; by transgressing divine law, Holy Scripture, the canonical rights; by wearing a dissolute, deformed and immodest habit contrary to the decency of nature, and hair cut round in the manner of a man, against all modesty of the female sex; by also wearing armor with great presumption; by cruelly desiring the shedding of human blood; by saying that all these things I have done by the command of God, of the angels and of the aforesaid Saints, and that in these things I have done well and have not transgressed; by despising God and His sacraments; by causing seditions and idolatrizing, by adoring evil spirits, and by invoking them. I also confess that I have been schismatic and in many ways have erred in the faith. Which crimes and errors, with a good heart and without pretense, I, by the grace of our Lord, returned to the way of truth, by the holy doctrine and by the good counsel of you and of the doctors and masters whom you have sent to me, abjure and deny, and renounce all of it and depart from it entirely. And concerning all these things aforesaid, I submit myself to the correction, disposition, amendment and total determination of our Holy Mother Church and of your good justice. Also I swear and promise to my lord Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, to our Holy Father the Pope of Rome, his vicar, and to his successors, and to you, my lords, reverend father in God, my lord the Bishop of Beauvais, and religious person Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of my lord the Inquisitor of the faith, as to my judges, that never, by any exhortation or other manner, will I return to the aforesaid errors, from which it has pleased our Lord to deliver and remove me; but I will always remain in the union of our Holy Mother Church, and in the obedience of our Holy Father the Pope of Rome. And this I say, affirm and swear by Almighty God, and by these Holy Gospels. And in sign of this, I have signed this schedule with my mark. Thus signed: Joan X.\nItem, the tenor of the said abjuration, composed in Latin words, follows.\nAs often as the eye of the human mind returns from the dark shadows of errors to the clear light of truth, by the inspiring clemency of God, diligent foresight must be exercised lest the author of error rush in again, and drive those who have returned to the unity of Holy Mother Church back to their former impiety. Therefore, I, Joan, commonly called the Maid, a miserable sinner, having discovered the snare of error in which I was entangled, and having returned to the unity of Holy Mother Church, led by divine grace, lest I seem to have returned to the same unity not with a pure mind and true heart, but feignedly, I confess that I have most grievously sinned, by falsely fabricating apparitions and revelations from God through angels and Saints Catherine and Margaret, by seducing others, by lightly and rashly believing, by superstitiously divining, by blaspheming God, the Saints and Holy Women, by transgressing divine law, Sacred Scripture and canonical sanctions, by wearing a dissolute, deformed and immodest habit contrary to the decency of nature, and also hair cut round, in the manner of men, against all modesty of the female sex; by also wearing arms with great presumption; by cruelly desiring the shedding of human blood; by saying that I did all these things by the command of God, of the Angels and of the aforesaid Saints, and that in these things I did well and did not fail in anything; by despising God in His sacraments, by causing seditions, by idolatrizing and invoking demons, by incurring the crime of schism, and by erring in many ways in the faith. All which crimes, with a true heart, a pure mind and unfeigned faith, having been led back to the way of truth by sound doctrine and the counsel of the doctors and masters sent to me by your ordination, with the favor of the Savior\u0026rsquo;s grace, I abjure, detest and deny, and from them I depart. And concerning and upon all the aforesaid, I submit myself to the disposition, correction, amendment and all-encompassing determination of Holy Mother Church and of your judgment; and I vow, swear, promise and pledge to Blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and to our most holy Lord the present Pope, his vicar, and to his successors, and to you, my lords, reverend father in Christ, Lord Pierre, Bishop of Beauvais, and religious man, Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the Lord Inquisitor of heretical depravity, as to my judges: that I will never, by any persuasions or in any other way, return to these things from which, by the liberating grace of our Redeemer, I have been snatched; but I will always remain in the unity of the Catholic Church and in the communion of the Roman Pontiff. And this I say and swear by Almighty God, and by these holy Gospels of God.\nFinally, her revocation and abjuration having been received by us, the judges, as aforesaid, we, the aforesaid bishop, pronounced our definitive sentence in this manner:\nSentence after abjuration. # In the name of the Lord, Amen. All pastors of the Church who desire to faithfully care for the Lord\u0026rsquo;s flock ought to strive with the utmost effort that, as much as the perfidious sower of errors endeavors to infect the fold of Christ with many snares and virulent frauds, so much the more diligently and with more insistent solicitude they labor to resist his pernicious attempts, especially in these dangerous times when the apostolic sentence foretold that many false prophets, introducing sects of perdition and error, would come into the world; who could lead away the faithful of Christ with various and strange doctrines, unless Holy Mother Church, by the safeguards of sound doctrine and canonical sanctions, strove with more diligent effort to repel their erroneous inventions. Therefore, since before us, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar in this city and diocese of the distinguished doctor Master Jean Graverent, Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the kingdom of France, and specially appointed by him for the present case, competent judges in this matter, you, Joan, commonly called the Maid, have been accused of very many pernicious crimes and summoned to the judgment of faith; hence it is that, having seen and diligently inspected the series of these proceedings and all things transacted therein, especially the responses, confessions and assertions given by you, and having considered the very celebrated deliberation of the Masters of the Faculties of Theology and Decrees in the University of Paris, indeed, even of the entire University itself and moreover of other prelates, doctors and experts, both in sacred theology and in canon and civil law, existing in this city of Rouen and elsewhere, in a copious multitude, concerning the qualifications and determinations of your assertions, words and deeds; and having taken counsel and mature deliberation with zealous practitioners of the Christian faith; having also considered and attended to by us what ought rightly to be attended to and considered concerning these matters, and what could and ought to move us and any righteous judge: we, having Christ and the honor of the orthodox faith before our eyes, so that our judgment may proceed from the face of the Lord, say and have decreed that you have most grievously sinned by falsely fabricating divine revelations and apparitions, by seducing others, by lightly and rashly believing, by superstitiously divining, by blaspheming God and the Saints, by transgressing the law, sacred theology and canonical sanctions, by despising God in His sacraments, by stirring up seditions, by apostatizing, by incurring the crime of schism, and by erring in many ways in the Catholic faith. But because, having been often charitably admonished and long awaited, you at last, with God\u0026rsquo;s help, returning to the bosom of Holy Mother Church, as we believe, with a contrite heart and unfeigned faith, have openly revoked your errors, having repelled these errors in a public sermon, and by your own mouth, with the oracle of a living voice, have abjured all heresy; according to the form consistent with ecclesiastical sanctions, we absolve you by these presents from the bonds of excommunication by which you were bound; if, however, you return to the Church with a true heart and unfeigned faith, and observe what has been enjoined upon you and what shall be enjoined by us. But since you have rashly sinned against God and Holy Church, as aforesaid, to perform salutary penance, we finally and definitively condemn you to perpetual imprisonment, with the bread of sorrow and the water of sadness, so that there you may weep for your past transgressions and not commit again what is to be wept for, saving our grace and moderation.\nThe same day in the afternoon. Joan receives women\u0026rsquo;s clothes. # Item, on the same Thursday, in the afternoon, we, Brother Jean Le Maistre, the aforesaid vicar, with the Lords and Masters Nicolas Midi, Nicolas Loiselleur, Thomas de Courcelles and Brother Ysambard de la Pierre assisting us, along with certain others; we went to the prison where the said Joan was then present, and it was explained to her by us and by those assisting how God had shown her great mercy that day, and also how the ecclesiastics had shown her great mercy, by receiving her into the grace and mercy of Holy Mother Church; for which reasons it was necessary for Joan herself to humbly obey and submit to the sentence and ordination of the judges and ecclesiastics, and to entirely abandon her errors and former inventions and in no way return to them: explaining to her that, in case she should return to such things, the Church would no longer receive her, but would entirely abandon her. Furthermore, it was said to her that she should lay aside men\u0026rsquo;s clothes and take women\u0026rsquo;s clothes, as had been ordained for her by the Church.\nAnd Joan replied that she would gladly accept these women\u0026rsquo;s clothes and would in all things obey and submit to the ecclesiastics. And she immediately put on the women\u0026rsquo;s clothes offered to her, having laid aside the men\u0026rsquo;s clothes, and moreover, she wished and permitted the hair which she had previously worn cut round to be shaved off and removed.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nThat day after dinner, the lord vicar of the Inquisitor, masters Nicolas Midi, Thomas de Courcelles, Nicolas Loyseleur, and several other churchmen went to her and explained how our Lord and the churchmen had shown Joan great favour that day by receiving her into the grace and mercy of Holy Mother Church. (1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 32, verso.\nSecond Judgment # Cause of Relapse # Joan resumes men\u0026rsquo;s clothing. # Item, on the immediately following Monday, that is, the 28th of the said month of May, on the morrow of Holy Trinity, we, the aforesaid judges, went to the prison of the said Joan, to see her state and disposition. Where the Lords and Masters Nicolas de Vendères, Guillaume Haiton, Thomas de Courcelles, Brother Ysambard de la Pierre, Jacques Camus, Nicolas Bertin, Julien Floquet and Jean Gris were present.\nAnd because the said Joan was dressed in men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, namely a tunic, hood and doublet, with other things pertaining to the use of a man (which habit, however, she had previously laid aside by our ordination, and had resumed women\u0026rsquo;s clothing), we asked her when and for what reason she had again taken up such men\u0026rsquo;s clothing. And Joan replied that she had recently taken up the said men\u0026rsquo;s clothing and laid aside the women\u0026rsquo;s.\nAsked why she had taken up such men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, and who had induced her to do so: she replied that she had taken it up of her own will, no one compelling her, and that she preferred the same habit to women\u0026rsquo;s clothing.\nThen it was said to her that she had promised and sworn not to take up men\u0026rsquo;s clothing. She, however, replied that she never understood that she had taken an oath not to take up the said men\u0026rsquo;s clothing.\nAgain asked for what reason she had taken it up: she replied that she had done so because it was more permissible or convenient for her to wear men\u0026rsquo;s clothing while among men, than to wear women\u0026rsquo;s clothing. Item, she said that she had taken it up because what had been promised to her had not been observed, namely that she would go to mass, receive the body of Christ, and be released from her iron fetters.\nAsked whether she had previously made an abjuration, and specifically not to take up men\u0026rsquo;s clothing: she replied that she preferred to die than to be in iron fetters; but if she is allowed to go to mass and be released from iron fetters, and is given a gracious prison, she will be good and will do what the Church wishes.\nItem, because we, the judges, had heard from some that she still adhered to the illusions of her pretended revelations, which she had previously renounced; we asked her whether, since Thursday, she had heard the voices of Saints Catherine and Margaret. She replied that she had.\nAsked what they had said to her: she replied that God had commanded her, through Saints Catherine and Margaret, the great pity of that great betrayal to which Joan herself had consented, by making the abjuration and revocation to save her life; and that she had condemned herself to save her life. Item, she said that, before Thursday, her voices had told her what she would do that day, and what she then did. She further said that her voices had told her, when she was on the scaffold or pulpit, before the people, that she should boldly answer that preacher, who was then preaching. And the same Joan said that he was a false preacher, and that he had said she had done many things which she had not done. Item, she said that, if she were to say that God had not sent her, she would condemn herself, and that truly God had sent her. Item, she said that her voices had told her, since Thursday, that she had done a great wrong, by confessing that she had not done well what she had done. Item, she said that whatever she had said and revoked on Thursday, she had done and said only out of fear of the fire.\nAsked whether she believed that those voices appearing to her were Saints Catherine and Margaret: she replied that she did, and that they were from God.\nAsked to tell the truth about that crown, of which mention is made above: she replied; I have told you the truth about everything in the proceedings, as best I knew.\nThen it was said to her that she had said on the scaffold or pulpit, before us, the judges, and others, and before the people, when she made the abjuration, that she had falsely boasted that those voices were Saints Catherine and Margaret. She replied that she did not intend to do or say so.\nItem, she said that she had not said or understood that she would revoke her apparitions, namely that they were Saints Catherine and Margaret; and all that she had done, she had done out of fear of the fire, and she had revoked nothing that was not against the truth. Item, she said that she preferred to do her penance at once, namely by dying, than to endure punishment in prison for a longer time. Item, she said that she had never done anything against God or the faith, whatever she had been ordered to revoke, and that she did not understand what was contained in the schedule of abjuration. Item, she said that she did not intend to revoke anything, unless it pleased God. Item, she said that, if the judges wished, she would take women\u0026rsquo;s clothing; and for the rest, she would do nothing else.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nIn the year of our Lord 1431, on Monday, May 28, Joan, commonly called the Maid, appeared in person before the reverend father in Christ, the lord Bishop of Beauvais, and the religious man brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the distinguished doctor master Jean Graverent. Because she was dressed in men\u0026rsquo;s clothing—a tunic, hood, doublet, and other garments suitable for a man—which she had recently laid aside by order of the judges and the Church and had replaced with women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, the judges asked when and why she had resumed the men\u0026rsquo;s clothing. She answered that she had recently resumed it and laid aside the women\u0026rsquo;s clothing.\nAsked why she had taken it and who had caused her to take it, she answered that she had taken it of her own will, without any compulsion, and that she preferred men\u0026rsquo;s clothing to women\u0026rsquo;s.\nShe was told that she had promised and sworn not to resume men\u0026rsquo;s clothing. She answered that she had never understood that she had sworn not to take it again.\nAsked why she had resumed it, she answered that it was more permissible for her to resume and wear men\u0026rsquo;s clothing while among men than to wear women\u0026rsquo;s clothing. She also said she had resumed it because they had not kept what they had promised her: that she would go to Mass, receive her Saviour, and be released from the irons.\nAsked whether she had abjured, and especially whether she had abjured resuming that clothing, she answered that she would rather die than remain in irons; but if they would let her go to Mass, release her from the irons, place her in a gracious prison, and give her a woman attendant, she would be good and would do what the Church wished.\nAsked whether she had heard her voices since Thursday, she answered that she had.\nAsked what they had told her, she answered that they had told her that God, through Saints Catherine and Margaret, had sent word to her of the great pity of the betrayal to which she had consented in making the abjuration and revocation to save her life, and that she was damning herself to save her life. She also said that before Thursday her voices had told her what she would do, and what she did that day. She said further that her voices had told her upon the scaffold to answer the preacher boldly; she called him a false preacher and said he had accused her of several things she had not done. She said that, if she said God had not sent her, she would damn herself, because it was true that God had sent her. She also said that her voices had since told her she had done a great wrong in confessing that she had not acted rightly. She said that she had spoken as she did from fear of the fire.\n(1) In the margin: A deadly answer.\nAsked whether she believed that her voices were Saint Margaret and Saint Catherine, she answered that she did, and that they were from God.\nAsked about the crown, she answered: I have told you the truth about all of it in the trial, as best I knew.\nWhen she was told that upon the scaffold she had said, falsely boasting, that they were Saints Catherine and Margaret, she answered that she had not intended to do or say that.\nShe said that she had not said or intended to revoke her apparitions—that is, that they were Saints Margaret and Catherine—and that everything she had done was from fear of the fire; she had revoked nothing except contrary to the truth. She said that she preferred to do her penance all at once, namely by dying, rather than endure punishment in prison any longer. She said that she had never done anything against God or the faith, whatever they had made her revoke, and that she had not understood what was in the schedule of abjuration. She said that at the time she had not intended to revoke anything unless it pleased our Lord. She also said that, if the judges wished, she would resume women\u0026rsquo;s clothing; for the rest she would do nothing else.\nPresent for this were masters Nicolas de Venderès, Guillaume Haiton, Thomas de Courcelles, brother Isambart de La Pierre, Jacques Le Camus, Nicolas Bertin, Julien Floquet, and Jean Rys.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 32, verso, and fol. 33, recto.\nHaving heard these things, we departed from her, to proceed further, as would be right and reasonable.\nMay 29. Final deliberation. # Item, on the morrow, that is, on Tuesday after Trinity, the 29th day of the month of May, we, the often-mentioned judges, caused to be assembled in the chapel of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, doctors and experts both in theology and in canon and civil law, namely: the reverend fathers in Christ, the Lords Abbots of Sainte-Trinité of Fécamp, Saint-Ouen of Rouen and Mortemer; — the Lords and Masters, Pierre, Prior of Longueville-Giffard, Jean de Châtillon, Erard Emengart, Guillaume Erard, Guillaume Boucher, Jean de Nibat, Jean Fabri, Jacques Guesdon, Pierre Maurice, in sacred theology; Jean Guerini and Pasquier de Vaux, Doctors in canon law; — André Marguerie, Nicolas de Vendères, Archdeacons in the church of Rouen; — Guillaume Haiton, Nicolas Coppequesne, Guillaume de Baudribosc, Richard de Grouchet, Thomas de Courcelles, Bachelors in sacred theology; — Jean Pinchon, Jean Ad-Ensem, Denis Gastinel, Jean Mangier, Nicolas Caual, Nicolas Loiselleur, Guillaume de Jardins, canons of the church of Rouen; some masters, others licentiates in canon law, others in civil law, others in medicine; — Jean Tiphaine, Guillaume de la Chambre, Guillaume de Livet, Geoffroy de Crotey, Jean Doucet, Jean Colombel, Aubert Morel, Pierre Carré, some licentiates in canon law, others in civil law, and others masters or licentiates in medicine; — Martin Lavenu, Brother Ysambard de la Pierre; — and Lord Guillaume du Désert, canon of the church of Rouen.\nIn whose presence, we, the aforesaid bishop, explained how, after the last public session celebrated in the same place, on the vigil of Pentecost, we had, according to their counsel, caused the aforesaid Joan to be admonished, and each point to be explained to her, in which, according to the deliberation of the University of Paris, she was deemed to be deficient and in error; exhorting her to depart from those things and to return to the way of truth. And since she in no way acquiesced, nor would she say anything further, and likewise the promoter affirmed that he wished to say or propose nothing further against her; we had concluded in the case, assigning to the parties the immediately following Thursday to hear the law, as is more fully contained above. Moreover, we recited what had been done on the aforesaid Thursday, and how the aforesaid Joan, after the solemn sermon and the admonitions made to her, had revoked and abjured her errors, and had signed her revocation and abjuration with her own hand, as is more fully narrated in the preceding; and that, on the same Thursday, after dinner, she had been charitably admonished by us, the vicar of the Lord Inquisitor, and those assisting us, to persist in her good purpose and to guard against relapse. Then also, obeying the precepts of the Church, Joan herself laid aside men\u0026rsquo;s clothing and took women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, as has been more fully stated above. But, at the instigation of the Devil, she again, before many, narrated that her voices and spirits appearing to her had come to her, and had said many things to her. Joan herself also, having rejected women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, again took men\u0026rsquo;s clothing. When this had been reported to us, the judges, we returned to her and questioned her, as has been said before. Then also, before the same lords and masters named above, being present in the said chapel of the archiepiscopal house, we caused to be read the confessions and assertions of Joan herself, most recently, namely yesterday, spoken by her before us, which are written above; asking for their counsel and deliberations from those present. Who deliberated in this manner.\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nIn the year of our Lord 1431, on Tuesday after the feast of the Holy Trinity, May 29, at a solemn assembly held in the chapel of the archiepiscopal manor of Rouen before the aforesaid lords judges, the lord bishop first explained that, on the vigil of Pentecost, the lords had assembled in that chapel, where the actions of our alma mother the University of Paris, and especially of the Faculties of Theology and Decrees, had been declared. The individual opinions had also been declared: that the cause should be concluded and further proceedings taken. Several eminent doctors had said that, although the woman had previously been instructed and admonished in a solemn assembly, it nevertheless seemed expedient that she be admonished again according to the determination of the University of Paris. This was done. All the qualifications, together with a prepared statement of what could be said on the matter, were explained and declared to the woman through master Pierre Maurice, in the presence of the lords Bishops of Thérouanne and Noyon and many others. Notwithstanding these admonitions, she always persisted in her damnable purpose. The cause was therefore concluded, and the following Thursday was appointed for hearing judgment or sentence in due form. A sentence had been prepared according to the deliberation of the alma mother University and the assisting lords; and, in the event that she revoked, another form of sentence had also been drawn up. When Thursday came, a solemn sermon was delivered in the cemetery of Saint-Ouen. After the sermon she was admonished to obey the declarations of the Church. Because she would not obey and the sentence had begun, before its end she asked to speak, submitted herself to the Church and the judges, and, following the schedule read to her, orally revoked and abjured her errors, as appears from the schedule signed by Joan\u0026rsquo;s hand. That same day she was absolved on condition that this was done with a contrite heart and unfeigned faith, and penance was imposed upon her. That same day the lord vicar and several notable doctors went to her and admonished her to obey the commands of the Church; they induced her to accept women\u0026rsquo;s clothing and lay aside men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, which she did. But at the instigation of the Devil, during the following night and for several days, she told several people that her spirits and voices had returned and had said many things to her. Likewise, not content with women\u0026rsquo;s clothing, as soon as she could obtain men\u0026rsquo;s clothing she took it. Yesterday the judges, having heard the report of these things, returned to her and found her in men\u0026rsquo;s clothing. They caused the contents of the schedule to be read; it was read by the notaries, as was the schedule of abjuration.\nThese things having been read, the lords judges asked the assisting lords for their deliberations. The terms of the deliberation are the same in both texts.\n(1) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 33, verso.\nMaster Nicolas de Vendères, licentiate in canon law, Archdeacon of Eu and canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated that the said Joan is to be considered and is considered a heretic; and, the sentence having been pronounced by us, the aforesaid judges, Joan herself is to be handed over to secular justice, asking it to deal mildly with her.\nThe reverend father in Christ, Lord Gilles, Abbot of the monastery of Sainte-Trinité of Fécamp, Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated that the said Joan has relapsed. Nevertheless, it is good that the schedule recently read be read again before her, and explained to her, proposing to her the word of God. And, these things having been done, we, the judges, must declare her a heretic and hand her over to secular justice, asking it to deal mildly with the same Joan.\nMaster Jean Pinchon, licentiate in canon law, Archdeacon of Josa, canon of the churches of Paris and Rouen, deliberated that the said woman has relapsed; and concerning the manner of proceeding further, he refers himself to the lords theologians.\nMaster Guillaume Erard, Doctor of Sacred Theology, sacristan and canon of the churches of Langres and Laon, deliberated that the said woman has relapsed; and since she has relapsed, she is to be handed over to secular justice. For the rest, he says as the aforesaid Lord of Fécamp.\nMaster Robert Gilbert, Doctor of Sacred Theology, Dean of the chapel of our lord the king, deliberated conformably, as Master Guillaume Erard.\nThe reverend father in Christ, the Lord Abbot of the monastery of Saint-Ouen of Rouen, deliberated as the aforesaid Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Jean de Châtillon, Doctor of Sacred Theology, Archdeacon and canon of the church of Évreux, deliberated as the aforesaid Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Erard Emengart, Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated conformably to the deliberation of the aforesaid Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Guillaume Boucher, Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated that the said woman has relapsed and is to be condemned as a heretic. And for the rest, he stands by the deliberation of the aforesaid Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nThe reverend father Lord Pierre, Prior of the priory of Longueville-Giffard, Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated that if, passion ceasing, the said woman has confessed those things contained in the schedule, he stands by the deliberation of the Lord Abbot of Sainte-Trinité of Fécamp.\nMaster Guillaume Haiton, Bachelor in Sacred Theology, deliberated that, considering the articles read, the said woman has relapsed and is to be condemned as a heretic. And he stands by the deliberation of the Lord of Fécamp.\nMaster André Marguerie, licentiate in civil law and bachelor in canon law, Archdeacon of Petit-Caux and canon of Rouen; Master Jean Ad-Ensem, licentiate in civil law, canon of Rouen; Master Jean Garin, Doctor of Decrees, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated conformably to the Lord of Fécamp, named above.\nMaster Denis Gastinel, licentiate in both laws, canon of Rouen, deliberated that the said woman has relapsed and is a heretic, and is to be handed over to secular justice and without supplication.\nMaster Pasquier de Vaux, Doctor of Decrees, canon of the churches of Paris and Rouen, deliberated conformably to the deliberation of the said Lord Abbot of Fécamp, and without supplication.\nMaster Pierre de Houdenc, Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated that, according to his judgment, considering the derisions and ways of the said woman, it seems to him that she has always been a heretic, and that in fact she has relapsed, and consequently is to be considered a heretic and handed over to the hands of secular justice, according to the deliberation of the said Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Jean de Nibat, Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated that the said woman has relapsed and is impenitent, and is to be considered a heretic. And he is in the deliberation of the often-mentioned Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Jean Fabri, Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated that the said woman is stubborn, contumacious and disobedient; and for the rest, he stands by the deliberation of the Lord Abbot of Fécamp, named above.\nThe reverend father in Christ, Lord Guillaume, Abbot of Mortemer, Doctor of Sacred Theology, stands by the deliberation of the aforesaid Lord of Fécamp.\nMaster Jacques Guesdon, Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated conformably to the deliberation of the aforesaid Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Nicolas Coppequesne, Bachelor in Sacred Theology, canon of the church of Rouen, stands by the deliberation of the Lord of Fécamp.\nLord Guillaume du Désert, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated as the aforesaid Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Pierre Maurice, Doctor of Sacred Theology, canon of Rouen, deliberated that the said woman is to be considered and judged relapsed; and he stands with the deliberation of the aforesaid Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Guillaume de Baudribosc, Bachelor in Sacred Theology; Master Nicolas Caual, licentiate in civil law; Master Nicolas Loiselleur, Master of Arts; Master Guillaume de Jardins, Doctor of Medicine, canons of the church of Rouen, deliberated as the aforesaid Lord of Fécamp.\nMaster Jean Tiphaine, Doctor of Medicine; Master Guillaume de Livet, licentiate in civil law; Master Geoffroy de Crotey, licentiate in civil law; Master Pierre Carré, licentiate in civil law, deliberated conformably to the deliberation of the said Lord Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Jean Doucet, licentiate in both laws; Master Jean Colombel, licentiate in canon law; Master Aubert Morel, licentiate in canon law; Brother Martin Lavenu, of the Order of Preaching Friars; Master Richard de Grouchet, Bachelor in Theology; Master Jean Pigache, Bachelor in Theology; Master Guillaume de la Chambre, licentiate in medicine, deliberated conformably, as the aforesaid Abbot of Fécamp.\nMaster Thomas de Courcelles, Bachelor in Theology, canon of the churches of Laon and Thérouanne; Brother Ysambard de la Pierre, of the Order of Preaching Friars, deliberated conformably to the deliberation of the often-mentioned Lord Abbot of Fécamp; adding that the said woman should still be charitably admonished concerning the salvation of her soul, and told that she should no longer hope for her temporal life.\nMaster Jean Mangier, licentiate in canon law, canon of the church of Rouen, deliberated as the aforesaid Lord of Fécamp.\nFinally, having heard the opinions of each, we, the aforesaid judges, thanked them, and concluded that we should proceed further against Joan herself, as against a relapsed person, as is right and reasonable.\nPenultimate of May and last day of these proceedings. # Item, on the morrow, that is, on Wednesday immediately preceding and penultimate of the aforesaid month of May, the aforesaid Joan was cited on our behalf for the said Wednesday, to hear the law, by the executor of citations in this case appointed by us, as is more fully evident from the tenor of our letters and the report of the executor. The tenor of which letters follows, and is as follows:\nTenor of the citation. # Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the distinguished doctor, Master Jean Graverent, Inquisitor of the faith and heretical depravity in the kingdom of France, appointed by the Holy Apostolic See, to all public presbyters, rectors of churches, constituted anywhere in this city and diocese of Rouen, and to each of them, as he shall be requested, greeting in the Lord. Since for certain causes and reasons to be more fully declared, a certain woman commonly called Joan the Maid, having relapsed into several errors against the orthodox faith, has publicly abjured the said errors in the face of the Church, into which she had relapsed, as is duly and sufficiently established and evident both from her confessions and assertions, and otherwise: hence it is that we strictly command you and each of you, as you shall be requested, one not waiting for the other, nor one excusing himself for the other, that you cite the said Joan to appear personally before us, tomorrow, at eight o\u0026rsquo;clock in the morning, at the place of the Old Market, Rouen, namely to see herself declared by us relapsed, excommunicated and a heretic, with the intimation made to her as is customary in such cases. Given in the chapel of the archiepiscopal house of Rouen, on Tuesday, the 19th of the month of May, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred thirty-one, after the feast of the Holy Trinity. Thus signed: G. MARCHON. G. BOSC GUILLAUME.\nItem, the tenor of the report of the execution of the aforesaid citation follows.\nTo the reverend father in Christ and lord, Lord Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and to the venerable and religious man, Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the distinguished doctor Master Jean Graverent, Inquisitor of the faith and heretical depravity in the kingdom of France, appointed by the Holy Apostolic See: your humble Jean Massieu, presbyter, Dean of Christianity of Rouen, due reverence, with all obedience and honor. Let your reverend paternities know that I, by virtue of your mandate presented to me, to which your presents are annexed, have personally cited a certain woman, commonly called the Maid, to appear personally before you, tomorrow, Wednesday, after the feast of the Holy Trinity of the Lord, the penultimate of the present month of May, at eight o\u0026rsquo;clock in the morning, at the place of the Old Market, Rouen, according to the form and tenor of your said mandate, and as it was commanded to be done. Which aforesaid things, thus done by me, I signify to your reverend paternities by these presents, sealed with my seal. Given in the year of the Lord, one thousand four hundred thirty-one, on the aforesaid Wednesday, at seven o\u0026rsquo;clock in the morning.\nDefinitive sentence pronounced before the people. # Then, around nine o\u0026rsquo;clock in the morning of the same day, we, the aforesaid judges, being in the Old Market of Rouen, near the church of Saint-Sauveur; with the reverend fathers in Christ, the Lords Bishops of Thérouanne and Noyon, present and assisting; Masters Jean de Châtillon, André Marguerie, Nicolas de Vendères, Raoul Roussel, Denis Gastinel, Guillaume le Boucher, Jean Alespée, Pierre de Houdenc, Guillaume Haiton, the Prior of Longueville, Pierre Maurice, and very many other lords and masters, ecclesiastics; the aforesaid Joan was brought, and before us, in the sight of the people, in a great multitude then present in the same place, she was placed upon a scaffold or pulpit. And for her salutary admonition and the edification of the people, a solemn sermon was delivered by the eminent Doctor of Theology, Master Nicolas Midi; who at the beginning took the word of the Apostle, written in the first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 12: If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it.\nThe sermon being finished, we again admonished Joan herself to consider the salvation of her soul, and to attend to her misdeeds, repenting and assuming true contrition; and we exhorted her to believe the counsel of the clerics and notable men, who taught and instructed her concerning things pertaining to salvation; and especially the counsel of the two venerable Friars Preachers then present near her, whom we had provided to her, so that they might continually instruct her, and diligently offer her salutary admonitions and wholesome counsels. These things having been done, we, the aforesaid bishop and Vicar, having regard to the aforesaid, by which it is evident that the aforesaid woman has not truly departed from her errors and stubborn temerity and wicked crimes; but rather has shown her diabolical malice of obstinacy to be much more damnable, in the fallacious simulation of contrition, penance and amendment, with the perjury of the holy divine name and the blasphemy of His ineffable majesty; and by these things, as stubborn, incorrigible and heretical, and relapsed into heresy, entirely unworthy of all grace and communion mercifully offered by us in the former sentence; and having considered all and singular things to be considered in this matter; by the mature deliberation and counsel of many experts, we proceeded to our definitive sentence in this manner:\nManchon\u0026rsquo;s French minute:\nIn the year of our Lord 1431, on Wednesday, the penultimate day of May, Joan appeared before the lords judges near the church of Saint-Sauveur of Rouen. The reverend fathers in Christ, the lords Bishops of Thérouanne and Noyon, assisted, together with masters Jean de Châtillon, André Marguerie, Nicolas de Venderès, Raoul Roussel, Denis Gastinel, Guillaume Le Boucher, Pierre de Houdenc, Guillaume Haiton, the Prior of Longueville, Pierre Maurice, Robert Gilbert, dean of the chapel of our lord the King, and Thomas de Courcelles. Joan had been cited to that day to hear judgment and was brought there by the dean. (1) Jean Massieu.\n(2) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé Manuscript, fol. 34, recto.\nMaster Nicolas Midi, the preacher, began the sermon and took his theme.\nThen, after she had been admonished that, for the salvation of her soul, she should believe the clerics and notable lords who taught and instructed her concerning that salvation, the definitive sentence was pronounced through the Bishop of Beauvais.\nIn the name of the Lord, Amen. As often as the pestilential virus of heresy pertinaciously adheres to one of the members of the Church, and transforms that member into Satan, diligent effort must be made lest the nefarious contagion of this pernicious plague be able to creep through the remaining parts of the mystical body of Christ. The institutions of the holy fathers have also decreed that hardened heretics ought rather to be separated from the midst of the just, than that their viperous perversity should be fostered in the bosom of pious Mother Church, with grave danger to the rest of the faithful. Therefore, since we, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar of the distinguished doctor Jean Graverent, Inquisitor of heretical depravity, and specially appointed by him for this case, competent judges in this matter, have declared by just judgment that you, Joan, commonly called the Maid, have fallen into various errors and various crimes of schism, idolatry, invocation of demons, and many others; and nevertheless, because the Church does not close its bosom to the returning, we, believing that you had departed from such errors and crimes with a pure mind and unfeigned faith, when on a certain day you renounced them and publicly swore, vowed and promised that you would never return to those errors or any heresy, by whatever persuasion or in any other way; but rather would always remain in the unity of the Catholic Church and in the communion of the Roman Pontiff, as is more fully contained in your schedule, subscribed with your own hand; but then, after such abjuration of your errors, the author of schism and heresy rushing in and seducing your heart, it is sufficiently and manifestly evident that you have again (alas!) fallen into the same errors and into the aforesaid crimes, as a dog is wont to return to its vomit; and we have found it clearly proven by the clearest judgments that you had previously denied your erroneous inventions verbally with a feigned heart, rather than with a sincere and faithful mind: hence it is that, declaring you to have relapsed into the sentences of excommunication which you had originally incurred, and into your former errors, we decree you relapsed and a heretic, and by this our sentence, which we pronounce and declare in writing, sitting in tribunal, we decree you, as a putrid member, lest you infect the other members likewise, to be cast out from the unity of the Church itself and cut off from its body, and also to be handed over to secular power, as we cast out, cut off and hand over; asking the same secular power to moderate its judgment concerning you, short of death and mutilation of limbs; and if true signs of penance appear in you, that the sacrament of penance be administered to you.\nIn the name of the Lord, Amen. All pastors of the Church who desire to faithfully care for the Lord\u0026rsquo;s flock ought to strive with the utmost effort that, as much as the perfidious sower of errors endeavors to infect the fold of Christ with many snares and virulent frauds, so much the more diligently and with more insistent solicitude they labor to resist his pernicious attempts, especially in these dangerous times when the apostolic sentence foretold that many false prophets, introducing sects of perdition and error, would come into the world; who could lead away the faithful of Christ with various and strange doctrines, unless Holy Mother Church, by the safeguards of sound doctrine and canonical sanctions, strove with more diligent effort to repel their erroneous inventions. Therefore, since before us, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Le Maistre, vicar in this city and diocese of the distinguished doctor Master Jean Graverent, Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the kingdom of France, and specially appointed by him for the present case, competent judges in this matter, you, Joan, commonly called the Maid, have been accused of very many pernicious crimes and summoned to the judgment of faith: hence it is that, having seen and diligently inspected the series of these proceedings and all things transacted therein, especially the responses, confessions and assertions given by you, and having considered the very celebrated deliberation of the Masters of the Faculties of Theology and Decrees in the University of Paris, indeed, even of the entire University itself and moreover of other prelates, doctors and experts, both in sacred theology and in canon and civil law, existing in this city of Rouen and elsewhere, in a copious multitude, concerning the qualifications and determinations of your assertions, words and deeds; and having taken counsel and mature deliberation with zealous practitioners of the Christian faith; having also considered and attended to by us what ought rightly to be attended to and considered concerning these matters, and what could and ought to move us and any righteous judge: we, having Christ and the honor of the orthodox faith before our eyes, so that our judgment may proceed from the face of the Lord, say and decree you to be a false fabricator of divine revelations and apparitions, a pernicious seducer, presumptuous, lightly believing, rash, superstitious, a diviner, a blasphemer against God, the Saints and Holy Women, and a despiser of God Himself in His sacraments, a transgressor of divine law, sacred doctrine and ecclesiastical sanctions, seditious, cruel, an apostate, schismatic, erring in many ways in our faith, and by the aforesaid, you have rashly sinned against God and Holy Church in the ways aforesaid. And moreover, because, although you have been duly and sufficiently, both by us and on our part, by several learned and expert doctors and masters zealous for the salvation of your soul, often and repeatedly admonished to amend yourself concerning the aforesaid, to correct yourself and to submit to the disposition, determination and amendment of Holy Mother Church; which, however, you have not wished or cared to do; but rather have expressly, with a hardened mind, obstinately and pertinaciously denied, and also expressly and repeatedly refused to submit to our Lord the Pope, and to the sacred General Council: hence it is that we declare you, as stubborn and obstinate in the aforesaid offenses, excesses and errors, excommunicated and a heretic by the law itself; and your errors having been repelled in a public sermon, we decree and hand you over, as a member of Satan, cut off from the Church, infected with the leprosy of heresy, lest you infect other members of Christ likewise, to secular justice; asking the same power to moderate its judgment concerning you, short of death and mutilation of limbs, and, if true signs of penance appear in you, that the sacrament of penance be administered to you.\n(1) In the margin of the manuscript: This sentence was pronounced in part before the abjuration.\nAutograph attestations of the notaries appointed in the case. # I, Guillaume Colles, also known as Boscguillaume, presbyter, the aforementioned notary, affirm that the aforesaid collation was duly made with the original register, and therefore I have signed the present proceedings, containing one hundred and fifty-eight folios, with my manual sign, with the two notaries signed below, here subscribing myself with my own hand. Boscguillaume.\n(1) In Manuscript 5965. Manuscript 5966 reads: two hundred and six folios.\n(2) Manuscript 5966 reads: On every folio with my manual sign.\nI, Guillaume Manchon, presbyter of the diocese of Rouen, public by apostolic and imperial authorities, affirm that I was present at the collation of the aforesaid proceedings, with the notaries written above and below, and that the said collation was duly made with the original register of the said proceedings. Wherefore, with such notaries, I have subscribed myself with my own hand in this present proceedings, and have affixed my manual sign here, being requested. G. Manchon.\n(1) This formula, written in haste, scarcely makes sense. It is restored here from Manuscript 5966: And I, Guillaume Manchon, priest of the diocese of Rouen, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority and sworn notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, and clerk in the present cause with the notaries written above and below, affirm that the aforesaid collation was duly made with the original register of the cause. Therefore I affixed my manual sign to these present proceedings together with the signs and subscriptions of the said notaries, and here subscribed with my own hand. G. Manchon.\nI, Nicolas Taquel, presbyter of the diocese of Rouen, public by imperial authority, and sworn notary of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, and called to some part of the aforesaid proceedings, affirm that I saw and heard the collation of these proceedings being made, with the notaries written above, with the original register of the said proceedings, and that such collation was duly made. Wherefore, with such notaries, I have subscribed myself with my own hand in this present proceedings, and have affixed my manual sign here, being requested. N. Taquel.\n[Place of the seals of both judges, formerly impressed in red wax.]\nCertain Subsequent Acts # Information after the execution, concerning many things said by her at her end and at the point of death. # (1) The documents which follow are written in the same hand as the rest of the proceedings, but they cease to bear the signature which had previously been placed at the foot of every folio of the manuscript. It will be seen from the interrogations of the second trial that the clerks refused to validate them by their attestation.\nItem, on Thursday, the seventh day of the month of June, in the same year, namely one thousand four hundred thirty-one, we, the aforesaid judges, by our office, caused certain information to be taken, concerning some things which the said former Joan had said before trustworthy persons, while she was still in prison, before she was led to judgment.\nAnd first, the venerable and circumspect man, Master Nicolas de Vendères, licentiate in canon law, Archdeacon of Eu, in the church of Rouen, aged 52 years or thereabouts, produced as a witness, sworn, received and examined on the said day; said by his oath, that, on Wednesday, the penultimate of the month of May, on the vigil of the feast of the Eucharist of our Lord Jesus Christ, last past, Joan herself still being in the prisons in which she was detained in the Castle of Rouen, she said that, considering that the voices coming to her had promised her that she would be delivered from prison, and she saw the contrary, she perceived and knew that she had been and was deceived by them.\nItem, Joan herself said and confessed that she had seen and heard, with her own eyes and ears, the voices and apparitions of which mention is made in the proceedings; and to these were present, namely we, the aforesaid judges; Masters Pierre Maurice, Thomas de Courcelles, Nicolas Aucupis, Brother Martin Lavenu, Jean Toutmouillé and Lord Jacques Le Camus, with many others.\nBrother Martin Lavenu, presbyter, of the Order of Preaching Friars, aged 33 years or thereabouts, produced as a witness, received, sworn and examined; said and deposed that Joan herself, on the day on which sentence was pronounced against her, in the morning, before she was led to judgment, in the presence of Masters Pierre Maurice, Nicolas Aucupis and the said Toutmouillé, his companion, said and confessed that she knew and recognized that she had been deceived by the voices and apparitions coming to her, and of which mention had been made in the proceedings; because the said voices had promised the same Joan that she would be delivered and released from prison; and she clearly perceived the contrary.\nAsked who moved the said Joan to say this: he said that the said speaker, Masters Pierre Maurice and Nicolas Aucupis, who exhorted her concerning the salvation of her soul, and inquired of her whether it was true that she had had those voices and apparitions; and she replied that she had. And she continued in that purpose until the end, and did not properly determine (at least as the speaker heard), in what form they came, unless, as he best recalls, they came in a great multitude and in a very small quantity. And moreover, he then heard the same Joan say and confess that, since the ecclesiastics held and believed that, if there were any spirits coming to her, they came and proceeded from evil spirits, she also held and believed what the said ecclesiastics held and believed concerning this, and she no longer wished to give credence to those spirits. And, as it seemed to the same speaker, Joan herself was then of sound mind.\nItem, the speaker himself said that, on the same day, he heard the said Joan say and confess that, although in her confessions and responses she had boasted that an angel of God had brought a crown to him whom she calls her king, and that Joan herself had accompanied the said angel, while he carried the said crown to him whom she calls her king, with many other things narrated at length in the proceedings; nevertheless, spontaneously, not compelled, she said and confessed that, whatever she had said and boasted about the said angel, there had been no angel who had brought the said crown; but rather Joan herself had been the angel who had said and promised to him whom she calls her king, that if he would put her to work, she would have him crowned at Reims; nor had there been any other crown sent by God, whatever she had said and asserted, in the course of the said proceedings, concerning the said crown or the sign given to him whom she called her king.\nThe venerable and discreet man, Master Pierre Maurice, professor of sacred theology, canon of Rouen, aged 38 years or thereabouts, produced as a witness, received, sworn and examined on the said day; deposes that, on the day on which sentence was pronounced against the said Joan, Joan herself still being in prison, the speaker himself, who had come to her in the morning, for the purpose of exhorting her for the salvation of her soul, heard that, while thus exhorting her and asking her what was the matter with the said angel, whom she had said had brought a crown to him whom she calls her king, of whom mention was made in the proceedings: she replied that she herself was that angel.\nAsked about the crown which she promised him, and about the multitude of angels who accompanied her, etc.: she replied that it was so, and that they appeared to her in the form of certain very small things.\nFinally asked by the speaker whether that apparition was real: she replied that it was, and that they really appeared to her, whether they were good spirits or evil, saying thus in French: Whether they be good, whether they be evil spirits, they have appeared to me. The said Joan also said that she had heard voices, especially at the hour of Compline, when the bells are rung; and also in the morning, while the bells are rung. And when the speaker said that it clearly appeared that they were evil spirits, who had promised her her release, and that she was deceived: Joan herself said and replied to this that it was true, that she had been deceived. And he also heard from her that, whether they were good or evil spirits, she referred herself to the ecclesiastics. And, as it seemed to the same speaker, Joan herself was then of sound mind.\nBrother Jean Toutmouillé, presbyter, of the Order of Preaching Friars, aged 34 years or thereabouts, produced as a witness, received, sworn and examined on the said day; says and deposes by his oath that on the day on which sentence was pronounced against the said Joan, namely Wednesday, on the vigil of the feast of the Eucharist of Christ, the speaker himself, accompanying Brother Martin Lavenu, his companion, who had come to Joan herself in the morning, for the purpose of exhorting the said Joan for the salvation of her soul, first heard from Master Pierre Maurice, who was already there, that she had said and confessed that, concerning the crown, it was nothing but a certain fiction; and that she herself was the angel; and the said master reported this in Latin words.\nAnd afterwards Joan herself was asked about the voices coming to her and the apparitions. She replied that she really heard voices, especially when the bells were rung, at the hour of Compline and Matins; although it had then been said to her by the said Master Pierre, that sometimes people, hearing the ringing of bells, believed they heard and understood certain words.\nItem, the said Joan also said and confessed that she had had apparitions, which came to her, sometimes with a great multitude and in a very small quantity, or in very small things; at other times not declaring a figure or species.\nItem, he says that, on that same day, after we, the aforesaid bishop, had arrived in the chamber where the said Joan was detained, in the presence of the Lord Vicar of the Lord Inquisitor, we said to the same Joan in French words: Now then, Joan, you have always told us that your voices told you that you would be delivered, and you now see how they have deceived you; tell us now the truth. Then Joan herself replied to this: Truly, I see well that they have deceived me. Nor did he hear her say anything more at that time; except that at the beginning, before we, the aforesaid judges, arrived at the said prison, Joan herself was asked whether she believed that the said voices and apparitions proceeded from good or evil spirits. Joan herself replied: I do not know; I rely on my Mother the Church, or thus: or on you, who are men of the Church. And, as it seemed to the same speaker, Joan herself was of sound mind; and he also heard the same Joan confess that she was of sound mind.\nLord Jacques Le Camus, presbyter, canon of Reims, aged 54 years or thereabouts, produced as a witness, sworn and examined on the said day; says and deposes by his oath that, on Wednesday, on the vigil of the feast of the Eucharist of Christ, last past, the speaker himself, in the morning, was with us, the aforesaid bishop, in the chamber in which the said Joan was detained, in the Castle of Rouen, and there he heard that the said Joan said and confessed publicly and in a loud voice, so that all present could hear it, namely that Joan herself had seen apparitions coming to her, and had also heard voices, and that these had promised her that she would be delivered from prison; and by this, she well recognized that they had deceived her, and that, since they had thus deceived her, she believed that they were not good voices or things. And, a little later, she confessed her sins to a certain Brother Martin, of the Order of Preaching Friars; and after the sacrament of confession and penance, while the said brother wished to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist to the same Joan, holding the consecrated host in his hands, he asked her: Do you believe that this is the body of Christ? The said Joan replied that she did, and this alone can deliver me; I ask that it be administered to me. And afterwards the said brother said to the same Joan: Do you still believe in these voices? Joan herself replied: I believe in God alone, and I no longer wish to give credence to these voices, since they have thus deceived me.\nMaster Thomas de Courcelles, Master of Arts and Bachelor formed in Theology, aged 30 years or thereabouts, produced as a witness, received, sworn and examined on the said day; says and deposes by his oath that, on Wednesday, on the vigil of the feast of the Eucharist of Christ, the speaker himself, being in the presence of us, the aforesaid bishop, in the chamber in which Joan herself was detained, in the Castle of Rouen, the speaker himself heard and understood that we, the aforesaid bishop, said to Joan herself, whether her voices had told her that she would be delivered. And she replied that those voices had told her that she would be delivered, and that she should put on a good face. And the said Joan added, as it seemed to the same speaker, in substance: I clearly see that I have been deceived. And then we, the aforesaid bishop, as the said speaker deposes, said to the same Joan that she could clearly see that such voices were not good spirits, or that they did not come from God; for, if it had been so, they would never have spoken falsely or lied.\nMaster Nicolas Loiselleur, Master of Arts, canon of the churches of Rouen and Chartres, aged 40 years or thereabouts, produced as a witness, received, sworn and examined on the said day; says and deposes by his oath that, on Wednesday, on the vigil of the feast of the Eucharist of the Lord, last past, the speaker himself, who, on the said day in the morning, had come with the venerable man Master Pierre Maurice, professor of sacred theology, to the prison in which Joan, commonly called the Maid, was detained for the purpose of exhorting her and admonishing her concerning her salvation; being asked to tell the truth about that angel, whom she had said in proceedings against her had brought a very precious crown of purest gold to him whom she calls her king, and no longer to conceal the truth, considering that there was nothing more to think about than the salvation of her soul: the speaker himself heard the said Joan say that Joan herself had been the one who had announced to him whom she calls her king, the crown of which mention is made, and that she herself was the angel, and there had been no other angel.\nAnd then she was asked if a crown had really been delivered to him whom she calls her king. She replied that it was nothing else than the promise of the coronation of him whom she calls her king, which she made to him, promising namely that he would be crowned.\nMoreover, the said speaker says that he heard from the said Joan several times, both in the presence of the aforesaid Master Pierre and of two Friars Preachers, and in our presence, the aforesaid bishop, and of very many others, that she had really had revelations and apparitions of spirits; and that in such revelations she had been deceived; and that she then clearly recognized and saw this, since by such revelations her deliverance from prison had been promised to her, the contrary of which she perceived; and if those spirits were good or evil, concerning this she referred herself to the clerics; but she no longer gave credence to those spirits, nor would she.\nItem, the said speaker says that he exhorted her that, to remove the error which she had sown among the people, she should publicly confess that she had been deluded and had deluded the people, had given credence to such revelations and had exhorted the people to believe such things, humbly asking forgiveness for this. Joan replied that she would gladly do this, but she did not then hope, when it would be necessary to do this, to remember it, namely when she would be in public judgment; asking her confessor to remind her of this, and other things conducive to her salvation. And from this and many other indications, it seemed to the said speaker that the said Joan was of sound mind, then showing great signs of contrition and penance for the crimes committed by her; whom he heard, both in prison, in the presence of many, and in public judgment, with the greatest contrition of heart, ask for indulgence from the English and Burgundians, because, as she confessed, she had caused them to be killed, put to flight, and had harmed them in many ways.\nThe tenor of the letters which our Lord the King wrote to the Emperor, Kings, Dukes, and other princes of all Christendom follows. # Your Imperial Highness, most serene King and our most beloved brother, is known to zealously and diligently seek the honor of the Catholic faith and the glory of Christ\u0026rsquo;s name; whose renowned endeavors and strenuous labors are constantly engaged in the protection of the faithful people and the opposition of malicious heretics; and your soul rejoices with immense joy whenever the exaltation of the most holy faith and the suppression of pestilential errors are heard on earth. This matter has moved us to write to your serenity concerning the just punishment, for her demerits, of a certain erroneous divineress, recently raised up in our kingdom of France. Indeed, a woman of wondrous presumption had arisen, whom the common people called the Maid, who, contrary to the decency of nature, had adopted a masculine habit, was clad in military arms, and dared to engage in various slaughters of men and diverse battles in warlike encounters. Her presumption also went so far as to boast that she had been sent by God to conduct battles, and that Michael, Gabriel, and a copious multitude of other angels, together with the holy virgins Catherine and Margaret, had visibly appeared to her. For almost a whole year, she seduced vast populations, so that a great part of humanity, turning their ears away from the truth, now turned to fables, which common rumor spread almost throughout the whole world concerning the deeds of this superstitious woman. At length, divine clemency, pitying its people whom it saw too easily moved to new and very dangerous credulities, before it was proven whether that spirit was from God, brought the aforesaid woman into our hands and under our dominion. Although she had inflicted many losses upon our nation, and brought many inconveniences to our kingdoms, and it would have been permissible to immediately exact severe penalties from her, yet it was by no means our intention to avenge the injury in this manner, or to immediately hand her over to be punished by secular judgment. For we were requested by the ecclesiastical prelate in whose diocese she had been apprehended, that we should return her to the jurisdiction of the Church to be judged, because she was reported to have committed grave and scandalous crimes against the orthodox faith and the Christian religion. We also, as befits a Christian king, revering ecclesiastical authority with filial affection, immediately delivered the aforesaid woman to the judgment of holy mother Church and the jurisdiction of the aforesaid prelate. He, indeed, with great solemnity and honorable gravity, for the honor of God and the salutary edification of the people, together with the vicar of the Inquisitor of heretical depravity joined with him, conducted exceptionally solemn proceedings in this matter. For after the aforesaid judges had interrogated this woman for many days, they caused her confessions and assertions to be examined by doctors and masters of the University of Paris and many other very learned men; from whose deliberations they found that the same woman was superstitious, a divineress, an idolater, an invoker of demons, a blasphemer against God, Saints male and female, a schismatic, and erring in many ways in the faith of Christ. But in order that the wretched sinner might be purged of so many and such pernicious crimes and her soul healed from extreme languors, she was frequently admonished by charitable exhortations for many days, that, casting aside all errors, she should enter the right path of truth, and guard herself from grave peril of body and soul; but the spirit of pride had so occupied her mind that her iron heart was in no way softened by sound doctrines and salutary counsels; rather, she constantly boasted that she had done everything by the command of God and of the holy virgins visibly appearing to her; and what was worse than the rest, she recognized no judge on earth; she would submit to no one except God alone and the Blessed triumphing in heaven, rejecting the judgment of our Lord the Supreme Pontiff, of the general Council, and of the entire militant Church. When the aforesaid judges saw her mind so hardened, the same woman was brought forth in the sight of the people, and her errors having been declared by public preaching and final admonitions completed, at length the sentence of the judges themselves began to be pronounced for her condemnation; but, before it had been read through, the aforesaid woman changed her former opinion, and exclaimed that she would say better things. When the judges understood this with joyful mind, hoping to have redeemed her body and soul from perdition, they benignly lent their ears to the speaking woman; who then submitted herself to the ordinance of the Church, and openly revoked and abjured her errors and pestilential crimes, signing the schedule of this revocation and abjuration with her own hand; and thus holy mother Church, rejoicing over the sinner doing penance, and bringing back to the fold the lost sheep which had strayed through the desert, committed her to prison for the purpose of performing salutary penance. But the fire of her pride, which seemed to have been suppressed, again excited by demonic breaths, was kindled into pestilential flames, and the unhappy woman returned to the errors and false insanities which she had previously vomited forth. Finally, as ecclesiastical sanctions dictated, lest she should thereafter entice other members of Christ, she was left to the judgment of the secular power, which deemed her body to be burned by fire. But seeing her imminent destruction approaching, the wretched woman openly recognized and plainly confessed that those spirits whom she had frequently asserted to have visibly appeared to her, had been malicious and deceitful; and she confessed that her own liberation from prison had been falsely promised by the same spirits, and that she herself had been deluded and deceived.\nThis was her outcome, this was her end, most serene King, which we have deemed it appropriate to reveal at present, so that your royal highness may certainly know the matter itself and inform others concerning the departure of that woman. For we consider this one thing to be very necessary for the faithful people, that through your serenity and other princes, both ecclesiastical and secular, the Catholic people be diligently induced not to presume to easily believe in superstitions and erroneous frivolities; especially in these latter times, in which we see many false prophets and disseminators of errors arising in various regions, who, impudently raised against holy mother Church, might perhaps infect the entire people of Christ, unless divine mercy and its faithful ministers vigilantly and diligently attend to repelling and punishing the attempts of reprobate men.\nMay Jesus Christ deign to preserve your highness, most serene King, for the protection of His Church and the Christian religion, for long days with prosperity and desired successes. Given at Rouen, the 8th day of June, 1431.\nIII.\nThe tenor of the letters which our Lord the King wrote to the Prelates of the Church, Dukes, Counts, and other nobles and cities of his kingdom of France follows. (1) # (1) Another circular, slightly different from this one, is reported by MONSTRELET, vol. II, ch. 105.\nReverend father in God, it is already a sufficiently common and widely divulged rumor how that woman who called herself Joan the Maid, an erroneous divineress, had, two years ago and more, contrary to divine law and the state of her female sex, dressed in men\u0026rsquo;s clothing, a thing abominable to God, and in such a state transported herself to our capital enemy, to whom and to those of his party, churchmen, nobles, and commoners, she often gave to understand that she was sent by God, presumptuously boasting that she had often had personal and visible communication with Saint Michael and a great multitude of Angels and Saints of Paradise, such as Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret; by which false representations, and the hope she promised of future victories, she diverted many hearts of men and women from the path of truth, and converted them to fables and lies. She also dressed in arms fitted for knights and squires, raised a standard, and with too great outrage, pride, and presumption, demanded to have and bear the most noble and excellent arms of France, which she partly obtained and bore in several conflicts and assaults, as her brothers also did, it is said; that is to say, a shield with a field of azure with two golden fleurs-de-lis, and a sword with its point upwards, struck into a crown. In this state, she took to the fields, led men-at-arms and archers in exercise and large companies, to commit and practice inhuman cruelties, shedding human blood, causing seditions and commotions among the people, inducing them to perjuries and pernicious rebellions, superstitions and false belief, disturbing all true peace and renewing mortal war, allowing herself to be adored and revered by many as a sanctified woman, and otherwise damnably acting in various cases too long to express, which nevertheless have been sufficiently known in several places, by which almost all Christendom has been greatly scandalized. But the divine power, having pity on its loyal people, who it has not long left in peril nor suffered to remain in vain, perilous, and new credulities into which they so lightly fell, has willed to permit, by its great mercy and clemency, that the said woman be taken before Compiègne, and placed under our obedience and dominion. And because we were then requested by the bishop in whose diocese she had been taken, that we should deliver her to him, as to her ordinary ecclesiastical judge, as one noted and defamed of crimes of divine lèse-majesté, we, both out of reverence for our holy mother Church (whose holy ordinances we wish to prefer to our own deeds and wills, as is right), and also for the honor and exaltation of our said holy faith, caused the said Joan to be delivered to him in order that he might conduct her trial, without wishing any vengeance or punishment to be taken by the people and officers of our secular justice, as it was reasonably permissible for us to do, considering the great damages and inconveniences, the horrible homicides and detestable cruelties, and other innumerable evils which she had committed against our lordship and loyal obedient people. Which bishop, joined with him the vicar of the Inquisitor of errors and heresies, and having called with them a great and notable number of solemn masters and doctors in theology and canon law, began with great solemnity and due gravity the trial of the said Joan. And after he and the said Inquisitor, judges in this matter, had interrogated the said Joan for several and diverse days, they caused her confessions and assertions to be maturely examined by the said masters and doctors, and generally by all the Faculties of the study of our very dear and very beloved daughter the University of Paris, to which the said confessions and assertions were sent. By the opinion and deliberation of whom, the said judges found the said Joan to be superstitious, a divineress, an idolater, an invoker of devils, a blasphemer against God and His male and female Saints, a schismatic, and erring many times in the faith of Jesus Christ. And to reduce and bring her back to the unity and communion of our said holy mother Church, to purge her of such horrible, detestable, and pernicious crimes and sins, and to heal and preserve her soul from perpetual pain and damnation, she was often and for a very long time most charitably and gently admonished that, all errors rejected and cast aside by her, she should humbly return to the way and right path; otherwise she would place herself in grave peril of soul and body. But the very perilous and divided spirit of pride and outrageous presumption, which always strives to hinder and disturb the union and security of loyal Christians, so occupied and held in its bonds the heart of the said Joan, that, for any sound doctrine or counsels, or other gentle exhortation that was administered to her, her hardened and obstinate heart would not humble itself or soften; but she often boasted that all things she had done were well done, and she had done them by the command of God and of the said holy Virgins who had visibly appeared to her, and, what is worse, she recognized or would recognize no one on earth except God alone and the Saints of Paradise, refusing and rejecting the judgment of our holy father the Pope, of the general Council, and of the universal militant Church. And seeing her said heart hardened and obstinate for so long a time, the ecclesiastical judges caused her to be brought before the clergy and the people assembled in a very great multitude, in whose presence her cases, crimes, and errors were solemnly and publicly preached, exposed, and declared by a notable master in theology, for the exaltation of our said Christian faith, the extirpation of errors, and the edification and amendment of the Christian people; and again she was charitably admonished to return to the union of holy Church, and to correct her faults and errors; in which she still remained pertinacious and obstinate. And considering this, the aforesaid judges proceeded to pronounce the sentence against her, introduced and ordained by law in such a case. But before the said sentence was read, she began to change her mind in appearance, saying that she wished to return to holy Church; which the judges and clergy aforesaid willingly and joyfully heard, who benignly received her in this, hoping by this means her soul and body to be redeemed from perdition and torment. Then she submitted herself to the ordinance of holy Church, and revoked her errors and detestable crimes from her mouth and publicly abjured them, signing with her own hand the schedule of the said revocation and abjuration; and thus, our merciful mother holy Church, rejoicing over the sinner doing penance, wishing to bring back the recovered and found sheep, which had strayed and wandered through the desert, with the others, condemned the said Joan to prison for salutary penance. But she was hardly there any time before the fire of her pride, which seemed to be extinguished in her, rekindled into pestilential flames by the breathings of the Enemy; and immediately the said unhappy woman relapsed into the errors and false insanities which she had previously uttered, and then revoked and abjured, as has been said. For which things, according to what the judgments and institutions of holy Church ordain, so that she might not henceforth contaminate the other members of Jesus Christ, she was again publicly preached against, and as one relapsed into her accustomed crimes and faults, abandoned to secular justice, which immediately condemned her to be burned. And seeing her end approaching, she fully recognized and confessed that the spirits which she said had often appeared to her, were evil and deceitful, and that the promise which those spirits had many times made to her to deliver her, was false; and thus she confessed herself to have been mocked and deceived by the said spirits.\nHere is the end of her works; here is the outcome of that woman, which we presently signify to you, reverend father in God, to truly inform you of this matter, so that through the places of your diocese that you deem fit, by public preachings and sermons and otherwise, you may cause these things to be notified for the good and exaltation of our said faith and the edification of the Christian people, who, by reason of the works of that woman, have long been deceived and abused; and that you provide, as pertains to your dignity, that none of the people committed to you presume to easily believe in such errors and perilous superstitions, especially in this present time in which we see many false prophets and sowers of damned errors and false belief arise, who, raised against our holy mother Church by foolish boldness and outrageous presumption, might perhaps contaminate the Christian people with the perilous venom of false belief, unless Jesus Christ, by His mercy, should provide for it; and you and His ministers to whom it pertains, do not diligently attend to repelling and punishing the wills and foolish boldness of reprobate men.\nGiven in our city of Rouen, the 28th day of June.\nIV.\nThe revocation of a certain religious man who had spoken ill against the judges who had judged the aforesaid woman follows. # Reverend father in Christ and lord, and you, religious man and lord, vicar of the religious man Jean Graverent, eminent professor in sacred theology and Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the entire kingdom of France, specially deputed by the Holy Apostolic See, I, Brother Peter Bosquier (1), a religious of the Order of Friars Preachers, a wretched sinner and your subject in this matter, desiring, as a good and true Catholic, to obey my holy mother Church and you, judges in this matter, with all humility and devotion (and I confess myself bound to this), in all and through all; because by the information made by your command, you found me culpable in what follows: namely, especially in that, on the penultimate day of the month of May, on the vigil of the Holy Sacrament, last past, I said that you and those who had judged a certain woman, commonly called Joan the Maid, had done ill; which words, considering that the said Joan had been placed before you, the aforesaid judges, in a matter of faith and your judgment, taste ill and seem to savor of favoring heretical depravity; and which truly (so help me God), after it was found that I had uttered them thus, were said and uttered by me less deliberately and inadvertently and after drinking: I confess that in this I have gravely sinned; and for these things, from our said holy mother Church and from you, my most feared judges and lords, with bent knees and joined hands, I ask and seek pardon, humbly submitting myself to your amendment, correction, and punishment, most humbly requesting the mercy of the Church, setting aside rigor.\n(1) The surname and first name were first written, then carefully erased in Ms. 5965. No. 5966 gives only the first name Petrus. It is from the manuscript of the Chamber of Deputies that I supply Bosquier.\nV.\nThe sentence of the same religious man follows. # In the name of the Lord, amen. Having learned by us, Pierre, by divine mercy Bishop of Beauvais, and Brother Jean Le Maistre, specially deputed and commissioned by the illustrious doctor Jean Graverent, Inquisitor of heretical depravity in the entire kingdom of France by apostolic authority, in this city and diocese of Rouen, also as to the matters written below by the same Lord Inquisitor, concerning the merits of the case of faith moved and pending before us against the religious man, Brother Peter Bosquier, accused in the said case; and having seen certain information concerning the charges laid against him, made by our command and reported to us; because by the said information to which the accused himself referred, it has been and is legitimately established before us that the said accused, in a certain place, with a few standing by, said and uttered, quite soon after a certain woman, commonly called Joan the Maid, was abandoned by us and our definitive sentence to secular jurisdiction as a heretic, that we had done ill and all those who had judged her had done ill (which words indeed seemed to savor of favoring the said Joan), and that by this he himself had gravely sinned and erred: nevertheless, because the same Brother Peter, desiring, as he asserted before us, as a good and true Catholic, to obey our holy mother Church and us, his judges in this matter, with all humility and devotion, as he professed himself bound to do, in all and through all, and freely submitted himself to our amendment and correction in this regard, being also ready to obey our commands: we, wishing to prefer mercy to rigor, especially considering the quality of his person, and that he said and uttered those things after drinking, as he says and affirms, absolving him from the sentences which he incurred on account of this, we aggregate him to the Catholic community, and restore him to his good name, if and as far as is necessary. We nevertheless condemn him to imprisonment with bread and water until next Easter, at Rouen, in the house of the Friars Preachers, by this our definitive sentence, which we pronounce sitting in judgment, in these writings, our grace and moderation always being preserved. Done at Rouen, the 8th day of August, 1431.\nVI.\nCopy of the letters of the University of Paris sent to the Lords Pope, Emperor, and College of Cardinals. # We believe it necessary to labor the more diligently, most blessed father, lest the pestilential attempts of false prophets and reprobate men contaminate holy Church with various errors, the closer the ends of the ages seem to approach. For the doctor of the Gentiles foretold that in the last days perilous times would come, in which men would not endure sound doctrine; but would turn their ears away from the truth, and would turn to fables. The Truth also says: False Christs and false prophets will arise, and will give great signs and wonders, so as to lead into error, if possible, even the elect. Therefore, when we see new prophets arising, who boast that they have received revelations from God and the Blessed triumphing in heaven, announcing to men future things and things transcending the acuteness of the human mind, and daring to do new and unusual things; it is fitting that pastoral solicitude should be more strenuously applied, lest they sprinkle peoples, too credulous of new things, with foreign doctrines, before it is proven whether those spirits are from God. For cunning and pernicious disseminators of false inventions could easily infect the Catholic people, if, without the approbation and consent of holy mother Church, everyone were allowed to invent heavenly revelations for themselves at will, and to usurp the authority of God and the Blessed. Therefore, the accurate diligence which the reverend father in Christ, the lord Bishop of Beauvais, and the vicar of the lord Inquisitor of heretical depravity, deputed by the Holy Apostolic See for the kingdom of France, recently applied for the protection of the Christian religion, seems deservedly commendable, most blessed father. For these men diligently examined a certain woman, apprehended within the limits of the diocese of Beauvais, using both masculine habit and arms, judicially accused before them of the mendacious fabrication of divine revelations and grave crimes against the orthodox faith, and took care to prove the full truth of her deeds; and, since they communicated to us the proceedings conducted against her, requesting that we render our deliberation on the articles asserted by her, lest what is done for the exaltation of the orthodox faith happen to be covered by silence, we have deemed it appropriate to reveal to your beatitude the same things which we have received. For as the aforesaid lord judges instructed us, the aforesaid woman who called herself Joan the Maid, confessed very many things spontaneously in judgment, by which, after diligent and mature examination and consideration by very many prelates, doctors, and other experts in divine and human law, and also after deliberation and determination by our University on these matters, they found this woman to be considered superstitious, a divineress, an invoker of evil spirits, an idolater, a blasphemer against God, male and female Saints, a schismatic, and erring in many ways in the faith of Christ. Grieving and groaning that the soul of the wretched sinner was entangled in the pernicious snares of so many crimes, they endeavored by frequent admonitions and charitable exhortations that she should be converted from the error of her way and submit herself to the judgment of holy mother Church. But the spirit of iniquity had so occupied her heart that, for a long time, she rejected salutary admonitions with a hardened mind, submitting herself to no living man on earth, however great his dignity, nor even to the sacred general Council, recognizing no judge under God. At length, however, by the persevering labor of the aforesaid judges, her presumption was somewhat diminished, and acquiescing to sounder counsels, in the presence of a great multitude of people, she revoked and denied her errors with her own mouth, and signed and sealed the schedule of abjuration and revocation with her own hand. But a few days having elapsed thereafter, the unhappy woman again fell into her former insanities, and adhered again to the errors she had revoked. For this reason, the aforementioned judges condemned her as relapsed and heretical by a definitive sentence, and left her to the judgment of secular power. When she recognized that the destruction of her body was approaching, she openly confessed with many groans that she had been deluded and deceived by those spirits whom she truly believed to have appeared to her, and, as it appeared, repenting of her sins at the very point of death and asking forgiveness from all, she departed from the world. From which matter all more openly recognized how dangerous and how formidable it was to give too easy credence to new inventions such as not only the aforesaid woman, but also many others, disseminated throughout this most Christian kingdom a few days ago; and all cultivators of the Christian religion ought to be admonished by such a remarkable example not to be quickly moved from their own sense, and to attend rather to the doctrines of the Church and the precepts of their prelates, than to the fables of superstitious women. But if ever, our demerits demanding it, we should come to the point where the levity of the peoples listens rather to divineresses, falsely prophesying in the name of the Lord, when He Himself has not sent them, than to the pastors and doctors of the Church, to whom Christ once said: Go, teach all nations, religion will immediately perish, faith will collapse, the Church will be trampled underfoot, and the iniquity of Satan will dominate the entire world. May Jesus Christ deign to prohibit all these things and, under the happy direction of your beatitude, preserve His flock unblemished and uncontaminated.\nVII.\nFor the College of Cardinals. # What we have heard and known, most reverend fathers, concerning the condemnation of the scandals perpetrated by a certain woman in this kingdom, we have deemed it appropriate to reveal to our most holy Lord the Supreme Pontiff, in favor of the faith and Christian religion, writing to His Holiness in this form: The more diligently, etc. And since, most reverend fathers, the Lord has placed your most reverend paternities on the sublime watchtower of the Holy Apostolic See, so that you may foresee all things that are done throughout the world, especially concerning matters pertaining to the integrity of the faith, we have thought it by no means fitting that this matter should remain unknown to your paternities. For you are the light of the world, from whom no knowledge of truth ought to be hidden, so that all the faithful may receive salutary instruction from your most reverend paternities concerning matters of faith; whom the Most High may happily preserve for the salvation of His holy Church.\nEND OF VOLUME ONE # Table of Rubrics (Index of Session Headings) # The subjects contained in this volume.\nStatement and Preparation of the Case # The proceedings in the matter of faith against a certain woman, Joan, commonly called the Maid, begin — page 1. 9 January 1430. First day of these proceedings — page 6. First follows the tenor of the letters sent by the venerable University of Paris to the illustrious prince, the Lord Duke of Burgundy — page 8. Follows the tenor of the copy of the letters sent by the said University to the noble and powerful knight, Lord Jean de Luxembourg — page 10. Follows the tenor of the letters sent by the Inquisitor’s vicar general to the said Lord Duke of Burgundy — page 12. Follows the tenor of the summons made by us, the Bishop of Beauvais, to the said lords, the Duke of Burgundy and Jean de Luxembourg — page 13. Follows the instrument of summons made for the surrender of the Maid — page 14. Follows the tenor of the letters sent to us, the bishop, by the said University of Paris — page 15. Follows the tenor of the letters sent by the said University of Paris to our lord the King of France and England — page 17. Follows the tenor of the royal letters concerning the surrender of the said woman to us, the aforesaid Bishop of Beauvais — page 18. Follows the tenor of the letters granting territory to us, the bishop, by the venerable Chapter of the Church of Rouen while the archiepiscopal see was vacant — page 20. Follows the tenor of the promoter’s letters — page 23. Follows the tenor of the notaries’ letters — page 24. Follows the tenor of the counsellor’s letters — page 26. Follows the tenor of the executor’s letters — ibid. 13 January. The information gathered concerning the Maid is read — page 27. 23 January. Conclusion concerning the preparatory information — page 28. 13 February. Oaths of the officers appointed in the case — page 29. 14, 15 and 16 February. The preparatory inquiry is conducted — page 31. 19 February. It is resolved that the Inquisitor is to be summoned — ibid. The same day in the afternoon. Requests made to the Lord Inquisitor’s vicar — page 33. 20 February. The Lord Inquisitor’s vicar declares himself unsuitable for the case — ibid. Follows the tenor of the letters appointing the said Brother Jean Le Maistre as vicar — page 35. Follows the tenor of the letters which we, the aforesaid bishop, sent to the Inquisitor of heretical depravity — page 36. 21 February. First public session — page 38. Tenor of the letters of citation and report — page 40. Report of execution — page 42. Petition of the promoter. It is resolved that the accused shall not attend divine offices — page 43. Joan is brought to judgment — page 44. First exhortation made to Joan — ibid. She is required to take the oath — page 45. First questioning after the oath — page 46. Prohibition against leaving the prison — page 47. 22 February. Second session — page 48. 24 February. Third session — page 58. 27 February. Fourth session — page 68. 1 March. Fifth session — page 80. 3 March. Sixth session — page 91. Here begins what remains of the minute taken at the hearing by Guillaume Manchon, clerk of the trial — page 95. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 March. In the house of the Lord Bishop of Beauvais. It is resolved that Joan is to be questioned further — page 112. 10 March. First session in the prison — page 113. 12 March. The Inquisitor’s vicar is summoned under the terms of the new commission — page 122. Follows the tenor of the letters of commission sent by the Lord Inquisitor — page 124. The same day, in the prison — page 125. The same day in the afternoon, in the prison — page 131. 13 March. The Inquisitor’s vicar joins the proceedings — page 134. Follows the tenor of the letters by which the aforesaid Lord Vicar appointed the promoter — page 135. Follows the tenor of the letters by which the Inquisitor’s aforesaid vicar appointed Lord Jean Massieu, priest, as executor of the summonses and citations to be made in the case — page 138. 14 March. A clerk is chosen for the Inquisitor’s vicar — page 148. Follows the tenor of the letters retaining the aforesaid notary — page 149. The same day, in the prison — page 150. The same day in the afternoon, in the same place — page 156. 15 March. In the prison — page 161. 17 March. In the prison — page 173. The same day in the afternoon, in the same place — page 180. 18 March. The assertions are delivered to the assessors — page 188. 22 March. It is resolved that the aforesaid assertions are to be reduced to fewer articles — page 189. 24 March. Joan’s interrogatories are read before her — page 190. 25 March. Joan asks permission to hear Mass — page 191. First Judgment # 26 March. The ordinary proceedings begin after the proceedings conducted by office — page 194. 27 March. Petition of the promoter. The articles proposed by him against Joan are read — page 195. Tenor of the aforesaid articles of accusation and of Joan’s answers then given, together with the answers she gave previously and to which she now refers — page 202. Tenor of the letters Joan sent to our lord the King, the Lord Duke of Bedford and others — page 240. Tenors of the letters which the Count of Armagnac and Joan wrote to one another — page 246. 28 March. The reading of the articles is completed — page 247. Last day of March. In the prison — page 323. 2, 3 and 4 April 1431. The assertions on which advice is to be sought are extracted — page 326. 5 April. The assertions are sent to the advisers — page 327. Follows the tenor of the letters sent with the aforesaid assertions to the doctors, to obtain each one’s opinion — ibid. Follows the tenor of the aforesaid assertions — page 328. Tenors of the deliberations — page 337. First, sixteen doctors and six licentiates and bachelors of sacred theology deliberated as contained in the present instrument drawn up concerning this matter, whose tenor follows — ibid. Master Denis Gastinel, licentiate in both laws, deliberated in the following manner — page 341. Master Jean Basset, licentiate in canon law and Official of Rouen, deliberated in the following manner — page 342. The reverend father in Christ Lord Gilles, Abbot of Sainte-Trinité of Fécamp and Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated in agreement with the aforesaid lords and masters, as contained in the schedule signed in his own hand, whose tenor follows — page 344. Master Jacques Guesdon, of the Order of Friars Minor and Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated in agreement with the said lords and masters, according to the schedule signed in his own hand, whose tenor follows — page 345. Master Jean Maugier, canon of Rouen and licentiate in canon law, deliberated in agreement with the aforesaid lords and masters, as contained in the schedule written in his own hand, whose tenor follows — page 345. Master Jean Brullot, licentiate in canon law, cantor and canon of the Church of Rouen, deliberated in agreement with the aforesaid lords and masters, as contained in the schedule written in his own hand and marked with his own sign, whose tenor follows — page 346. Master Nicolas de Vendères, licentiate in canon law, Archdeacon of Eu and canon of the Church of Rouen, deliberated in agreement with the aforesaid lords and masters, as contained in the schedule signed in his own hand, whose tenor follows — page 347. Master Gilles Deschamps, licentiate in civil law, chancellor and canon of the Church of Rouen, deliberated in agreement with the aforesaid lords and masters, according to the schedule signed in his own hand, whose tenor follows — ibid. Master Nicolas Caval, licentiate in civil law and canon of the Church of Rouen, deliberated in agreement with the aforesaid lords and masters, according to the schedule written in his own hand, whose tenor follows — page 349. Master Robert Barbier, licentiate in canon law and canon of the Church of Rouen, deliberated in agreement with the aforesaid lords and masters, according to the schedule signed in his own hand, whose tenor follows — ibid. Master Jean de l’Épée, licentiate in civil law and canon of the Church of Rouen, deliberated in agreement with the aforesaid lords and masters, as contained in the schedule written in his own hand and marked with his sign, whose tenor follows — page 350. Master Jean Hulot de Châtillon, archdeacon and canon of Évreux and Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated in agreement with the aforesaid lords and masters, according to the schedule signed in his own hand, whose tenor follows — page 351. Master Jean de Bonnevue, Doctor of Theology and almoner of Fécamp, deliberated in the following manner — page 352. Master Jean Guérin, Doctor of Decrees and canon of the Church of Rouen, deliberated in agreement with the lords and masters named above in the public instrument, as contained in the schedule signed in his own hand — ibid. The venerable Chapter of the Church of Rouen deliberated in the following manner — page 353. Masters Aubert Morel and Jean de Chemin, licentiates in canon law and advocates of the Official’s court of Rouen, deliberated in the following manner — page 356. Eleven advocates of the court of Rouen, some licentiates in canon law, others in civil law, and others in both laws, deliberated in the following manner, as appears in the instrument drawn up concerning this matter. Their names are Guillaume de Livet, Pierre Carré, Guérould Postel, Geoffroy de Crotey, Richard de Saussay, Burel de Cormeilles, Jean Ledoux, Laurent Dubust, Jean Colombel, Raoul Anguy and Jean Tavernier. The tenor of the said instrument follows — page 358. The reverend father in Christ Lord Philibert, Bishop of Coutances, deliberated in the following manner — page 361. The reverend father in Christ the Lord Bishop of Lisieux deliberated in the following manner — page 366. The reverend fathers in Christ, lords and masters Nicolas, Abbot of Jumièges, and Guillaume, Abbot of Cormeilles, Doctors of Decrees, deliberated in the following manner, according to the schedule signed in their own hands, whose tenor follows — page 367. Master Raoul Roussel, Doctor of Both Laws and Treasurer of the Church of Rouen, deliberated in the following manner — page 369. Masters Pierre Minier, Jean Pigache and Richard de Grouchet, bachelors in sacred theology, deliberated in the following manner — ibid. Master Raoul Silvestre, bachelor in sacred theology, deliberated according to a schedule signed in his own hand, whose tenor appears to be as follows — page 370. 18 April. Charitable exhortation made to Joan — page 374. 2 May. Public admonition made to the Maid — page 381. 9 May. Under threat of torture — page 399. 12 May. It is resolved that Joan is not to be tortured — page 402. 19 May. The deliberations of the University of Paris having been read, the assisting lords deliberate in agreement with them — page 404. Follows the tenor of the letters sent by the said University to our lord the King — page 407. Follows the tenor of the letters sent to us, the aforesaid bishop, by the said University of Paris — page 408. Follows the deliberation of the University of Paris — page 411. Follow the articles concerning the words and deeds of Joan, commonly called the Maid — page 414. Follow the determinations and conclusions of the sacred Faculty of Theology in the University of Paris on the qualifications of the articles concerning the words and deeds of Joan, commonly called the Maid, drawn up and written above. The Faculty submits these qualifications, its determinations and conclusions, and everything concerning this matter entirely to the determination of our lord the Supreme Pontiff and of the most holy general Council — ibid. Follows the doctrinal deliberation and determination of the venerable Faculty of Decrees in the University of Paris upon the twelve articles concerning the words and deeds of Joan, commonly called the Maid, noted and written above. The Faculty submits its deliberation and determination to the ordinance and determination of the Supreme Pontiff, the Holy Apostolic See and the most holy general Council — page 417. Deliberations of the doctors and masters then present at Rouen — page 422. 23 May. Joan’s defects are explained to her by Master Pierre Maurice. The cause is concluded — page 429. Tenor of the schedule then explained in French — page 430. 24 May. Public preaching. Joan having made an abjuration, the sentence is mitigated — page 442. Tenor of the abjuration in French — page 447. Follows the tenor of the said abjuration composed in Latin — page 448. Sentence after the abjuration — page 450. The same day in the afternoon. Joan receives women’s clothing — page 452. Second Judgment # 28 May. The relapse proceedings begin after Joan resumes men’s clothing — page 453. 29 May. Final deliberation — page 459. 30 May. Last day of the proceedings — page 467. Tenor of the citation — ibid. Follows the tenor of the report of the execution of the aforesaid citation — page 468. Definitive sentence pronounced before the people — page 469. Autograph attestations of the notaries appointed in the case — page 475. Certain Subsequent Acts # Information after the execution concerning many things said by her at her end and at the point of death — page 478. Follows the tenor of the letters which our lord the King wrote to the Emperor, Kings, Dukes and other princes of all Christendom — page 485. Follows the tenor of the letters which our lord the King wrote to the Prelates of the Church, Dukes, Counts, other nobles and cities of his kingdom of France — page 489. Follows the revocation of a certain religious man who had spoken against the judges who judged the aforesaid woman — page 493. Follows the sentence of the same religious man — page 495. Copy of the letters of the University of Paris sent to the Pope, Emperor and College of Cardinals — page 496. For the College of Cardinals — page 499. End of the Table of Volume One # Errata # Page 5, line 8: for jurisditionis, read jurisdictionis. Page 8, line 23: for from 27 March, read from 28 March. Page 8, line 28: for clerks of the officiality, read clerks of the archiepiscopal court. Page 39, lines 22, 31 and 33: for advocate before the officiality, read advocate before the archiepiscopal court. Page 75, line 13: for tedae, read taedae. Page 82, line 7: for a comité Armiginiaci, read a comité Armigniaci. Page 82, line 31: for See Article 37, read See Article 27. Page 102, line 12: for viderit eam, read viderit eum. Page 122, line 27: for the Chamber of Accounts, read the Exchequer of Accounts. Page 151, line 16: for ita male, read Ita male. ","date":"30 May 1431","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/pierre-cauchon/the-trial-of-condemnation-of-joan-of-arc/","section":"Writings","summary":"","title":"The Trial of Condemnation of Joan of Arc","type":"writings"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/antoine-astezan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Antoine Astezan","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/christine-de-pisan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Christine de Pisan","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/francois-villon/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"François Villon","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/georges-chastellain/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Georges Chastellain","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/joan-of-arc/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Joan of Arc","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/martial-dauvergne/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Martial d'Auvergne","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/martin-le-franc/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Martin Le Franc","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/octavien-de-saint-gelais/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Octavien de Saint-Gelais","type":"Poet"},{"content":" Translated from Jules Quicherat (ed.), Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc, dite La Pucelle, tome V — poésies, lettres, comptes et documents divers, avec la notice littéraire des deux procès (Paris: Jules Renouard, Société de l’Histoire de France, 1849).\nExtract from the Regulations # Art. 14. The Council designates the works to be published, and chooses the persons most capable of preparing and of seeing through their publication.\nIt appoints, for each work to be published, a responsible Commissioner charged with supervising its execution.\nThe name of the Editor will be placed at the head of each volume.\nNo volume may appear under the name of the Society without the authorisation of the Council, and unless it is accompanied by a declaration of the responsible Commissioner, stating that the work has seemed to him to merit being published.\nThe undersigned responsible Commissioner declares that the work of M. Jules Quicherat, containing the sequel to the Trials of Joan of Arc and the literary notice of the same trials, has seemed to him worthy of being published by the Society of the History of France.\nDone at Paris, 30 December 1849.\nSigned Ch. Lenormant.\nCertified,\nThe Secretary of the Society of the History of France,\nJ. Desnoyers.\nPreface # The present volume having been three years in the press, one will not be surprised to see certain designations at the beginning in disagreement with those at the end.\nIt contains the complement of the contemporary testimonies concerning Joan of Arc — a complement supplied as much by the poets of the fifteenth century as by the chroniclers whom I came to know too late to admit into my fourth volume, and by the detached pieces existing in printed collections or in archival repositories. These pieces form the principal matter. I have distributed them under several heads, according to their kind or their object. The slowness with which the printing was carried out allowed me to add at the end a supplement of what had escaped me or had not yet seen the light of day when I stopped my first researches.\nDesirous of facilitating every study that can attach itself to the subject, I have admitted into my collection of pieces those which attest the public honours rendered to the memory of the Maid. I have also gathered into a separate section such positive information as we possess concerning an adventuress who succeeded in passing herself off for her several years after her death. Therein lies the foundation of that historical paradox, revived too many times in modern days, according to which the execution of Joan of Arc was but the rehearsal of the sacrifice of Iphigenia.\nThe system of publication of this volume is the same as that of the preceding one. I have continued to place at the head of each piece or fragment the indications necessary to make known its origin and its value. I regret that this method — the only one suited to a collection composed of so many pieces — did not present itself to my mind from the outset; I should have applied it successively in all the volumes. What I have not done from the beginning I have done towards the end: the notice of the trials and of their publication crowns my obligations — for, as I first believed that this work would find its place at the head of the publication, I announced it in several of my notes under the title of preface, of preliminaries or otherwise. It is enough to warn of the change made in its execution, so that no one stops to look for a preface that does not exist.\nMoreover, the composition of this book could offer a serious subject of difficulty for the reader; the analytical table which ends it is intended to remedy this. It refers to the dissertations on the pieces as well as to the matter of the pieces themselves.\nTestimonies of the Poets of the Fifteenth Century # Christine de Pisan # Here are the only French verses written in the lifetime of Joan of Arc that have come down to us. They were finished on 31 July 1429, at the moment when Charles VII, master of Château-Thierry, could, in three days\u0026rsquo; march, appear with his army beneath the walls of Paris and probably enter it without resistance. The expectation of this great event shows through in Christine\u0026rsquo;s words and leads her to make several prophecies which, if one does not look back to the situation, would be devoid of sense.\nIn 1429, Christine had reached the age of sixty-seven years. Since the revolution of 1418 she had lived cloistered in an abbey: it is not known which. Her verses on the Maid pass for the last she ever made. De Sinner first pointed them out in his Catalogue des manuscrits de Berne. It has since been found that they had been known and cited by the Dauphiné writer Thomassin. In reporting that author\u0026rsquo;s testimony on Joan of Arc (vol. IV, p. 310), I omitted his extract — often very incorrect — of Christine\u0026rsquo;s verses, in view of the present article, where will be found the text of the piece in its entirety, as M. Jubinal published it in 1838 from the Berne manuscript.\n1.\nI, Christine, who have wept\nEleven years in a closed abbey,\nWhere I have dwelt ever since\nCharles — \u0026rsquo;tis a strange thing! —\nThe king\u0026rsquo;s son, if I dare say so,\nFled from Paris in haste,\nThrough the treason enclosed there:\nNow at last I begin to laugh.\n2.\nIn goodly joy I begin\nTo laugh, for the returning season\nWhich is coming; where I was wont\nTo keep myself sadly in a cage;\nBut now I shall change my language\nFrom weeping into song, since I have recovered\nThe good season… (1)\nWell does it seem to me that I have endured.\n(1) Verse incomplete in the edition.\n3.\nIn the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine,\nThe sun began to shine again;\nIt brings back the good new season\nThat no one had seen in due course\nFor a long time; of which many\nHave lived in grief. I am of those;\nBut no more do I grieve for anything,\nNow that I see what I wish.\n4.\nSo well is the verse turned\nFrom great grief into new joy,\nSince the time I have sojourned\nWhere I am; and the very fair\nSeason, that is called spring —\nGod be thanked — which I have desired,\nWhere everything renews itself\nAnd is born from the dry into the green season.\n5.\nFor the cast-off child\nOf the legitimate King of France,\nWho long has suffered\nMany great troubles, who now at last\nHas risen, as one sees, coming forward\nAs a crowned king,\nIn very great and fine power\nAnd spurred with golden spurs.\n6.\nNow let us make feast for our king;\nMay he be most welcome back!\nRejoicing in his noble array,\nLet us all go, great and small,\nBefore him; let none be held back,\nLeading joy to greet him,\nPraising God, who has kept him,\nCrying Noël! with a loud shout.\n7.\nBut now I wish to recount how\nGod has done all this by His grace,\nWhom I pray that with wisdom\nHe grant me that I trespass in nothing.\nLet it be recounted in every place,\nFor it is worthy of memory\nAnd of writing, whomever it displease,\nIn many a chronicle and history.\n8.\nHear, throughout the whole world,\nA thing marvellous above all;\nNote whether God, in whom abounds\nAll grace, is not succourable\nTo the right in the end. \u0026lsquo;Tis a notable deed,\nConsidering the present case;\nSo may it be a help to the deceived\nWhom Fortune has flattered by chance.\n9.\nAnd note how no one should be dismayed\nBy misfortune, seeing oneself hated\nWith great wrong, and how it came about\nBy common report. See how Fortune\nIs not always the same, for she endures\nWith many but a night; for God,\nWho puts wrongs to rights,\nRaises up those in whom hope remains.\n10.\nWho then saw a thing come to pass\nMore beyond all expectation —\nWhich is well to note and remember\nIn every region — than France,\nOf whom mention was made\nThat she was cast down, being,\nBy divine mission,\nChanged from ill into so great good?\n11.\nBy such miracle, truly, that,\nIf the thing were not notorious\nAnd evident — what and how —\nThere is no man who could believe it.\nA thing most worthy of memory:\nThat God, by a tender virgin,\nHas at last willed — \u0026rsquo;tis true —\nTo extend over France so great a grace.\n12.\nO! what honour to the crown\nOf France by divine proof!\nFor by the graces He gives it\nIt appears how He approves it,\nAnd that He finds more faith in it\nThan elsewhere in royal estate; whereby I read\nThat never — \u0026rsquo;tis no new thing —\nDid the fleurs-de-lys err in faith.\n13.\nAnd you, Charles, king of the French,\nSeventh of that high name,\nWho had so great a war before\nIt went well with you — nothing small;\nBut by God\u0026rsquo;s grace, now see your renown\nHigh exalted by the Maid,\nWho has subdued beneath your pennon\nYour enemies: \u0026rsquo;tis a new thing.\n14.\nIn a little time, when one thought\nIt an impossible thing\nThat your country, which was being lost,\nYou should ever have back: now it is visible —\nThough whoever has been hurtful\nTo you — you have recovered it.\nIt is by the Maid — \u0026rsquo;tis evident —\nGod be thanked! who has wrought there.\n15.\nSo I firmly believe that such grace\nWould not have been given you by God,\nIf it were not ordained of Him\nThat some great solemn thing\nShould be accomplished and brought to an end\nBy you, in time and space;\nAnd that He has given you the destiny\nTo be the chief of very great deeds.\n16.\nFor a king of France must be —\nCharles, son of Charles named —\nWho over all kings will be great master;\nThe prophecies have surnamed him\nThe flying stag (1); and consummated\nShall be by that conqueror\nMany a deed; God has summoned him to this,\nAnd in the end he must be emperor.\n(1) Is it in virtue of this prophecy that Charles VII and Louis XI had for support of their arms two winged stags?\n17.\nAll this is the soul\u0026rsquo;s profit.\nI pray God that you be that man,\nAnd that He grant you, without the soul\u0026rsquo;s grief,\nTo live so long that you may yet see\nYour children grown; and may all joys\nBe in France through you and them;\nBut ever serving God in all ways,\nMay war commit no outrage there.\n18.\nAnd I have hope that you will be good,\nRighteous and loving justice,\nAnd that you will surpass all others;\nBut let not pride disgrace your deeds;\nGentle and propitious to your people,\nAnd fearing God, who has chosen you\nFor His servant, as you have\nPromised Him; but do your duty.\n19.\nAnd how will you ever be able\nTo thank God sufficiently,\nTo serve Him, fear Him in all your deeds,\nThat from so great contrariety\nHe has set you at peace, and all France\nRaised from such ruin,\nWhen His very great holy providence\nHas made you worthy of so great honour?\n20.\nFor it be You praised, high God! (1)\nTo You are we all held\nTo render thanks, who have given time and place\nWhere these goods have come to pass.\nWith joined hands, great and small,\nWe render You thanks, heavenly God,\nBy whom we have come to peace,\nAnd out of great tempest.\n(1) Variant of Thomassin: Ah! be You praised for it, etc.\n21.\nAnd you, blessed Maid,\nMust you not be forgotten,\nSince God has so honoured you,\nYou who have untied the cord\nThat held France tightly bound.\nCould one praise you enough,\nWhen this land, humbled\nBy war, you have made to be endowed with peace?\n22.\nYou, Joan, born in a good hour,\nBlessed be he who created you!\nMaid ordained of God,\nIn whom the Holy Spirit has put\nHis great grace; and who had and has\nAll largesse of high gift —\nNever did He refuse you a request:\nWho will render you reward enough?\n23.\nWhat else can be said more,\nNor of the great deeds of times past?\nMoses, into whom God put\nAbundance of graces and virtues enough —\nHe drew, without being wearied,\nThe people of Israel out of Egypt.\nBy miracle, in like manner, you have borne\nUs back out of ill, chosen Maid.\n24.\nConsidering your person —\nYou who are a young maiden\nTo whom God gives strength and power\nTo be the champion, and she\nWho gives to France the breast\nOf peace and sweet nourishment,\nTo cast down the rebel people —\nBehold, a thing beyond nature!\n25.\nFor if God wrought by Joshua\nMiracles in so great sum —\nConquering places, and many\nWere cast down there: he was a man\nStrong and puissant. But all in sum,\nBehold a woman, a simple shepherdess,\nBraver than ever man was at Rome.\nAs for God, that is a light thing;\n26.\nBut as for us, never have we heard\nTell of so great a marvel;\nFor all the valiant, in the long run,\nWho have been — their prowess\nDoes not compare with this one\u0026rsquo;s,\nWho watches to drive out our enemies.\nBut it is God who does this, who counsels her,\nIn whose heart He has put more than in a man\u0026rsquo;s.\n27.\nOf Gideon great account is made,\nWho was a simple labourer,\nAnd God made him — so says the tale —\nFight, and none stood against\nHim, and he conquered all.\nBut never so manifest a miracle did He work,\nThough He admonished him,\nAs for this one it is manifest He wrought (1).\n(1) Variant of Thomassin: As in this case it appears.\n28.\nEsther, Judith and Deborah,\nWho were ladies of great worth,\nBy whom God restored\nHis people who was sore beset,\nAnd of several others I have learned\nWho were valiant — there was none such (1);\nBut miracles He has wrought more (?)\nThrough this Maid.\n(1) Thomassin: Who were first-borns to her. But this is an unhappy correction. Perhaps one should read telle instead of celle.\n29.\nBy miracle was she sent\nAnd by divine admonition,\nBy the angel of God conveyed\nTo the king, for his provision.\nHer deed is no illusion,\nFor she has been well proved\nBy counsel, in conclusion:\nTo effect the thing is proved;\n30.\nAnd she has been well examined.\nAnd before they would believe her,\nShe was led before clerks and sages,\nTo search whether she spoke\nA true thing, before it was notorious\nThat God had sent her to the king;\nBut it has been found in history\nThat to do this she was commissioned.\n31.\nFor Merlin, and the Sibyl and Bede,\nMore than five hundred years ago (2), saw her\nIn spirit, and for remedy\nTo France put her in their writings;\nAnd their prophecies of her they made,\nSaying that she would bear the banner\nIn the French wars; and they told\nOf her deed in all its manner.\n(2) Reading given by Thomassin. The Berne manuscript has twenty years ago. Better would be: More than a thousand years ago they saw her.\n32.\nAnd her fair life, by faith!\nShows that she is in God\u0026rsquo;s grace,\nWhereby more faith is given\nTo her deed; for whatever she does,\nAlways she has God before her face,\nWhom she calls upon, serves and beseeches\nIn deed, in word; nor does she go to any place\nWhere her devotion is delayed.\n33.\nO! how well it then appeared,\nWhen the siege was at Orléans,\nWhere first her strength appeared!\nNever a miracle, as I hold,\nWas clearer; for God aided\nHis own so greatly, that the enemies\nHelped themselves no more than dead dogs.\nThere they were taken or put to death.\n34.\nHa! what honour to the feminine\nSex! That God loves it, it appears,\nWhen all this great churlish people,\nBy whom the whole realm was deserted,\nBy a woman is raised and recovered —\nWhat men could not have done (1) —\nAnd the traitors put to rout;\nScarcely before would they have believed it.\n(1) Thomassin: What a hundred thousand men could not have done.\n35.\nA little girl of sixteen years\n— Is it not a thing beyond nature? —\nTo whom arms are not heavy,\nBut it seems that her nourishment\nIs there, so strong and hardy is she in it,\nAnd before her go fleeing\nThe enemies, and none endures.\nShe does this, before our very eyes.\n36.\nAnd of them she goes disencumbering France,\nRecovering castles and towns.\nNever was force so great,\nBe they in hundreds, be they in thousands.\nAnd of our men, valiant and able,\nShe is the principal chieftain.\nSuch strength had neither Hector nor Achilles;\nBut all this does God who leads her.\n37.\nAnd you, men-at-arms, tried,\nWho carry out the execution,\nAnd prove yourselves good and loyal:\nWell ought mention of it to be made.\nPraised in every nation\nShall you be for it, and without fail\nLet it be spoken of, above all choice,\nOf you and of your valiance.\n38.\nWho expose your bodies and lives\nFor the right, in such hard pain,\nAnd against all perils dare\nTo go put yourselves in adventure.\nBe constant, for I swear to you\nYou will have glory in heaven and praise;\nFor he who fights for righteousness\nGains Paradise, I dare say it.\n39.\nSo lower your horns, English,\nFor never will you have fair game\nIn France, nor lead your idle jests;\nYou are mated in the chess-board.\nYou did not think, the other day,\nWhen you showed yourselves so perilous;\nBut you were not yet on the path\nWhere God strikes down the proud.\n40.\nAlready you thought you had won France,\nAnd that she must remain yours.\nIt goes otherwise, false household!\nYou will go drumming elsewhere,\nIf you do not wish to savour\nDeath, like your companions,\nWhom the wolves might well devour,\nFor dead they lie in the furrows.\n41.\nAnd know that, by her, the English\nWill be cast down without rising again,\nFor God wills it, who heard the voices\nOf the good whom they wished to grieve.\nThe blood of the slain, without ceasing,\nCries against them. God wills no more\nTo suffer it; but to reprove them\nAs evil men, it is concluded.\n42.\nIn Christendom and in the Church\nShall concord be set by her.\nThe miscreants of whom they tell\nAnd the heretics of foul life\nShe will destroy, for so accords\nThe prophecy that foretold it;\nNor will she have any mercy\nOn him who blasphemes the faith of God.\n43.\nOf the Saracens she will make a clearing,\nConquering the Holy Land;\nThither she will lead Charles, may God keep him!\nBefore he dies she will make that journey.\nHe is the one who must conquer it:\nThere must she end her life,\nAnd both the one and the other acquire glory:\nThere shall the thing be accomplished.\n44.\nSo over all the valiant of old,\nThis one must bear the crown,\nFor her deeds already show enough\nThat God gives her more prowess\nThan to all those of whom they tell;\nAnd she has not yet accomplished all.\nSo I believe that God casts them down here\nTo the end that peace be by her deed.\n45.\nSo it is the least she has to do\nTo destroy the Englishry,\nFor she has a higher aim elsewhere:\nIt is that the faith be not lost.\nAs for the English, whoever laughs\nOr weeps at it, it is done with them;\nIn time to come mockery\nWill be made of them: they are cast down.\n46.\nAnd you, rude rebels,\nWho have adhered to them,\nDo you not see that it were better for you\nTo have gone straight than the reverse,\nTo become slaves to the English?\nTake heed lest it happen to you again,\nFor too long have you been suffered,\nAnd remember well the end.\n47.\nDo you not perceive, blind people,\nThat God has laid His hand here?\nAnd whoever does not see it is quite blind;\nFor how would it be in such wise\nThat this Maid was sent hither,\nWho makes you be struck down dead,\nAnd you have no strength that avails?\nWill you fight against God?\n48.\nHas she not led the king to his anointing (1),\nWhom she ever held by the hand?\nNo greater thing was ever done\nSince before Acre; for certain\nThere were contradictions in plenty;\nBut in spite of all, with great nobleness,\nHe was received and fully\nAnointed, and there heard the Mass.\n(1) Thomassin: Already she leads the king to his anointing; which is in contradiction with the following stanza.\n49.\nIn very great triumph and power\nWas Charles crowned at Reims,\nIn the year one thousand four hundred,\nWithout doubt, and twenty-nine,\nAll safe and sound,\nWith many of his barons,\nOn the very seventeenth (1) day\nOf July, for more and for less.\nAnd there he stayed five days.\n(1) Twenty-fifth in Thomassin\u0026rsquo;s edition, doubtless by an ill-timed correction of M. Buchon, who altered all the texts to conform them to his edition of Monstrelet. The two hemistichs And twenty-nine and for more and for less are wanting in the Berne manuscript.\n50.\nWith him the little Maid,\nReturning through his country —\nCity, nor castle, nor little town\nDoes not remain. Whether they be loved or hated,\nWhether they be dismayed\nOr reassured, the inhabitants\nSurrender; few are attacked,\nSo much do they dread her power!\n51.\nTrue it is that some, in their folly,\nThink to resist; but little it avails,\nFor in the end, whoever contends,\nPays for the fault before God.\nIt is for naught; they must surrender,\nWill they or nill they; there is no resistance\nSo strong that it is not dead\nAt the assault of the Maid.\n52.\nThough a great company made assembly,\nThinking to bar his return\nAnd to attack him in the rush,\nNo more need was there of a doctor\u0026rsquo;s comfort:\nFor all dead and taken, one by one,\nWere the opponents there,\nAnd sent, as I hear tell,\nTo hell or to paradise.\n53.\nI know not whether Paris will hold out,\nFor they are not in it yet,\nNor whether the Maid will wait;\nBut if it makes itself her enemy,\nI fear a hard fight\nWill be dealt it, as she has done elsewhere.\nIf they resist an hour, or half,\nIt will go ill, I believe, from her deeds.\n54.\nFor into it she will enter, whoever grumbles:\nThe Maid has promised him.\nParis, do you think that Burgundy\nWill prevent him from being put within?\nShe will not, for she makes nothing\nOf her enemies. There is no power\nThat could keep him out, and subdued\nShall you be, you and your presumption.\n55.\nO Paris, so ill-advised!\nFoolish inhabitants without trust!\nDo you prefer to be exiled\nRather than make accord with your prince?\nSurely your great contrariness\nWill destroy you, if you do not take heed.\nFar better it were for you, by supplication,\nTo beg for mercy: you aim ill at it.\n56.\nWicked people within — though good ones\nThere are many, I doubt not —\nBut they dare not speak, I answer you,\nThose who are sorely displeased, doubtless,\nThat their prince is thus thrust out.\nYet they will not have been spared\nThe punishment that is hurled upon\nParis, where many will lose their lives.\n57.\nAnd all you rebel towns,\nAnd people who have denied\nYour lord, and those men and women\nWho have denied him for another:\nNow let it be made smooth afterwards\nWith gentleness, begging pardon;\nFor if you are handled\nBy force, you will come late to the boon.\n58.\nAnd that there be no slaughter,\nCharles holds back as long as he can,\nNor incision in human flesh;\nFor it grieves him to shed blood.\nBut in the end, whoever will not surrender,\nBy fair and gentle means, what is his —\nIf by force, in effusion\nOf blood, he takes it, he does well (1).\n(1) Correct: he does well.\n59.\nAlas! he is so gracious\nThat he wishes to pardon everyone;\nAnd the Maid makes him do it,\nShe who follows God. Now order\nYour hearts, and give yourselves,\nAs loyal French, to him;\nAnd when he is heard preached,\nYou will be blamed by none.\n60.\nSo I pray God that He put it in the hearts\nOf you all that you do thus,\nSo that the raging counsel\nOf these wars be erased,\nAnd that you pass your lives\nIn peace under your chief lord,\nSo that you never blot him out,\nAnd that he be a good lord towards you.\nAmen.\n61.\nGiven this poem by Christine,\nIn the abovesaid year one thousand four hundred\nAnd twenty-nine, the day the month\nOf July ends. But I hear\nThat some will be ill content\nWith what it contains, for one who has\nA darkened face and heavy eyes\nCannot look upon the light.\nHere ends a most beautiful poem made by Christine.\nAntoine Astesan # Antoine Astezan or d\u0026rsquo;Asti is a very mediocre Latin poet, about whom a sufficiently extended notice will be found in the Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc of M. Berriat Saint-Prix. The most glorious title of this versifier is that he turned into hexameters the songs of our Charles d\u0026rsquo;Orléans. He also made epigrams, a historical poem on his country, and heroic epistles. One of the latter, the earliest in date, contains a long episode on the Maid. It was composed in 1430 for the Duke of Orléans, lord of Asti and benefactor of the poet\u0026rsquo;s family. It is known that at that time the duke was a prisoner in England; Astezan, still a scholar at the University of Pavia, knew him only from having been brought up in reverence for his name and in love for his person:\nA worthy wonder, I see, seizes your mind:\nThat I, who have never spoken with you in living voice,\nNor ever seen you, most humane duke, should have given\nThese verses to you; but you will wonder no further,\nIf first you hear how devoted I am to you.\nAll the forebears I have had, however many they were,\nLoved your father with no small ardour, etc.\nSuch are the first verses of the epistle in question. To report the text at length would be tedious and moreover useless, for the passage relative to Joan of Arc is but the versification of a letter which we give below (no. VII of the detached pieces), a letter written to the Duke of Milan by Perceval de Boulainvilliers. Only, as this letter to the Duke of Milan is of 21 June 1429 and the epistle to the Duke of Orléans is of 1430, for chronological propriety Astezan completed the history of the Maid by means of these six verses:\nWhile the Maid was thus distinguished by these manners\nAnd this virtue, she so protected the peoples\nOf the Gauls from the enemy; but almighty God,\nWhen He saw Gaul sufficiently saved from hostile war\nBy Joan\u0026rsquo;s virtue, suffered the Gallic wars to be deprived\nOf so great an aid and to use only human strength.\nWhence it is seen that the epistle was composed and sent after the catastrophe of Compiègne.\nBy his verses, Astezan attained the office of secretary to the Duke of Orléans. He made a journey to France in 1450 and stayed there several years. Still living when Charles VII died, he wrote, to the glory of that king, several epitaphs, of which one returns to the Maid:\nHere lies the Seventh, that Charles, king of the French,\nWho was magnanimous and magnificent;\nWho, though himself as a boy was nearly bereft\nOf all the realm, when the fierce English race\nHad snatched it from him, yet afterwards, wondrously,\nWith the aid of Joan, who was believed the virgin\nMessenger of God, drove out and strongly cast back\nAll his enemies, etc., etc.\nI draw these particulars from a copy of the Works of Astezan, the original manuscript of which exists in the Library of Grenoble. M. Champollion-Figeac, owner of this copy, had the kindness to communicate it to me.\nAnonymous Author of a Latin Poem on the Arrival of the Maid and on the Deliverance of Orléans # Unpublished opuscule, transcribed at the end of the rehabilitation trial and by the same hand, in manuscript 5970 of the Bibliothèque Royale. As it could only have been placed there with the assent of the clerks, perhaps even of the judges, this circumstance proves that some value was then attached to it.\nThe author says at his outset that the world had lately been filled, nuper, with the renown of the Maid. The expression is so vague that it is very difficult to find a date in it. One could have spoken thus as well in Joan\u0026rsquo;s lifetime as after her death; but if the small number of events employed favours the first of these hypotheses, the mind rather inclines to the second when one reflects that the poet has twice indirectly touched (Book I, verses 142 and 255) upon the kind of execution suffered by his heroine. What is certain is that this poet lived in the time of the Maid. It is even probable that he saw her. Although his narrative contains inaccuracies, even errors, one gladly recognises that he did not copy it from any of the known authors: so one will find in it quite particular circumstances, especially for the period which elapsed between Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival at the court and her departure for Orléans. It is unfortunate that this is drowned in that quantity of useless things which poetry entails and which bad poetry renders insupportable.\nFirst Book # My mind bears me to write a few of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s deeds,\nYet worthy of men\u0026rsquo;s reverence — her whom fame\nLately bore through the whole world in its course,\nWhom the Englishman felt too bitter, and sweetest France, meanwhile, sweet.\nVirgin Mother of God, light that goes before,\nGuide my right hand and my wit.\nGaul, weary with the storms of war\nAnd numberless ills, and bristling with sad cares,\nHoped for safety from no quarter:\nAbove all when she beheld, far and wide,\nThe cities of her fathers bereft of citizens,\nThe timorous barons trembling and turned to flight,\nThe countryside stripped of its tillers.\nThat pious Charles, the seventh king, went forth\nFrom the seat of his fathers; a fury held the kingdom.\nThe iron race of horsemen, religion neglected,\nPlundered the servants of the law and the lowly\nMinisters of the Christian faith; it thrust heaps\nOf the people down to the setting of this present life\nAnd breath; it gave God\u0026rsquo;s temples to be violated.\nNo fire gleamed on the incense-bearing altars;\nThe organs of praise were silent; horror was everywhere —\nDread within, and without the cruel sword,\nAnd hostile troops in furious soldiery,\nAnd grief, and mourning, and many an image of death.\nHenry, once the unrighteous ruler of the English,\nPressed by the bitter spurs of enlarging his empire (1),\nBrought so many unimpaired plagues, in rebel war,\nArmed lines and weapons menacing the Gauls,\nInto the noble realm of the lily-bearers.\nHe had seen among them worse than civil wars,\nThe order of the people confused, and mighty lords\nTurned with cruel right hand upon their own vitals.\nNobility fell with the common folk;\nDiscord drew the Carolian race whither it had never come before.\nBlood stands in the temples; the fathers\u0026rsquo; rights\nAre violated — alas! — and brother falls by brother\u0026rsquo;s\nBloody sword. O noble race, good France, knowing no guile!\nO generous blood, put off, I pray, your sword,\nAnd flow through tears, and strike with yourself\nA pact of peace. Let it shame the Gauls to serve\nTheir ancient foes for ever, and irksomely to bear them as friends.\nSo then the English king laid waste, for himself,\nBoth cities and fields, by price, by prayer, by force.\nWhat more? Partly Gaul bowed her neck beneath the impious tyrant.\n(1) Correct: stimulis.\nHow many breasts of bravest youths and men,\nWhile striving to defend their fathers\u0026rsquo; bounds,\nHave fallen nobly in death! As when, the shepherd gone,\nIf a wolf should fall upon them, the doubting calves\nHold out their horns in vain: he seizes and slays\nWith bloody mouth the glory of the stall. But who\nCould weep the slain, each death one by one?\nAt first fortune favoured the Saxons\u0026rsquo; labour;\nAt last by them are swept away both the wealth\nOf the region and the manly youth of the realm.\nOn the Gauls\u0026rsquo; losses crafty England grew fat.\nAged fathers wept, maidens wept,\nWidowed mothers, and both sexes wept.\nAll forgive; no friend succours, but each seeks aid;\nOn their feet together, feeble age and the living\nFlower of youth, all in one throng, rush together;\nTrembling fear breaks the ranks.\nIf any by love of his native soil perchance remained,\nIn his father\u0026rsquo;s house he is given up to tortures\nAnd scourges, and pours out his life with much blood —\nThat God, doubtless, who guides all things with strong\nRight hand, who, often suddenly overturning\nThe mightiest, chooses the weak — He lent ear\nTo the people\u0026rsquo;s cries, and taught that the wrath\nOf princes is vain and without strength. Behold\nThe wondrous Maid, sprung from a lineage of poorest\nHusbandmen — in the realm of the lily-bearers,\nIn her native land of Bar — she shines forth,\nA virgin, to bring new joys to the world.\nHer birth, if it is worthy to believe the fame,\nShone clear by given signs. The hanging orb\nOf those above resounded with thunder, the sea roared,\nThe earth quaked, the sky flamed; the world made ready\nIts signs of gladness, a new ardour, mingled with dread,\nStirs the wondering peoples, and they sing sweet songs,\nAnd make measured movements, signifying the salvation\nTo come to the Frankish race by heavenly virtue.\nA simple little maiden, nine years old,\nAfter the custom of the place, took her father\u0026rsquo;s\nTender flocks to rear. She, keeper of the flock,\nWandered in her father\u0026rsquo;s fields in the shepherds\u0026rsquo; manner;\nShunning all fellowship of humankind,\nShe ever sought solitary places. The wolf prepared\nNo ambush for the flock, nor the robber.\nWhile she kept the sheep, with eyes and hands uplifted,\nOften she prayed thus heavenward in rustic prayer:\nO citizens above, win for us peace\nFrom Christ the Lord, and the joys of heaven.\nThe Almighty looked upon the suppliant\u0026rsquo;s most worthy\nPrayers, and not long after, the Maid already spoken of\nHeard a voice sent from the upper hinge\nOf the starry realm: Hail, venerable Joan\n— that was the virgin\u0026rsquo;s name — believe that God\nWho rules heaven and earth can do all wonders.\nHe has foreseen you for the cherishing of liberty\nAnd peace. You shall comfort the grieving realm\nOf the Franks, and bring back the king driven\nFrom his father\u0026rsquo;s seat. You shall lift up his people,\nOppressed by the ancient enemy, after many towns\nHave been led back in due order and received\nInto the king\u0026rsquo;s allegiance. That Charles may prevail,\nYou shall lay the foundations. The virgin paled\nAt these words, touched with dread, and a sudden\nTrembling seized her girlish limbs. Being simple\nAs she was, and rustic, she knew not how to tell\nThe words, or dared not; but keeping the oracles\nOf the heaven-voiced speech within one heart,\nShe pressed them close, thinking much within herself\nAnd turning them over in her gentle mind.\nSoon the frail woman recites again the heavenly\nCommands and follows the flock; but the vision,\nThrough five years, with its uttered words, now by night\nAnd now by day, importunes the timorous virgin\u0026rsquo;s\nPure ears: The heavenly commands of the starry King,\nJoan, fulfil: leave the flock, seek the king\nShining with the flower (1). God has chosen you\nFor the cherishing of liberty and peace;\nYou shall comfort the grieving realm of the Franks\nAnd bring back the king driven from his father\u0026rsquo;s seat.\nYou shall lift up his people, oppressed\nBy the ancient enemy, after many towns\nHave been turned back in due order and received\nInto the king\u0026rsquo;s allegiance. That Charles may prevail,\nYou shall lay the foundations. She neglected\nThe admonitions a second time. Who would believe\nThat any girl beneath the sky could work such miracles?\n(1) That is to say the king of the fleur-de-lys, as was said then.\nThe most sure order fixed by God\u0026rsquo;s law came —\nThe wished-for time when Gaul should see the English\nDrawn back, Christ\u0026rsquo;s years running one thousand\nFour hundred, twice ten and nine.\nLo, a voice fallen through the air with sudden sound\nCame from the heavens, that stirred bright Olympus\nAnd filled the pious ears of the trembling virgin:\nVirgin, break off delays, seize the fleeing time.\nUp then, leave the flocks, seek the king shining with the flower.\nCurb the crafty English, restore salvation\nTo the Frankish race, take up the heavenly commands.\nSo spoke the voice, and to the voice the little maiden\nThus returned: O would that I might fulfil\nGod\u0026rsquo;s commands, from whom I see this present voice\nDescend, to whom I commit myself, whom I am ready\nTo obey! But what am I, or what can I do?\nHow great is my favour? I know no salvation\nOf the realm, I know not the king.\nBy what force can or should a virgin curb\nThe crafty English? Or if I should but tell\nSuch things, I shall not even be believed telling them.\nAgain the voice said: O maiden, to return\nTo heaven through flames, hear my admonitions.\nDelay has harmed those who are ready.\nGird your womanly limbs with manly garb.\nUnder your lead King Charles shall rejoice; under your lead\nHe shall receive the crown and conquer many cities.\nThe rest, which I pass in silence, the grace\nOf the fostering Spirit shall suggest to you;\nAnd you shall give greater wonders to future times,\nWhen you shall possess a second life.\nTherefore go; gird yourself for the commands.\nBehold the stronghold commonly named Vaucouleurs;\nThence its people: seek it and the provost\nOf the place; for he will help you and will kindly\nBe the first to bring you aid for the journey.\nThe voice had made an end of words with flashing light,\nWhich scattered the fields with rays and the clouds with flames.\nThe virgin, terrified by the strange light, remained alone;\nThen hastening she went to her native soil, leaving the fields,\nAnd came to her father\u0026rsquo;s heaped thatch-roof\nOf a poor hovel, and, weeping, made her farewell\nAnd withdrew, and sought the stronghold of Vaucouleurs.\nThe provost came to meet her, by divine gift;\nAnd thus he addressed the tender Maid in few words:\nO virgin, what is the cause of your journey?\nWhither do you press on to go? Do you follow straying\nSheep in these valleys, or does your fortune draw you,\nLacking reason? To whom Joan thus briefly\nReturned her answers: O man, faithful to the realm\nAnd king of the Franks, I have left the flocks,\nTreating of greater business. Hear a little woman,\nBut not one lacking reason. Under my lead\nKing Charles shall fight; under my lead he shall receive\nThe crown and conquer many cities.\nI ask you to show me the way and help me,\nAnd you shall be the first to give me aid for the journey.\nGrant my prayers. I do not ask unbidden:\nGod is my fore-ordaining author. To whom the prefect said:\nLet it not shame you, maiden, to come under our roof;\nYou shall break your fast with dainties and your hunger\nWith food. We have mellow apples,\nGreen lettuces and plenty of pressed milk;\nAnd the golden sun is turning the world to midday.\nThen I will show you the road to the king in easy manner,\nAnd will help you with all my goods and means.\nFollowing the Most High God\u0026rsquo;s commands with devoted mind,\nWhen the meal was done both returned thanks\nIn modest speech. Then the kind captain,\nSilently beholding the wondrous pledge, bade\nHer womanly limbs be clothed in manly garb,\nAnd taught her the way, speaking much of arms.\nHe added horses and added men. Four chosen youths\nAccompany her going. Aloft they are borne,\nAnd come in haste to the citadel of Chinon.\nHere the king was holding counsel on the affairs\nOf the realm with the first men of the people,\nDesiring to succour the long calamities\nAnd to set an end to the people\u0026rsquo;s tears.\nNor was there any means, in so great a whirlpool\nOf things, to bring the help of salvation, unless\nThe highest grace and present aid of God\nShould assist with His wonted goodness.\nTherefore the house of the Frankish race, greatest once\nAnd celebrated, which with its light scattered\nThe whole world of dukes so many and so puissant,\nIn skill, in valour, in faith, in the price\nOf virtue, in honour: poor, bitter, fearful,\nLowly, confused it sat, enduring in the darkness\nThe shadow of the hostile storm. As when\nThe wicked south wind gathers rains and clouds\nThrough the sky with windy blasts, black night\nRushes down, wrapping sea and soil and pole.\nNow it hides the sun\u0026rsquo;s roseate face and sparkling rays,\nAnd plunges them alike in blind blackness;\nNow it confounds the attendant flames, now the stars\nOf Olympus; through the midst of the showers,\nWith quivering lightning, the flashes run;\nThunder is made; mortal hearts quake,\nAnd, lying in dread, the renowned valour of men is hidden.\nMeanwhile greatest fame, flying, filled the peoples\nWith various discourse: that a tender Maid had come,\nClothed in manly garb with unaccustomed dress,\nAnd promising, if her words are believed,\nTo drive off the ancient enemies; to restore to the king\nThe lily-crown, with much liberty.\nSo the court is filled with numberless words.\nThe fame struck the hearts of many men;\nIn headlong whirlwind hope and fear turn all things.\nHere many hasten to believe too quickly;\nThere the rest more slowly; passion perverts minds:\nSome think her a demon, others mock;\nYet the best part believe God can do greater things.\nAs is wont, the common folk itself is split into parties.\nWhile minds hung wavering, while the thing was unknown,\nOne man, not the least among the sacred doctors,\nReferred these words with eager voice: O king!\nO Gallic offspring, lest any sin be done,\nNow let this spirit be proved, whether it be\nOf those above, as the pious page promises.\nThe men assented to his words; the masters came\nAt the king\u0026rsquo;s command; the Maid came to be tried —\nA rustic condition, but her manner was lofty,\nImpatient of sickly vice, simple, sincere, honest;\nHerself a praiseworthy follower of the Christian faith;\nMore sparing in dainties than in pure wine;\nMost sparing of word; seeking the confessor\u0026rsquo;s aid\nWith much fervour, she hears the solemnities of masses\nWith especial devotion, and knows to seek first\nThe kingdom of God. Around wars, indeed,\nThis virgin\u0026rsquo;s prudence is much exercised;\nThe safety of realm and king — she knows how\nTo set youths in arms; to prepare wars;\nTo impose laws of war and treaties of peace;\nTo drive off hostile lines; to scale walls\nAnd freely grant pardon to wretches who ask it.\nThese things seen, the elder seer, who was called\nBy name Peter, born of the sweet Norman race,\nBrought forth from his breast such words into the midst (1):\nIf this frail sex, living, perchance reaches\nManly years, how many wounds shall the crafty foe\nReceive, and how great floods of blood shall the wretched\nEnglishman vomit forth! But if the glory of the heavens\nShould envy you to us, virgin, forbidding you\nTo care for the labours of the Frankish race,\nSince the body\u0026rsquo;s mass once hinders it, and should bid\nYou pierce the heavens through fire: purer you shall seek\nThe stars, the carnal dust struck off,\nSeeing clouds and constellations beneath your feet.\nAnd though you shall be present, venerable,\nTo the angered English; yet to you, conjoined\nWith those above, we shall bear pious prayers —\nYou who, with God\u0026rsquo;s favour, shall work full many\nMiracles in the world, if my mind deserves\nTo know the truth before.\n(1) A circumstance related by no other document. I find in the Recueil des Astrologiens célèbres of Simon de Phares only one personage to whom this passage could apply. Here is the article: Messire Pierre de Saint-Vallerien, canon of Paris, expert in medicine and astrology, foretold on the revolution of the year 1435 the great winter; and was sent to Scotland with others to bring Madame Marguerite of Scotland to France, whom Louis, Dauphin of France, espoused. (Manuscript B.R., 7487 French.)\nThe king, therefore, sure that the virgin\u0026rsquo;s office\nWas led by divine power, bade the Maid be summoned.\nAt her coming the court is thronged with much soldiery:\nThere is a stir; each man rejoices to hope safety\nFor himself. So, at first sight of Pallas,\nThe warlike virgin, the African race murmured\nAround resounding Triton. But when the king gave silence\nWith his majesty\u0026rsquo;s hand, the intent Franks held\nTheir mouths silent together. Then the pious king himself\nAddressed the Maid, eager for arms, in few words:\nIt had been a hard thing for us to believe, virgin,\nAll that fame at first reported of you;\nYet behold, ample faith in our minds,\nDoubt laid aside, has now become clear concerning you.\nTherefore, the words of the Most High God —\nTo be cherished with such newness — and your office,\nAnd what commands you bid us take up, in sum (1):\nWe open ready ears to you.\n(1) A copyist\u0026rsquo;s error. An imperative verb is required, like instaura.\nHe had spoken, and the virgin, turning her face\nReverently, returns such words: O king, O Charles,\nHonour-bearing light of kings, defender of the faith\nAnd of fostering Church, nobler offspring\nAnd mighty in arms — it is needful first\nThat you have courage and manly strength of mind,\nFor great care follows you as ruler,\nWhose shoulders so great a commonwealth of the realm\nWeighs down, and the bowed Gallic house assails.\nWith suppliant prayer to the ruling God now,\nO king, may you be willing to serve the King,\nA lord to the Lord who rules, who granted\nThat you may at last by the sword drive off\nThe Saxon English, the ancient foes, from the Carolian\nRealms; and that you be tinged with consecrated chrism\nAnd crowned after the manner of former kings.\nThat you may see, doubtless, those ancient foes\nOf the Frankish name driven back by Christ\u0026rsquo;s virtue,\nNot your own, and yourself restored\nInto your kingdom or crowned, a woman came\nAs leader of the deed. That Charles may prevail,\nI shall lay the foundations. I myself will first\nBe armed in gleaming arms, and will bear a standard\nSigned with the image of the heavenly King;\nRound about shall flower the lilies of the realm.\nThe warrior troop shall follow me with nearer step.\nMoreover the almighty Lord, who bids time move on\nFrom eternity, who created us men and all things,\nSees the brambles of errors grow many — that with piety\nThey contemn the faith, forsake the straight path\nOf exceeding virtue, and evils arise in the multitude.\nThat therefore the vices, torn up by the root,\nMany in number, and the seeds of virtues may grow\nMore widely on every side, God has taken you\nTo Himself, as a husbandman through his fields.\nBe pious, O good king, like that great Charles\nFrom whose example you draw your name in long succession;\nNor without God\u0026rsquo;s intent do you run seventh,\nNay filled with the sevenfold gift; now, a second Charles,\nYou shall wage other wars for Christ\u0026rsquo;s sacred name,\nTo give peace and liberty to the Church.\nO then, gladly enclose your limbs, consecrated\nBy all the starry arms, and gird your thigh\nWith a strong sword, and take your shield\nUpon your neck, strenuous one; and mighty of soul,\nLover of virtue and of equity,\nBe gracious to the good, to the wicked a foe\nTo be feared; be spotless, to be gazed on\nBy lands and stars; be mindful of God and of me,\nAnd of pious things — for God, in the rich treasuries\nOf heaven, keeps hidden many miracles which He\nWill make in fit season. Be ever ready\nTo obey His commands. The virgin had finished;\nTo whom the king said: I assent to your prayers;\nNay, let us all obey God\u0026rsquo;s commands rejoicing —\nHim who rains sudden aid on those hoping in Him,\nWho alone, governing peoples, kings and kingdoms,\nHas often entrusted salvation to the human race\nBy womanly hands. Why should I tell of Judith\u0026rsquo;s\nBrave heart? Why the praises of noble queen Esther?\nThe sweetest virgin Mary alone was the woman\nWho with tears renewed joys to a full world.\nHe spoke, and the stars were radiant in the dark night,\nWhen these things were fulfilled; and making an end,\nThey withdraw.\n(1) Copyist\u0026rsquo;s error. An imperative verb is required, such as instaura.\nHere ends the First Book.\nSecond Book # Thus far the coming of the virgin and her office\nAnd the cause of her journey have been shown to you;\nNow her deeds follow. There is a city of the Franks,\nThey called it Orléans, rich enough in wealth\nAnd safest with high walls. Round it a crown\nOf towers girded seven gates, beside which\nFlows with great flood the Loire, coming\nFrom the Alvernian mounts, and borne with rapid\nBillows into the sea\u0026rsquo;s waves. France cleft herself\nIn discordant part by the river: on this side\nThe boundary for the Franks, on that the boundary\nFor the English. The Gallic king possessed\nThe outer part; the Englishman occupies the inner,\nThe richer in towns and peoples; but Orléans\nHad remained under the king of the Franks.\nThe Saxons came with proud array; they prepare\nTo gird its walls with siege, desiring\nTo destroy it wholly or to keep it for their king.\nThe wicked man knows how to presume, never content\nWith what he has gained, and seeking greater things\nOpens other jaws for himself. O savage plague\nOf the soul, realm-ruining greed! Now the cohort\nIs driven by furies, now the warlike Englishman\nUrges on the crime; yet it pleased them first,\nBefore untamed rage, to try the men with gentle speech.\nMeanwhile Henricus (1), the Saxons\u0026rsquo; leader, from without\nAddressed the besieged: You see what fortune is,\nO citizens, how great experience in our arms.\nOur king is victor, yours everywhere defeated;\nIn our hands are death and life and safety.\nTake counsel for the common good, if you wish to live safe.\nNow give up the keys, conquered by better arms.\nTo him thus boasting the besieged youth answered\nWith one man\u0026rsquo;s mouth: Joined in concordant treaty,\nWe need no admonition: we see what fortune is,\nAnd we follow the Frankish king. If you prepare\nImpious wars, we surely shall never die unavenged.\nMoreover the time shall come when, conquered,\nThe Englishman shall depart, shamefully cast out\nFrom our bounds. The Gallic land cannot bear\nCruel tyrants. But go quickly far from our walls;\nFor why does it please to waste words? He spoke:\nNow thick fly the blows of slings, now weapons\nAnd winged arrows together; the madness of arms\nAnd the savage lust of slaughter grew,\nAnd Bellona poured out human gore.\nNot otherwise did those above confound with lightning\nThe giants\u0026rsquo; dire endeavours, of Caius and savage\nTyphoeus and the sworn brothers to rend the heavens.\nThey went to every impiety; but night\u0026rsquo;s shadow\nFalling from above, wrapping the peoples,\nRepressed both parties.\n(1) What English general\u0026rsquo;s name is hidden beneath this corrupted word?\n(2) Correct: aut.\nNot far from the high walls, under night,\nThe English set seven camps in order\nAt the seven gates, enclosing them\nWith a mighty rampart\u0026rsquo;s strength, and thence\nThey hasten to gird the fields far and wide with a ditch.\nThe work boils up, a scarce-stormable mound arises:\nThe Orléanais, at the sun\u0026rsquo;s risen light,\nSee the English camps around, and the sudden\nLabours of the past night; the Saxons running\nOver the fields full of ambush, the wretched\nHusbandmen trembling and dragged headlong\nInto captive bounds; no path lay open\nTo the city for those who sought it;\nThe bloody foe occupies every way.\nThe citizens, possessed of valour and counsel given,\nWith one accord desire to succumb to death\nSooner than to bear the English tyrants.\nTherefore they prepare to defend the walls with arms,\nTo overthrow the camps when the foes are expelled,\nTo meet death, to oppose arms to the proud-making\nArms, and to commit themselves and theirs\nTo the sacred lily-bearing king.\nFor a long time now the youth besieged\nWithin the walls had borne all the weights\nOf wars, when stealthy famine,\nAll victuals consumed, rushed in and filled\nThe peoples with wretched terror.\nNor was there hope of succour anywhere\nFor the hungry in human things;\nBut bellowing with loud voice,\nAll besought with tearful weeping\nThe heavenly aid of God. Although a great way\nLay between them and the royal roofs, so great\nAn anguish resounded in the distant ears of the king.\nHe shuddered with dread, broken by love\nOf his peoples; then raging with grief\nHe turned his eyes upon all his men-at-arms,\nHelpless and few in the joined storm.\nHe redoubles his groans; but the virgin raised her voice:\nThis labour seeks me, noble King Charles;\nI shall go, I shall go; I shall bear grain\nTo the fasting citizens, and I shall plunder\nThe English tents and overthrow the high camps\nFrom the foundation. The cruel foe shall fall\nAnd we shall conquer them: believe the prophetess\u0026rsquo;s words.\nThere is here with you one horse swifter than these,\nWhich once that valiant man Peter, lord of Beauvau (1),\nGave to your brother — faithful and beloved by you,\nAnd who suffered many wounds for you in war,\nNow known through all the world. This courser\nI ask; borne upon him, I shall sit.\nGive me, king, likewise a thousand men covered\nIn all arms, and two hundred, warlike only.\nI shall arm myself as well and go before\nMy comrades armed, and I shall bear a standard\nSigned with the image of the heavenly King:\nRound about shall flower the lilies of the realm.\nThe warrior troop shall follow me with nearer step.\nEach one shall bear the sign of the cross\nUpon his shield, and upon his arms\nYour name, O Christ. We shall go in such order.\nShe had spoken, and the king obeyed her words.\n(1) This Pierre de Beauvau, governor of Anjou and Maine, seneschal of Anjou and Provence, was the greatest personage of the court of Louis III, king of Sicily. The deed on whose occasion he is named here is found nowhere else. As for the brother of Charles VII to whom he had made gift of a horse, one may hesitate between the dauphin Louis who died in 1416, or the dauphin Jean who died in 1417; so that this horse was very old indeed.\nSo she went forth, bearing the standards,\nHer column arrayed — the Maid.\nShe urges her horse with pricking spurs,\nAnd each man-at-arms and soldier follows Joan\nGoing before. One idle youth, born of noble blood,\nBy name Furtivolus (2), an unjust master of love,\nSitting high on his horse and burning with base lust,\nWas talkative and vain. Meeting the Maid,\nWhen he saw her tender, bearing arms to the neck,\nGleaming in unaccustomed dress and iron\u0026rsquo;s hardness,\nGrave with open brow and lovely with beauty\nOf countenance, and ruling her swift steed\nWith better rein and holding the standards\nOf faith with her own hand: bereft of mind,\nHe poured from his breast such words:\nO would that it were granted me to fight,\nBare with the bare girl; having overcome\nIn girlish combat, I should go off victor!\nThe wretch had spoken, and, a trembling coming over him,\nHe suddenly fell and quivered, slain by sudden death.\nTherefore, wandering youths, curb your reins;\nFearing light mouths and hands, since sad words\nOf the wicked are stirred by such examples.\n(2) This name seems to be only a sobriquet. The personage is named by no other author; but the anecdote is given at length in the deposition of Jean Pasquerel, vol. III, p. 102.\nCease, reader, to admire the womanly acts\nOf past ages and the battles waged by maidens\nWith mighty valour, to which heathen poets\nHave often dictated songs. Now let mighty Amazon\nPenthesilea cease to be named; now wondrous\nSemiramis of old grows common, forgotten;\nNow the deeds of the virgin Camilla, O Virgil,\nHeld so clear in your voice, lie hid.\nI complain indeed that the deeds of great men are small:\nNor shall soft things come to be celebrated\nBy such words. Great Maeonides and he feared\nBy the Thunderer, and Pyrrhus, spirited alike\nIn his father\u0026rsquo;s image, and pious Aeneas,\nAnd eloquent Ulysses too — pressed down\nWith their companions they shall yield to womanly praise.\nIt is not meet henceforth to sing Herculean labours,\nThough while yet small he crushed the twin serpents,\nPreluding the Hydra; though he sent down\nTo black death the vigilant keeper of the rich garden,\nAnd slew with the sword the bull that wandered\nA terror to peoples through the pastures of Crete;\nAnd the swift lion and the lightning boar;\nThough he prostrated Antaeus on the Libyan sands,\nAnd dragged the three-throated dog\u0026rsquo;s necks\nBound in dreadful chains. For the labour\nOf one Maid through the Gallic fields shall be\nGreater than these, and she shall tame greater monsters.\nLet us sing her over; let us give her new songs.\nO glory! O mirror for the fields! O goddess\nOf the countryside! O crowned with various roses\nAnd red purple, beautifully mingled through the white lilies!\nO fragrant with violets! O threshing-floor\nOf salvation for the citizens, bestowing counsel,\nPouring comfort to the grieving! O terror\nOf the English-born! O missile lightning-bolt\nTo the wicked! O leader of the warlike race,\nYet great glory to the lily-bearing king!\nI marvel who, how, when, has priced you\nWith the gift of such fair praises.\nNot flesh, not blood, nor a grandsire counting ancestors\nConferred such glory on you; not the long train\nOf years in a long line, nor experience of things,\nNor the wealth of kings or of the race,\nNor the throng of sages; but eternal God\nAnd virtue equal to all, which loves all —\nGreat, lowly, middling. For the powerful Maid\nMerited the honour of a noble mind\nBeneath the hay-lofts and small farm\nOf a poor husbandman — she, foster-child\nOf so great a sire, who, keeper of the flocks,\nWandered in empty fields until her fifteenth summer\nRose again for her. Do we believe this,\nOr fashion dreams? And yet I bring true report.\nThen, leaving the flowers of the poor garden\nAnd the woolly flock, she tamed the herds\nOf armed men — a chieftain greater than a great host —\nAnd ministered serving weapons to the king.\nO happy woman, whose memorable name,\nWhile battles shall be, shall be venerated\nThrough all the age!\nShe herself, surmounting the ways,\nSwimming mounts and rivers, girt by foes\nAnd a small soldiery, bringing the succour\nOf life — the manly virgin, with swift impulse,\nThe English much marvelling and even unwilling,\nPassed into the besieged city and filled\nThe hungry with meats and grain.\nWith new bread the youths rejoice,\nThey throng the sacred rites; songs of gladness\nRun among the thousands of the people.\nThe starving throng of the wretched could scarce\nBelieve the virgin\u0026rsquo;s aid, bringing the gifts of life;\nAnd when faith was made plain, the false veil cast off,\nThe people sat down to feast. Now both sexes\nIn silence snatch the dainties from the tables\nAnd wines from the flagons. From the dainties\nWent forth vigour, and by Bacchus\u0026rsquo; divine gift\nA greater daring clave to their spirits,\nWhen their limbs, sated, are repaired in strength.\nTherefore the youths, filled, singing sweet melody,\nShook the following night with praises and psalms.\nThe other day, risen, had grown from the light-bringing\nHinge of the sun, about to see the English in rout.\nThen Joan comforts her comrades with clear voice:\nO brave souls, O happy Gallic youth,\nO chosen race, surpassing with your arms —\nToday the King of heaven shall offer great honours.\nTo the English-born fortune has until now\nGiven favour in headlong whirlwind;\nBut moved with her wonted motions she shall give\nHer back to those to whom she showed her face before.\nNow comes to us from the Lord of heaven\nA safer victory, resounding through the long\nTimes of the age. Therefore let each soldier\nStand fixed in his rank, man-at-arms and foot,\nAnd in hope take up the battle.\nThis I foretell you: for the many I shall now\nEndure one wound, perchance a little hurtful to me.\nShe had spoken, and all murmured with various speech.\nThe clamour of men and blare of trumpets resounded;\nEach soldier stands raging for arms, ready for battle.\nWith like exhortation, greatest Caesar,\nDid you once summon to war your comrades\nPent within narrow walls, promising ample rewards\nTo the victors against Pompey flying\nThrough the Thessalian fields. The English then\nRan this way up and that way down;\nThey prepare the camps with arms and to defend\nThemselves, and to take the fields and the space\nOf earth for themselves; at last the virgin Maid,\nRushing through weapons, through columns,\nAddresses the savage foes: Now on condition,\nUnder the spear — these places, Saxons,\nSurrender to the king of the Franks.\nTrust my counsel; you can save your lives.\nScarcely had she spoken thus, when an arrow,\nDriven from the string, flew and pierced\nThe virgin\u0026rsquo;s right shoulder. She would have fallen\nFrom her horse; but one swift man-at-arms\nCaught her maiden limbs and bending members,\nAnd, drawing the iron by force, dried the wound\nAnd its hurt trace, the rosy gore being shed\nThrough her white limbs; with gentle hands\nAnd soft silk he wiped it, and then,\nA warm medicine of oil poured over it,\nHe also put a little of black wool\nWith its juice (1) beneath, and bound the wound\nSweetly on the instant, and gave her back\nHer arms as she sought them again.\nFiercer after the wound the virgin runs back\nTo the fight and exhorts her comrades\nWith renewed voice: Scale now the walls, youths,\nDrive off the conquered, ruinous foes,\nFor the highest grace aids us!\nThey do not otherwise than she bade;\nNow they beat the strong walls with engines\nAnd the sling\u0026rsquo;s uneven blow. Hence wild weapons\nRain down, and thence more by hail\nAre the men\u0026rsquo;s golden shields beaten\nAnd the empty helms. Slain bodies lie;\nThe English camps stream with purple gore;\nThe wretched die unavenged, or flee in fear,\nOr, captive, beg for bonds.\n(1) Fault of the manuscript. Read succo (?)\nThe Gauls hurl fire through the rampart\u0026rsquo;s oaks.\nIt burns the timbers and loosens the great stones;\nIt fell forward, and the mound, greater in falling,\nWas laid bare. Four tents in number were taken\nAnd destroyed together, in the first whirlwind\nOf the battle; but three camps remained\nThrough the near night, whose keepers,\nBroken by too great dread, seeing their comrades\nConquered by the Maid\u0026rsquo;s virtue,\nSlip away silently through the friendly silences\nOf night and, trusting only to their feet,\nLeave the camps. Scarcely had it been granted\nTo human powers — but rather to heavenly —\nTo drive off that siege, to which England had sent,\nWith especial virtues, her flowers and great-souled\nLeaders and men mighty in arms for wars,\nAnd youths taught to fight with arrows.\nAgain Orléans sounds more joyfully\nWith praises and psalms, and renders solemn rites\nTo the King above, by whose aid victory\nHad come to the city. Then the Gallic valour\nOf the youths, wondrous to relate — unhurt\nBy wound, unscathed by missiles — divides\nAmong them the spoil found, at the Maid\u0026rsquo;s command;\nAnd the victors, joyful in the divine gift,\nBore back the English bound in manifold ropes,\nAnd, celebrating the Maid with triumphal praise,\nCarried the victorious weapons to the lily-bearing king.\nHere it ends, thanks be to God.\nMartin Le Franc # This author, who was provost of the cathedral of Lausanne, published in 1440, under the title of Champion des Dames, a counterpart of the Romance of the Rose, in which he introduced the curious discussion that will now be read. The passage deserves every consideration, not only on account of its date — for it was written sixteen years before the legal rehabilitation of the Maid — but also because the work to which it belongs was dedicated to the Duke of Burgundy. I give the text not after the editions, which are all defective, but after a magnificent manuscript made at Arras in 1451 for the use of the duke himself. It is no. 632-2 of the French Supplement in the Bibliothèque Royale.\nOf my lady Joan the Maid, newly seen in France # THE CHAMPION.\nWhat could the duchesses do\nAgainst their harmful enemies,\nThe queens and the princesses?\nWhat will the knowing ones think of it,\nWhen lately a maid, without\nAbundance of worldly goods,\nHas broken all the mightiest\nAnd put to death the swiftest?\nOf the Maid I wish to speak,\nWho delivered Orléans,\nWhere Salisbury lost his eye,\nAnd then an ill death struck him.\nIt was she who recovered\nThe honour of the French in such wise\nThat by right she shall have\nRenown of it perpetually.\nYou know how she was apprised\nTo bear lances and harness;\nHow by her great enterprise\nThe English were cast down;\nHow from Bourges or from Blois\nThe king sallied under her surety,\nAnd in a very great host of French\nWent before Paris in France.\nWhence it came, and why and how:\nYou know it well, so I will be silent;\nBut whoever in book or comment\nShould wish to retell her miracles,\nIt will be said that it could not be\nThat Joan had not a divine spirit\nWhich to accomplish such things\nThus inflamed and inspired her.\nThe adversary answers the Champion, and briefly recounts the error and the abuse that had been made of Joan the Maid.\nSHORT-UNDERSTANDING.\nWhen you heard brother Thomas (1),\nAnswered Short-Understanding,\nDid you not judge and affirm\nThat he lived most saintly?\nDid not all cry commonly:\n\u0026lsquo;Tis a saint come on earth?\nNevertheless you know certainly\nTo what end he came.\nHe was not priest nor subdeacon,\nAnd yet he sang mass\nWith subdeacon and deacon.\nHappy was he who was not there;\nScarcely did they kiss the earth\nOn which he had walked;\nHe did with the people at his will:\nThere was no other market.\nNow he was burnt on the Roman\nCapitol, his malice seen.\nThus I say that foolish folk\nAre very lightly deceived;\nAnd a great fraud, conceived\nAnd conducted by a lively wit,\nIn the time that runs, is not perceived\nNor known by all people.\nWithout speaking in many a wise\nOf how the Maid armed herself,\nCan no one who loved Orléans\nPerceive this saint —\nWho emboldened and inflamed her\nAnd taught her what she should say?\nBut, by God, as I am told,\nMuch otherwise it would be done.\nI have been told for certain\nThat, like a page, she served\nIn her youth a captain,\nWhere she saw the art of bearing harness;\nAnd when youth ravished her\nAnd she wished to show her sex,\nShe was counselled to take to\nBearing harness and lance;\nThen Force, considering her manner,\nThat to Orléans she would come\nAnd, like a simple shepherdess,\nWould ask and answer,\nAnd how she would give signs\nTo the king and to his parliament,\nBy which it would be understood\nThat she came divinely.\nForce also — those who told her\nThat she should use this practice —\nAdvised several of the English\nTo use the necromantic art,\nAnd thus their faith, which was founded\nOn so frail a foundation,\nAnd their fantastic hardihood\nWould abuse in divers ways.\nThen in time how they believed\nIn this contrived farce,\nAs soon as fortune increased\nHer deeds — there was the voice raised:\nNow the war shall be ended,\nSo help us God and Saint Avoye!\nSurely the thing is well proved:\nGod sends the Maid into France!\n(1) Here the manuscript bears in marginal gloss: Of the abuse and error of brother Thomas Couette, native of Le Mans, taken by order of Eugene, Pope IV, in Carmelite habit, degraded and burnt at Rome on the Capitol. The history of Thomas Couette is told at length by Monstrelet, at the years 1428 and 1432.\nThe excuse of Joan the Maid # THE CHAMPION.\nShe could not have made the signs,\nSaid the Champion frankly,\nIf God by His worthy powers\nHad not made her advancement.\nAlso she did in a moment\nWhat had not been done twenty years before.\nTo whom God gives hardihood,\nHe conquers always and draws ahead:\nAlso I believe in good faith\nThat the angels accompanied her,\nFor they, as I see in Jerome,\nLove and embrace chastity;\nAnd I hold it true that they helped her\nTo gain the strong bulwarks,\nAnd at Patay put out the eyes\nOf the English cast to the ground.\nAlso let it be no marvel to you,\nThough it be an unwonted thing,\nIf the Maid clothed herself\nIn doublet and shortened robe;\nFor she was the more dreaded for it,\nAnd open and light,\nAnd counted for a proud prince,\nNot for a simple shepherdess.\nA hat of felt she wore,\nA struck huque and short robes:\nI grant it; also her deed was other\nThan that of all women.\nThe long coat — doubt not —\nFor deeds of war is not good.\nItem, very often you hear\nThat the habit makes not the monk.\nProper arms require garb;\nThere is none so foolish but he knows it.\nSome are fitting to be in town,\nOthers to bear lance or axe.\nWhen a falcon is loosed at prey,\nIts long pendents are taken off.\nAlso he who hunts his enemies\nHas no need of a long coat.\nLet them say of her what they will —\nTheirs is the speaking and the silence;\nBut her praises shall not fail\nFor the lies they may make.\nWhat more need be retold?\nBy her virtue, by her valiance,\nIn despite of every adversary,\nCrowned was the king of France.\nTHE ADVERSARY.\nI hold this language frivolous,\nFor never did God send her,\nSaid the adversary with the false face,\nWho has great spite at Joan.\nHa! he said — presumption\nLed her too far astray, whatever they say!\nReason also destined her\nTo be burnt at Rouen in Normandy.\nTHE CHAMPION.\nThat is ill understood, fat head,\nReplied Free-Will promptly.\nOf how many saints do we keep the feast\nWho died shamefully!\nThink of Jesus first,\nAnd then of His blessed martyrs;\nThen you will judge evidently\nThat in this deed you know not yourself.\nYour arguments are worth little\nAgainst the innocent Maid,\nOr that of God\u0026rsquo;s secret judgments\nWorse should be felt upon her;\nAnd it is right that all consent\nTo give her honour and glory\nFor her most excellent virtue,\nFor her strength and for her victory.\nTHE AUTHOR.\nThen the adversary, angered\nTo hear Joan preached,\nSaid to him: You have preached too much of her;\nThink to blazon another.\nOne could bring none worse\nTo accomplish what you wish;\nFor it is enough to drive one mad\nOr to tear out one\u0026rsquo;s hair.\nMartial d\u0026rsquo;Auvergne # Martial called d\u0026rsquo;Auvergne, born in Paris in 1440, died in 1508, was procurator at the Parlement and notary of the Châtelet. Under the title of Vigiles du roi Charles VII, he rhymed the chronicle of Jean Chartier with a facility which earned him the greatest reputation. This work was finished in 1484 and offered to King Charles VIII. The manuscript which served for the dedication is in the Bibliothèque Royale (no. 9677). At the end is read the following subscription traced in vermilion: Here end the Vigils of the death of the late Charles Seventh, in nine psalms and nine lessons, finished at Chaillot near Paris, on Michaelmas eve in the year fourteen eighty-four. Excuse the author who is new. Marcial of Paris. The author calls himself new: it must be understood of the trade of verse.\nThe Vigils of Charles VII have had many gothic editions. The moderns have held them in less favour, for they have been reprinted but once in the last century. We extract from them what concerns Joan of Arc, although the substance of the narrative is the same as Chartier\u0026rsquo;s; but one finds in it, besides some differences of detail, interesting reflections and a mention of the rehabilitation trial — the only one that has been consigned to a French writing of the fifteenth century.\nIn this season of sorrow (1)\nCame to the king a shepherdess\nFrom the village called Vaucouleurs,\nWhom they named Joan the Maid:\nShe was a poor shepherdess\nWho kept the ewes in the fields,\nOf a sweet and humble manner,\nOf the age of eighteen years.\n(1) The battle of the Herrings.\nBefore the king they led her,\nOne or two of her acquaintance,\nAnd then she bowed,\nDoing him reverence.\nThe king in jest went on to say:\nHa! my dear, I am not he.\nTo which she answered: Sire,\nIt is you, and I do not err.\nIn God\u0026rsquo;s name, she said,\nGentle king, I shall lead you\nTo be crowned at Reims, whoever watches,\nAnd I shall raise the siege of Orléans.\nThe late king, without being moved,\nHad clerks and doctors chosen,\nTo question her and know\nWho moved her to say this.\nAt Chinon she was questioned\nBy some and others very greatly,\nTo whom, for assigned reason,\nShe answered wisely.\nEach one marvelled at her,\nAnd to come to the truth,\nShe spoke of several great things\nThat have since been seen to come to pass.\nShe said all publicly:\nThat the late king would recover\nAll his kingdom entirely,\nAnd that God would help him so.\nWhich words and terms finished,\nShe asked the king and his people\nThat they give her harness and arms\nTo go to Orléans.\nThe said supplication\nWas granted without contradiction,\nAnd by deliberation\nShe had men-at-arms to conduct her.\nLoré and other men of war\nTook her to Blois,\nWhence she took road and land\nTo go upon the English.\nVictuals and goods were loaded\nTo bring into Orléans,\nAnd the French lay that night\nIn Sologne amid the fields.\nThe next day they came to close\nNear a bastille fiercely,\nSo that they made the English\nAbandon it very lightly.\nNotwithstanding all resistance,\nThe Maid and the French passed,\nWith all their victuals and power;\nWhereby they greatly comforted the town.\nAfterwards, they returned to Blois,\nShe prayed that they should fetch\nFrom the church of Fierbois\nA sword, for her, of war.\nThither they sent without gainsay,\nAnd the said sword was found\nJust as she had said,\nAnd afterwards it was brought to her (1).\nDunois then came to arrive,\nPraying each that duty be done\nTo go raise the said siege,\nOr all was lost indeed.\n(1) Anachronism.\nOn the eve of the Ascension,\nIn the year four hundred twenty-nine,\nAll took such affection\nTo go there, and new courage.\nSo they departed in fair array,\nDesiring to labour there,\nBringing her victuals and carts\nTo victual the French.\nThe same Maid had it said\nTo the English, howsoever it might be,\nThat they should go off at a fair pace,\nIf they did not wish it to go ill with them.\nOut of despite and to avenge themselves,\nThey seized on every side\nThat herald and messenger,\nWishing him to be burnt and burned.\nSo they sent to Paris,\nTo counsel them thereon;\nBut meanwhile they were undone,\nAnd the said herald had no ill at all.\nThe French entered the town\nWith their victuals and standard,\nIn the presence of the English, who dared not\nThen stir from their boulevard.\nAbout three hours after,\nThe chiefs of war and men of the town,\nThe Maid being hard by,\nGained a bastille.\nThere died some sixty English,\nAnd of their men and partisans\nWere surrendered to the Count of Dunois\nSome twenty-two prisoners.\nIn the evening the French crossed\nThe river towards the Sologne,\nTo assail in the manner\nIn which the work had been undertaken.\nThe English being in the bastilles\nOf the Beauce and of the Augustins,\nDid no great skirmishing that day,\nAnd there were no great blows nor din.\nBut when the French, late in the day,\nWould recross in their boats,\nThe English sallied out against them,\nThinking to kill and wound them.\nWhereon firm foot they held to them,\nAnd after a very great fight,\nThe French did so much that they took\nAnd gained a bastille.\nOne Saturday, the morrow,\nThey had much of pain,\nFighting hand to hand\nAgainst the bastille of the bridge.\nEach struck as if stunned,\nHoping to win the ditch;\nAnd the assault lasted from noon\nUntil the sun was hidden.\nThe Maid had a blow\nFrom an arrow that glanced upon her;\nBut notwithstanding the pain and all,\nNever did she leave the host for it.\nEach one with heart and courage\nLaboured there with great power;\nAnd one would have seen done there\nFeats of arms and of valiance.\nSo it befell that in one movement\nThe French entered the town,\nAnd that by arms valiantly\nThey gained the said bastilles.\nThere were many English slain\nIn this assault, as one may believe,\nAnd the others were drowned\nBy their bridge which sank in the Loire.\nIn the town, the news known,\nAll the bells were rung,\nMaking a marvellous great feast,\nAnd everywhere they sang Te Deum.\nAnd there the Count of Dunois,\nThe admiral, Poton and La Hire,\nGaucourt and other French chiefs,\nDid great valiance, to tell the truth.\nTalbot, on the Sunday morning,\nAbandoned the said siege,\nAnd took his way and road\nTowards Meung-sur-Loire, whither he drew.\nAs Talbot went away,\nAn Augustin, his confessor,\nWould have brought a French prisoner\nAfter his lord.\nBut the said Frenchman, in irons,\nBy the Augustin before the people,\nHad himself carried, willy-nilly,\nOn his neck into Orléans.\nAfter, the Earl of Suffolk,\nWith five hundred English lances,\nCame to Jargeau to fortify it strongly\nTo resist the French.\nThe said Jargeau was assailed,\nWhere the English held very strongly,\nShowing they had no failed heart;\nBut the French took it by assault.\nAt the taking of the said Jargeau\nThere were some five hundred English\nWho left their skin there,\nBesides the prisoners of the French.\nAlso the Earl of Suffolk\nWas taken prisoner under the bridge,\nAnd his brother drowned or dead,\nWho had done whole duty.\nThence the French and the Maid\nCame before Beaugency,\nOf which the English had such fear\nThat all put themselves at mercy.\nBefore the assault they came to terms;\nAlso they had need of it;\nAnd thereupon went off thence,\nEach one with his staff in fist.\nAbout two hours after\nCame news into the town\nThat Talbot was marching nearby,\nAnd of English some five thousand.\nThe lord of Scales, Fastolf,\nHad arrived with them,\nTo succour Talbot,\nWherefore the English bore themselves big.\nThen the chiefs and lords of France,\nWho had been at Orléans,\nPut themselves in order\nTo go fight them in the fields.\nMoreover Richemont, the constable,\nWith d\u0026rsquo;Albret, d\u0026rsquo;Alençon\nCame there in notable company,\nAnd in an army of great fashion.\nEach of the parties drew\nAs best they could in very fair array,\nSo that hardly did it remain\nBefore they found themselves at Patay.\nThe English, near a village,\nWere in battle waiting,\nAnd then the French courageously\nStruck upon them foot-in.\nThe Maid, Poton, La Hire\nCharged upon them on horseback,\nSo that they made them flee,\nCasting down several below.\nThen the battles joined,\nAnd they fought greatly;\nBut the French won the field,\nAnd the victory valiantly.\nThere of English and of their men\nDied, by number counted,\nSome twenty-three hundred,\nAnd two hundred taken on the other side.\nThe lord of Scales, Fastolf\nAnd others were prisoners,\nAnd also the said Talbot,\nThen put to ransom of money.\nThe day after ensuing,\nMeung, Janville, La Ferté\nSurrendered at once,\nAnd other towns in plenty.\nNow let us note here the marvel,\nThe deeds of God and the virtues,\nWhen at the voice of a Maid\nThe English were cast down.\nA thing come from God,\nA sign of a loving God,\nOf which nevertheless the coming\nWas profitable to the kingdom.\nOur Lord commonly\nIs not wont to work,\nNor to give alleviation,\nWhen it can be found elsewhere.\nBut where nature and humans\nHave no more power and puissance,\nIt is then that He puts His hands to it,\nAnd works His grace and clemency.\nIn the month of June of that year,\nThe king had all bidden\nTo repair to Gien\nTo go to Reims to be crowned.\nSoon there was a great assembly\nOf the barons and nobles of France,\nWho all came to this army\nWith heart and all diligence.\nThere were the Dukes of Bourbon,\nAlençon, Vendôme, Dunois,\nRichemont, La Hire, Poton,\nAnd all the valiant French chiefs.\nSeveral others without being summoned\nCame there likewise,\nTo serve the king and aid him\nIn the deed of his coronation.\nNow, on this point it is to be noted\nThat Reims, Troyes, Châlons, the Auxerrois,\nWhither one must pass,\nWere held by the English.\nAll Champagne and Picardy,\nBrie, Gâtinais, the Isle of France,\nAnd the country of Normandy,\nWere in their obedience.\nThe king, to conquer his country,\nNotwithstanding, drew his way\nStraight before the town of Auxerre,\nWhere his host stayed three days.\nSo obedience was done him\nAnd entry by the inhabitants,\nWho had a respite\nWith which several were not content.\nFor this arrangement La Trémoille\nWas much blamed;\nAnd then Richemont went away,\nFor between them there was discord (1).\nThe king had it cried in the host:\nThat the men-at-arms should go\nWith their chiefs, without delay,\nAnd without amusing themselves in anything.\n(1) Anachronism.\nThe said Maid, going along,\nMet before her view\nTwo little girls and a gallant\nWho were leading a dissolute life.\nSo she struck upon them rudely,\nAs hard as she could with her sword,\nAnd upon men-at-arms in such wise\nThat it was cut in two parts.\nTo beat them was no harm;\nAnd it was told her by the assembly\nThat she ought to strike with a staff,\nWithout cutting her good sword in pieces.\nThe king, the next morning,\nPut into his obedience\nThe town of Saint-Florentin,\nWhich did him great reverence.\nThence he made his way before Troyes,\nWhence the Burgundians and English\nSallied out in heaps\nTo drive away the French.\nSo the army remained there\nSome six or seven days,\nThe people being all famished\nFor want of bread and succour.\nThe men-at-arms were dying of hunger,\nAnd each was destitute,\nFor they ate only the grain\nOf wheat which grew on the ear.\nThese burgesses of Troyes wished well\nTo surrender to the king entirely;\nBut the English hindered them\nAs much as they incessantly could.\nSo a close council was held\nBy the king, who had business,\nWhere it was said and deliberated\nThat it were better to withdraw.\nSome assigned the reason\nBecause they had not wherewith to live,\nAnd that in so very brief a season\nOne could not pursue such a work.\nOn the other hand the town was strong,\nNot thus easy to take,\nSeeing the assembly and the cohort\nOf so many English to defend it.\nMoreover they had no artillery\nIn sufficiency nor otherwise,\nTo break or make a breach,\nNor money to make the payment.\nThe opinion of some was such;\nBut one among others went and said\nThat they should hear the Maid\nTo choose the conclusion.\nSo she was sent for in the host;\nAnd after she had come,\nThey recited to her at once\nThe opinion held above.\nSo she said they should not do it,\nExhorting each to strive\nAnd to perfect the enterprise,\nTo go crown the king.\nIn God\u0026rsquo;s name, she said,\nGentle king, in two days you shall enter\nInto your fair town of Troyes,\nAnd by force or love you shall have it.\nWhoever would be sure of it, said the chancellor,\nWould wait ten days within;\nBut of doing anything and labouring,\nThere would be no appearance of it.\nNevertheless, after this language,\nAll the French finally\nTook into themselves heart and courage\nTo proceed further amply.\nThat concluded, she mounted\nOn a fair great courser in hand,\nAnd into the host she carried herself\nWith a staff in her hand.\nThere she had made and brought\nTrestles, faggots, doors and rafters,\nTo make a hut to throw\nOne bombard and two cannons.\nWhen those of the town of Troyes\nSaw this diligence,\nThey asked by all ways\nTo parley and for respite.\nThen they came to make agreement\nWith the late king of France,\nSurrendering to him entirely\nThe town into his obedience.\nBut it was said that the English\nAnd men of war should go away\nWith their goods and harness,\nAnd would take their prisoners with them.\nThus, the morrow, the king\nEntered into his town of Troyes,\nIn fair order and array,\nAnd there he was received with great joy.\nThe children cried Noël;\nFires and sports were made there;\nAnd he and his people feasted them;\nWhereby they were all refreshed.\nThe English wished at departing\nTo lead away their French prisoners;\nBut the Maid would not consent\nNor suffer them to be taken away.\nShe herself came to the gate\nTo take them from the English\u0026rsquo; hands,\nTelling them in good sort\nThat she would not let them be carried off.\nThe French knelt down,\nPraying her to aid them,\nAnd implored her grace\nThat she would keep them in it.\nThe English wished to maintain\nThat it was great fraud and malice\nTo come against the treaty,\nAsking that justice be done them.\nThe king, who knew the news of it,\nBegan to smile within himself\nAt the dispute and the quarrel,\nAnd was joyful at it, to tell the truth.\nShortly it was agreed, for the prisoners,\nThat he should pay to the English in cash\nAll their ransom from his money;\nThus each was content.\nWhen the English, according to the accord,\nHad their money and ransom,\nThey praised the late king greatly,\nCalling him a prince of fashion.\nHe was prized for the justice\nThat he kept to his enemies,\nAnd that he had in the exercise\nOf his host all abuses put aside.\nHow many were there who would have said:\nThe villains are more than paid;\nLet them go without gainsay,\nOr let them be hanged or drowned.\nHa! verily! that is not the way\nTo pay people and guide them;\nRather it behoves each man\nTo keep his right and reason.\nThen the king, the following day,\nSet himself in the fields in power,\nWhere those of Châlons before him\nCame to do him obedience.\nThe bishop and burgesses brought him\nInto the town honourably,\nAnd in the evening all feasted him\nMost richly and greatly.\nThe morrow he came before Reims,\nWhere, when the burgesses saw him,\nAs filled and full of joy,\nThey opened to him all the gates.\nThere he was anointed and crowned\nIn the accustomed manner,\nAnd that day it was ordained\nTo make inestimable cheer.\nThe archbishop, then chancellor,\nDid the office of the Mass,\nWhere there were a thousand people,\nMaking great feast and gladness.\nThe Dukes of Bar and of Lorraine,\nCommercy and great lords,\nCame to his service and reign\nTo offer themselves, and many others.\nAll my lords of the blood of France,\nWho were at the coronation,\nAcquired much excellence,\nPraise and honour most largely.\nAlso the barons, knights,\nNobles who came to help,\nCaptains, men, squires,\nWere worthy of commendation.\nThe news came to the eyes\nOf all the realm of France,\nWhereof many were joyful\nTo be in his obedience.\nLet us note here how Fortune,\nGoverned by the veil of God,\nAfter great ill and misfortune,\nGives great joy in this place.\nWho would have thought or hoped\nThat in so very small a movement\nThe king would have thus prospered,\nOr come to the coronation?\nSeeing the case and the hindrance,\nThe thing was not easy\nTo come to so promptly;\nBut to God nothing is difficult.\nWhat He wills to permit is soon done,\nWithout any being able to hinder,\nAnd His work is perfect,\nWherein one finds nothing to gainsay.\nIf Fortune at the beginning\nGives persecution,\nIt is to bestow afterwards,\nMore loftily, consolation.\nBoethius says in his third book\nThat adverse fortune is more sure\nTo know God and live well,\nAnd proves that it is the better.\nIt imparts humility,\nIt sustains all harsh griefs,\nAnd afterwards, by prosperity,\nOne single good makes two worthwhile.\nMany in the world complain\nOf Fortune and mischance,\nSaying that the ills which happen\nReside in her faculty;\nAnd as if she were mistress\nOf the world and of the government,\nThey maintain that joy or sadness\nProceeds from her alone.\nAnd if there happens the loss\nOf some battle or day,\nThey say it is the constellation\nOf predestined fortune.\nThat is hard to know,\nWhen one boasts of it, the other grieves;\nBut above God, who is the master,\nShe gives victory where He wills.\nThe late King Charles, passed through,\nHad very terrible great hurts,\nAnd found himself stricken very low,\nWithout any hope of relief.\nIt even befell in one year\nThat he lost, to his damage and grief,\nThe siege and day of Cravant,\nAnd the battle of Verneuil.\nAnd then at the siege of Orléans,\nWhere all must be concluded,\nThe day called the Herrings;\nAnd thus he could bear no more.\nSince then Fortune turned her stroke,\nTo provide for the rest,\nAnd God gave the victory\nTo him who was to have it.\nThe French then rallied\nTaking terrible courage,\nAnd prospered more and more,\nAnd nothing was impossible to them.\nWas it not a very great marvel\nTo have wakened so many people\nAt the rumour of a simple Maid\nAnd shepherdess bred in the fields?\nAlas! in a little hour God labours,\nNor ever fails at need;\nThe thing He wills to do is sure,\nAnd He knows well always what we lack.\nAfter the said coronation,\nThe king, with his company,\nFrom Reims came to lodge straightway\nAt Saint-Marcoul in the abbey.\nThere great service was done him\nAnd most solemn orders,\nFor by means of the sacrifice\nThe king healed of the scrofula.\nThence he came to Vailly,\nWhere he stayed all the day,\nAnd the places and country around\nSubmitted themselves to him.\nAfter, to Laon he sent\nA herald at the arms of France,\nAnd at once the town put itself\nInto his full obedience.\nSo he was received there with great joy,\nAnd the town did great duty;\nThen the king drew his way\nTowards Soissons, to have entry.\nBut just so likewise\nThey did him full obedience,\nFeasting him greatly,\nAnd all those of his alliance.\nTo him surrendered also,\nAll at once, in one movement,\nChâteau-Thierry, Provins, Crécy,\nAnd other towns largely.\nThen news came into the host\nThat the Duke of Bedford was coming,\nAnd that he would soon arrive\nWith twelve thousand he was bringing.\nThen the king had his people\nPut in battle, and well in point,\nTo strike with thrust and edge;\nBut the English came not at all.\nAfter, the king came to Crécy\nAnd knew truly that the English\nHad come to Mitry,\nThen to fight the French.\nThere the battles drew up\nOn one side as on the other,\nAnd marched so near and forward\nThat they well saw each other.\nThe skirmishers and runners\nCame running in power\nInto a village named Thieux,\nJoining the said Mitry in France.\nThere before the said village\nThey stood one whole day,\nWithout striking or doing damage,\nAnd did nothing in effect.\nThe Duke of Bedford withdrew\nTo Senlis and lodged there,\nAnd the late king retired\nTo Crécy to lodge himself.\nThe morrow he came to Compiègne\nAnd entered in great power,\nHaving the banner and ensign\nOf the noble fleurs-de-lys of France.\nThose of the town of Senlis\nAfterwards had him informed\nThat they desired the fleurs-de-lys,\nOffering to receive him.\nThe town wrought very well,\nAnd the king entered joyfully.\nMoreover, he recovered from the Beauvais\nDammalle and several other places.\nThe Duke of Bedford, who learned it,\nAt once went off to Rouen,\nFor fear that the people should rise,\nAnd set garrisons here and there.\nThen the king came to Saint-Denis,\nWhich yielded him obedience,\nLagny with the flat country,\nDependencies and adjacency.\nMoreover, proceeding further,\nHis host drew to La Chapelle,\nAnd thence to the Moulin-à-Vent (1),\nWhere there was a fair skirmish.\n(1) Half way between La Chapelle and Paris.\nThe English who were at Paris\nAll together withdrew,\nLest they should perish,\nAnd fortified the walls strongly.\nThe morrow a great company\nOf the French host at Monceaux\nCame to make an assault\nAs far as the Marché des Pourceaux.\nUnder the hill they ambushed themselves\nTo stand there under cover,\nAnd thence went off to gain\nBy assault a little boulevard.\nOn one side and the other, cannons\nAnd culverins roared,\nAnd one saw only the vanes\nOf arrows that shot through the air.\nThen Joan the Maid\nPut herself in the rear ditch,\nWhere she wrought wonders,\nWith a courage raised in ardour.\nA bolt that was shot\nCame to strike her in the leg;\nAnd yet she did not abandon it,\nNor would she ever turn away.\nWood, doors, faggots she had cast,\nAnd what was possible in the world,\nHoping to mount upon the walls;\nBut the water there was too deep.\nThe lords and men of fashion\nSent her word to come back,\nAnd the Duke of Alençon went there\nTo constrain her to withdraw.\nThe host returned to Saint-Denis,\nWhere with humble and devout terms\nShe offered, left and gave\nThe harness in which she had done arms.\nThereupon the king departed,\nAnd in the countries brought back here\nHe set some of his people, and then departed\nTowards Berry, whither he then went.\nA little after his parliament,\nSeveral English assembled\nTo draw diligently\nTo Saint-Denis, where they entered.\nThe armours of the Maid\nThere they came to take and seize\nIn a cruel vengeance,\nAnd did with them at their pleasure.\nOn the return from the coronation at Gien,\nThe king wished to send\nThe Maid before Rouen,\nTo conquer and to work.\nTrémoille and others opined\nThat there was no need of it,\nBut d\u0026rsquo;Albret and she they sent\nBefore Saint-Pierre-le-Moustier.\nThere before the town they were\nIn fair order and array,\nDoing such great duty that they had it,\nAnd that it was yielded to the king.\nAfter, they came to La Charité,\nTo besiege and take it,\nWhere for the space of a month they stayed\nWithout having it or making it surrender.\nOf the year MCCCCXXX # This year from the country of Berry\nDeparted the Maid,\nTo come succour Lagny,\nAnd other people with her.\nThen it was rumoured that the English\nWould come to besiege it;\nAnd they would have done so, if the French\nHad not made them dislodge.\nThen it came to knowledge\nThat some three hundred fighters\nOf English were in France,\nPillaging and wasting the country.\nThen she, Loré, Foucault,\nAnd another named Parrecte (1),\nSought them low and high,\nTo speak well to their barrette.\n(1) Neither the Chroniclers nor the Trials speak of this companion of the Maid; but a memorandum to be consulted on Guillaume de Flavy, given below, names Barrette as Joan\u0026rsquo;s lieutenant.\nSo it befell that they met,\nAnd that the French defeated\nThe English, of whom they killed many,\nAnd the others fled away.\nThe Burgundians and the English,\nIn the said year, with their ensign,\nCame to besiege the French\nAt Choisy, near Compiègne.\nThe Earls of Arundel, of Suffolk,\nMessire Jean de Luxembourg,\nLaboured there very hard,\nSetting the siege around it.\nThen Poton and his men crossed\nThe water, between Pont and Soissons,\nAnd killed several of the English\nAmid the woods and bushes.\nThe said Choisy defended itself\nSomewhat, and then suddenly\nThe captain sold it\nTo the English dishonestly.\nBy means of the business,\nHe was promised great advantage\nAnd great gifts from the Duke of Burgundy\nBy the conductors of the work.\nThence the Burgundians and English\nCame to besiege Compiègne,\nWhere the Maid and the French\nArrived without tarrying.\nThere were courses, skirmishes\nAnd sallies which lasted enough,\nSo it befell that at one approach\nThe French fell back very hard.\nThen at the conflict and by surprise,\nAs each drew back,\nThe said Maid was taken\nBy a Picard, near the barrier.\nThe said Picard gave her\nTo Luxembourg there present,\nWho sold her and gave her back\nTo the English for ready money.\nSo they made their show of her afterwards,\nAs having wrought very hard;\nAnd they would not have given her for London,\nFor they thought they had won all.\nEach one was sorry for her.\nAfterwards Poton, at his ensign,\nDeparted from Château-Thierry,\nTo come thence to Compiègne.\nBoussac, then marshal of France,\nVendôme with other lords,\nCame to the siege in power,\nWith many other French.\nThe said town endured\nMany afflictions and pains,\nFor the siege before it lasted\nMore than three months and six weeks.\nSo the said French did so much\nThat they gained a great ditch\nWhich the English had had made\nSo that no man should pass there.\nThat done, they entered the fields,\nBetween the forest and a place\nNear which they met\nThe English being at Beaulieu.\nThen Poton, near the Justice,\nHaving with him six score lances,\nSet his men in exercise\nTo fight and do valiant deeds.\nWhen those of the town saw\nThat it was in good earnest,\nAll in one movement sallied out\nTo join the French as well.\nSo they came to a bastille\nOf English and of Portuguese,\nWhere many died in fair number,\nFor of a hundred scarce three escaped.\nPoton\u0026rsquo;s men also came\nTo a bastille of the charnel-house,\nWhich they took by assault,\nWith many prisoners.\nThe English seeing beside them\nThe loss of the said bastilles,\nPut themselves to safety\nAnd at once made off.\nThe Burgundians went off likewise\nInto their country;\nAnd thus the French raised\nThe said siege honourably.\nThereupon the English went away,\nNot in a joyful manner,\nAnd to Rouen they took away\nThe Maid as prisoner.\nShe was very sweet, amiable,\nLamblike, without pride or envy,\nGracious, most serviceable,\nAnd who led a very fair life.\nOften she confessed\nTo have God as protector,\nNor did she let a feast pass\nWithout receiving her Creator.\nBut notwithstanding this, the English\nOn virtues and goods did not think;\nRather, in hatred of the French,\nMost harshly they treated her.\nAfter many griefs and excesses\nInflicted in many places,\nThey made her such a trial\nWhose judges were parties.\nThen at last they condemned her\nTo die grievously,\nAnd soon they burnt and burned her\nAt Rouen quite publicly.\nThus behold the judgment\nAnd the most cruel sentence\nWhich was given too harshly\nAgainst that poor Maid.\nWhether they did ill or otherwise,\nIt must be referred to God,\nWho of such cases alone\nCan know and judge above.\nNevertheless, before her death,\nShe said to the English that a time would come\nWhen they would not have a foot in France,\nAnd that they would be driven out.\nThat the late king would prosper,\nAnd that at last, without gainsay,\nHe would recover his kingdom;\nAnd thereupon she yielded up her spirit.\nIn brief she narrated several things\nThat have since been seen to come to pass,\nAll just as she had declared,\nOf which it may remind some.\nLong after this judgment,\nThe mother, and also her brothers,\nAsked the king for vengeance\nFor the death and such sentence.\nThe good lord, considering\nThat she had been in his service,\nAnd had done much in honouring him,\nRemitted the case to justice.\nIn fact he sent the trial\nTo Rome, to the Holy Father;\nWhere, without favour or admittance,\nThe matter was well viewed at length.\nThat done, he issued a mandate\nThen to summon the commissioners\nTo sustain their judgment,\nAnd to call the adverse parties.\nThe English were summoned\nAnd the parties solemnly,\nExaminations made and gathered\nUpon her whole life.\nJouvenel, archbishop of Reims,\nGreat men of justice and of good,\nChartier, then bishop of Paris,\nAnd others laboured there well.\nTo Rouen they betook themselves,\nWhere the judgment had been made,\nAnd examined men of worth\nTo know the truth of the deed.\nAfter, the trial was carried\nTo the Holy Father and the cardinals,\nAnd was well viewed and visited\nIn great diligence and pains.\nAnd all being finally seen,\nIt was said, by authentic sentence,\nThat the trial and the judgment\nMade against the Maid, iniquitous,\nWas abusive, defective,\nAnd that wrongfully she was condemned\nBy non-judges, suspect,\nDeclaring their sentence erroneous.\nIn the trial of her innocence\nThere are singular things;\nAnd it is a great pleasure\nTo see both matters.\nThe said trial is chained\nIn the library of Notre-Dame\nOf Paris, and was given there\nBy the bishop, on whose soul God have mercy (1).\n(1) This bishop is Guillaume Chartier; as for the manuscript, it is that of the Bibliothèque Royale (Notre-Dame, H 10) which has served for the present edition. See below, piece LIII.\nThe Mystery of the Siege of Orléans # This work, whose author is unknown, has no less than twenty-five thousand lines. It is preserved in the Vatican Library among the manuscripts of the Queen of Sweden, occupying by itself the whole of manuscript 1022 of that collection, which is a small paper folio composed of 509 leaves and written in a Gothic cursive of the beginning of the sixteenth century.\nM. Paul Lacroix is the first, to my knowledge, who pointed out the Mystery of the Siege of Orléans to the curious, and that in the seventh volume of his Dissertations on Some Curious Points of the History of France (Paris, 1839). Since then a German scholar, M. Adelbert Keller, gave a more extended notice of it, accompanied by extracts, in a book which appeared at Mannheim in 1844 under the title of Romvart. Finally, I have myself in my hands a voluminous notebook of notes taken on the Vatican manuscript by M. Salmon, a pupil of the École des Chartes. Thanks to these notes as well as to the indications of MM. Lacroix and Keller, I have been able to form a just idea of the value that the work in question presents as an historical document.\nThat value is nil, I hasten to say — not because the author has departed from history, but on the contrary because he has followed it too closely. His play is nothing other than the Journal of the Siege, put into dialogue and verse, with an exposition of which the idea is borrowed from the Chronicle of the Maid.\nThe work begins thus on the first leaf of the manuscript:\nThe mystery of the siege of Orléans, made, composed and compiled in the manner hereafter declared. And first Salisbury begins in England and says what follows:\nMost high and most puissant lords,\nI thank you for the great honours\nWhich it has pleased you thus to do me,\nWhen you others, greater princes,\nWho are the conservators\nOf all our territory,\nWish to make me commissioner\nTo be [and] lieutenant exemplary:\nThis is of Henry, noble king of renown.\nAs of today, there is no so noble affair.\nOf France he is king, it is all notorious,\nAnd of England, which is his own name.\nNow am I then, by your sentence,\nHis lieutenant, by your ordinance,\nChosen by you to conduct his war;\nThough many of your company are\nMore sufficient and of magnificence\nTo work better and know how to conquer;\nBut since you have thus willed to require it,\nI will obey you all without question,\nAnd be diligent therein with all my thought.\nUpon the French we must all win,\nFor by good right their land belongs to us,\nAnd their kingdom also entirely, etc., etc.\nThis speech held before the lords is very long, and longer still are the answers that follow. The end of all that is to bring on the scene the Duke of Orléans, then prisoner in London, who conjures Salisbury to spare the towns and lands of his domain. The English general promises, then changes his mind as soon as he has set foot in France. Such is the exposition.\nThe Maid does not appear until about a third of the way through the work (fol. 172 of the manuscript). She is seen keeping her father\u0026rsquo;s sheep and spinning linen. The organs play and the Archangel Michael presents himself before her to transmit God\u0026rsquo;s orders to her. From there we pass to Vaucouleurs, into Baudricourt\u0026rsquo;s lodging; then we return to Orléans to witness the passage of arms which, according to the Journal of the Siege, took place on the last day of the year between two French men-at-arms and two English. After that is seen the skirmish in which the Bastard of Bar was made prisoner, then the arrival of the Auvergnats, then the Battle of the Herrings, etc., etc.; and thus all the military actions of the siege follow one another, with a great reinforcement of trumpets and clarions which most of the time take the place of speech. The extent of the rubrics intended to explain the stage movements shows that the spectacle was rather for the eyes than for the ears.\nHere, for example, is how the last assault of the Tourelles is explained at leaves 339 and 340 of the manuscript:\nThen the trumpets shall sound louder and louder, and the English shall be all amazed to see that power come back upon them; and there is a great assault; and those of the town shall sound and sally to come succour the Maid and the men-at-arms, and shall make planks of wood to come to the Tourelles and pass over the broken arches, and then shall come to help at the boulevard of the Belle-Croix, and with such great force, on one side and the other, that the French shall win the boulevard of the Tourelles, and Glasdale and other captains shall withdraw with a great number of English upon the bridge, which they had broken. And all at once the said bridge shall fall under the said English and they shall all be drowned: to wit, Glasdale and the lord of Pont, the lord of Molins, the bailiff of Mente and several others. And the Tourelles were taken by assault and all slain, save a few prisoners who were brought into the town.\nThe mystery ends with the triumphal return of the Maid and the captains to Orléans after the victory of Patay. Talbot and the other English prisoners march before the procession to cries of Noël! uttered by the whole populace. Joan stops, has silence made by the multitude and delivers a speech of thanksgiving, of which here is the peroration:\nSo I charge you to make processions\nAnd praise God and the Virgin Mary,\nBy whom your city has not been ravished\nBy the English, nor its possessions.\nThat is enough for a book like this one. I leave to the amateurs of our ancient theatre the care of analysing at greater length, or even of publishing if they see fit, the Vatican manuscript.\nI add, apropos of dramatic representation, that the Maid had a role in a play performed at Ratisbon in 1430. It is M. de Hormayr who alleges this fact in an entirely incidental manner in his Taschenbuch for 1834 (p. 326). The subject of the German play being the war against the Hussites, Joan probably figured in it only by reason of the letter she addressed to those heretics on 3 March 1430. (See below, piece no. XXIV.)\nValeran Varanius # This author must be spoken of on account of the very great authority he enjoys in the hands of the historians of Joan of Arc. He was a native of Abbeville and a theologian of the Faculty of Paris. His French name is not known. Facing some of his verses which appeared in 1501, he is called de Varanis, and adjectivally Varanius at the head of his poem on the Maid. This poem, the only thing of his that concerns us, is entitled De gestis Joannae virginis Franciae (1), egregiae bellatricis, libri IV. He composed it, according to himself, from the pieces of one and the other trial, which he had known through the manuscript of Saint-Victor (2). History is indeed followed there very exactly, and the poet has permitted himself only fictions conformable to what is learnt from Joan\u0026rsquo;s interrogatories. Nevertheless, by the expression and by the staging, the subject finds itself entirely travestied, and one may say that the exactitude of the research hides itself continually beneath the bombast of the rhetorician.\n(1) A manuscript contemporary with the edition, which is in the Sainte-Geneviève library (no. 1643), bears the title: Libri quatuor de gestis Joannae Puellae Lotharingiae.\n(2) See what is said of this manuscript in the Preface.\nGreatly struck to see a poet attach himself thus to documents, the moderns have none the less attributed to Varanius the value of an historian. Hence it is that various circumstances placed in his verses pass for proved facts, although they are found nowhere else. Thus it is on his testimony that Jacques d\u0026rsquo;Arc is made to die of grief in consequence of his daughter\u0026rsquo;s execution. Isabelle d\u0026rsquo;Arc says this in the fourth book of the poem:\nVir meus audito dilectae funere prolis\nOppetiit, mortis causam exsecratus et ignes.\nMy husband, hearing of the death of his beloved daughter, perished, cursing the cause of death and the fires.\nA long account of what passed at Rouen when the taking of Joan became known there also belongs in its own right to the Abbeville poet. According to him, a grave deliberation took place that very day in the council of regency. The lords were of opinion to have the Maid slaughtered or drowned without form of trial; but Warwick demonstrated that by judging her as a sorceress, they would have the double advantage of ruining her and dishonouring Charles VII. In consequence, the accusation of magic was spread among the people, at first mysteriously and like a seed destined to bear fruit before long. A sermon of the doctor Jean de Châtillon completed the business, by edifying consciences upon the case of sorcery:\nQuumque ita res pendet, concrescit rumor in horas,\nEt venit in varium populus problema. Magiam\nObstupet indoctum vulgus, crebroque requirit\nQuid magicae possint artes, quo auctore parentur;\nSintne piis omnes adversae moribus, et quo\nUsque per has liceat vetitos descendere in usus.\nTum sedet in rostris Castilius atque ita fatur, etc., etc.\nAnd while the matter thus hangs, the rumour grows from hour to hour, and the people run to the strange problem. The unlearned crowd stands agape at magic, and asks again and again what the magic arts can do, by what author they are begotten; whether they be all adverse to pious morals, and how far one may descend through them into forbidden uses. Then Castilius sits in the rostrum and speaks thus, etc., etc.\nApropos of the rehabilitation trial, of which Varanius has summed up the principal incidents at the end of his poem, he paraphrases or feigns a letter which Charles VII is supposed to have written to Pope Calixtus III to obtain the rescript that served as foundation for the cause:\nCallisto destinat unam\nCarolus hac ferme verborum lege tabellam:\nMaxime pontificum, qui sancto numine terras\nSub solo moderare Deo, cui tanta potestas\nUt caelos aperire et apertos claudere possis,\nPossis et Stygiae reserare ergastula noctis:\nHaec sub apostolico libranda examine causa\nTe petit, o sacrate pater; quam, quaeso, paternis\nExcipe visceribus, justoque attolle favore.\nFlaccida quum magnis lugeret Gallia bellis,\nFinibus Austrasiae digressa juvencula, paucis\nHuc venit comitata viris, causamque rogata\nQuae suasisset iter, vel ubi tractaverat arma:\nRespondit superis venisse auctoribus, et rem\nNon obiisse prius certis quam cognita signis\nConstarent edicta Dei. Sed cetera coram\nDisseret orator melius, nec epistola paucis\nRem caperet verbis. Tandem perfuncta recepto\nMunere, post victos crebris conflictibus hostes,\nDum Compendiaci decertat in aequore campi,\nTransfosso decumbit equo et venumdatur Anglis;\nQui dirum scelus objiciunt, vulgantque magia\nEsse ream et sacra de relligione tenentem\nImpie, ut adversus nostri moderamina sceptri\nDissidium patrare queant. Sic perfidus hostis\nDestinat insontem flammis; sed fraude retecta,\nVersa alio res est. Fieri quaecunque per arma\nEt ferrum licuit, tentavimus; hoc tamen unum\nRestat adhuc quod te propter contingere nemo\nAudeat: ista tuum poscit censura tribunal.\nPraecipias mores inquiri et facta Puellae,\nQuaeque sit adversae nequam sententia partis.\nCharles sends one letter to Calixtus in about these words:\nGreatest of pontiffs, who beneath the holy power rulest the lands under God alone, to whom is given such power that thou canst open the heavens and close them when opened, and canst unbar the prisons of the Stygian night: this cause, to be weighed beneath the apostolic examination, seeks thee, O consecrated father; receive it, I beseech, into thy fatherly heart, and raise it up with just favour. When France, faint, mourned beneath great wars, a young girl, departing from the bounds of Austrasia, came hither attended by a few men, and, asked the cause which had persuaded her journey, or where she had handled arms, answered that she had come at the bidding of those above, and had not undertaken the thing until the edicts of God stood recognised by certain signs. But the rest our orator will set forth better face to face; nor could a letter contain the matter in few words. At length, having discharged the office received, after enemies vanquished in many conflicts, while she fights on the plain of Compiègne, her horse is pierced, she falls and is sold to the English; who charge her with a dire crime and spread abroad that she is guilty of magic and holds impiously to the sacred religion, so that they may work dissension against the governance of our sceptre. Thus the perfidious foe destines the innocent to the flames; but, the fraud being uncovered, the case is turned another way. Whatever could be done by arms and the sword, we have attempted; yet this one thing remains which none dares attempt without thee: that matter demands the censure of thy tribunal. Mayest thou command that the character and deeds of the Maid be inquired into, and how worthless was the sentence of the adverse party.\nAll these particulars, it must be confessed, are of the greatest verisimilitude. But did the author draw them from authentic documents or from his own brain? In case of doubt, one will do well to abstain, or at least never to cite the De gestis puellae Franciae save as a secondary authority.\nIt does not enter into my plan to reproduce a work already well posterior to the facts and which offers so little guarantee of authenticity, having regard especially to its date. The first edition is without date, but accompanied by a preliminary epistle written in November 1516. That is already the reign of Francis I. I shall confine myself to giving here, as useful information, the preliminary epistle in question, addressed to the second Georges d\u0026rsquo;Amboise; the arguments of the poem as the edition gives them; and finally a little piece of verse in the form of an epilogue, composed for the abbot of Saint-Victor who had lent the author the manuscript of the trial.\nEpistle of V. Varanius to the Reverend Father Georges d\u0026rsquo;Amboise # To the most worthy father in Christ, Georges d\u0026rsquo;Amboise, archbishop of Rouen, Valerandus Varanius, greeting.\nIn turning over the annals of the Franks, most worthy prelate, when I observed that the history of Joan, the Maid of France, had been run through only perfunctorily, I persuaded myself that it would be no unworthy labour if, by the aid of successive leisure, I should for a while hold my study to the wider propagation of the thing itself; judging that kind of service worthy which claims for itself a share of our birth. For if in arduous affairs we cannot profit our country, the road will not therefore be closed to us whereby we may be tolerable in committing to memory the egregious deeds of the virgin. To me certainly not only, but to very many good and studious men, a history of this kind has seemed one that should not utterly sink into oblivion; for if the fables of the ancients, relating mere and empty trifles, detain not a few with a certain alluring pleasure, how much the more will posterity eagerly read this history, as one not feigned about Gorgons or the birds of Pandion! Assuredly, even to this day there survive not a few who saw the virgin living among men. For she died at Rouen, in the year one thousand four hundred thirty-first, when the English were over the city and almost the whole province. Then, four and twenty years having elapsed, Calixtus the Third, Roman pontiff, appointed the archbishop of Reims and the bishops of Paris and of Coutances judges, who, the former suit in which the Maid was condemned at the instigation of the English having been diligently reviewed and faithfully discussed back and forth, at length pronounced that she had been an innocent and virtuous maiden. If anyone desires to know the history more fully, let him seek from the monastery of Saint-Victor of Paris the book which I borrowed for some days, where all that I have transcribed is abundantly set forth in judicial order. But let these things suffice. And when I asked myself under what protection I might guard this labour of mine, most worthy father, I judged that the little book would have fared happily if you benignly granted it a place among your paper furniture. From Paris, the tenth of the kalends of November of the year one thousand five hundred and sixteen. Farewell.\nArguments of the books De gestis Joannae virginis Franciae # Argument of the first book.\nIn the beginning of the narrative is the prayer of Charlemagne to the divine Virgin, for obtaining peace. — The prayer of Mary to her Son for the Gauls. — The answer of Christ to his mother. — Exposition of the causes of the war. — The address of the Virgin to Charlemagne. — The mission of the angel to Joan. — The prayer of Joan to God. — The miraculous revelation of the sword. — The speech of Joan to Baudricourt. — The answer of Robert to Joan. — The journey of Joan to Charles the Seventh. — The examination of Joan at the university of Poitiers. — The great debate upon her reception. — The long speech of Joan, in which she commemorates many things about her country, her parents and other things pertaining to her. — The proof of Joan\u0026rsquo;s virginity by the Queen of Sicily.\nArgument of the second book.\nFirst is the embassy of the Orléanais to Charles. — The mournful prayer of Charles to God. — The report to the Orléanais. — The exultation of the Orléanais. — The letter of Joan to the English. — Description of the siege. — The speech of Dunois to the nobles. — Joan\u0026rsquo;s exhortation to attack the English. — The engagement of the French with the English. — The marvellous combat of Joan. — The night passed by the French in the field. — The discovery of letters among the young men. — The preparation for war at first dawn. — The fierce fight of Gauls and English. — The apostrophe to Talbot not helping his men. — The demolition of the fortress and ramparts by the French.\nArgument of the third book.\nSuffolk\u0026rsquo;s address to Talbot for the raising of the siege. — The thanksgiving of the Orléans maidens to Joan. — The incursion of the English into the Beauce. — Fastolf\u0026rsquo;s exhortation to his men. — The advance of the French upon the English. — Alençon\u0026rsquo;s address to his men. — The victory of the French over the English. — The complaint of Talbot taken by Joan. — Joan\u0026rsquo;s speech to Charles to go to Reims. — The reception of many towns with the entry and sacred unction at Reims. — The address of Charlemagne to the newly anointed Charles. — Joan\u0026rsquo;s prayer to Saint Denis. — The siege of Compiègne where Joan is captured. — Joan\u0026rsquo;s prayer before going out of the town. — The last combat of Joan.\nArgument of the fourth book.\nJoan\u0026rsquo;s translation into Picardy. — Joan\u0026rsquo;s sale by Luxembourg, and her translation into Normandy. — The determination of the Earl of Warwick upon Joan\u0026rsquo;s death. — The speech of the theologian Châtillon, in which he treats much of magic. — A sharp invective against Joan. — Joan\u0026rsquo;s answer to the charges. — The indignation of the English at the judges\u0026rsquo; deferring sentence. — Joan\u0026rsquo;s last prayer to God. — The cruel burning of Joan. — The speech of Joan\u0026rsquo;s mother to King Charles for the worthy purgation of her daughter. — Charles\u0026rsquo;s embassy to Calixtus the Third, Roman pontiff, on this matter. — The archbishop of Reims and the bishop of Paris appointed judges in this cause. — The long speech of the theologian Herald for Joan. — The speech of Thomas Courcelles, in which he commemorates many illustrious women. — The detection of the English fraud in the former trial. — The dreadful punishment of certain men after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death. — The annulment of the former trial and the full purgation of Joan.\nVerses of V. Varanius to the Reverend Father Abbot of Saint-Victor of Paris, on Joan # Much does the generous heroine owe thee, venerable father, and the noble stock of the Austrasian land. Once the vigorous youth of the English believed they could remove the race of the Valois from the Frankish world; but God, pitying the ills of the wasted realm, sent brave maidenly hands to arms; and they who had scarce yielded to other manly arms, conquered, gave way to a woman\u0026rsquo;s yoke. France suffered her bright triumphs to be all but destroyed; but thou gatherest her deeds into a full book, which thy magnificent library may reposit, whose fame goes from the East to the West. My muse renders thee thanks, that the way of this history lies open to us under thy guidance.\nMiscellaneous Fragments # I # Georges Chastellain, in the piece entitled Recollection des merveilles advenues de nostre temps [Recollection of the marvels come to pass in our time]. M. Buchon gives two different readings of it at the head of his volume of the Panthéon littéraire, in which he has collected the works of Chastellain.\nIn France, the most fair\nFlower of Christendom,\nI saw a Maid spring up\nInto authority,\nWho raised the siege\nOf Orléans with her hands,\nThen the king by prodigy\nLed to be anointed at Reims.\nSaintly she was adored\nFor the works she did;\nBut then she was met\nAnd taken without profit;\nBurnt at Rouen to ashes,\nTo the great hurt of the French,\nGiving thereafter to understand\nHer living again another time (1).\n(1) Allusion to the appearance of the false Joan of Arc.\nII # François Villon, in the Ballade des dames du temps jadis [Ballad of the ladies of olden time], a piece forming part of his Grand Testament, written in 1461:\nThe queen white as a lily\nWho sang with a siren\u0026rsquo;s voice,\nBerthe with the great foot, Bietris, Allys,\nHarembourges who held the Maine,\nAnd Joan the good Lorrainer\nWhom the English burnt at Rouen —\nWhere are they, sovereign Virgin?\nBut where are the snows of yesteryear!\nIII # Octavien de Saint-Gelais, in the Séjour d\u0026rsquo;honneur [Sojourn of honour], composed in 1489:\nSoon after, in the field of honour arrayed\nAnd seated on gold tapestried with praise,\nI saw a glorious king, prepared,\nDutiful of peace, benign, sweet as an angel,\nVanquished by death; but his fair fame changes not.\nIt was Charles, seventh of that name,\nWho so much willed to increase his renown\nThat to him he reduced Guyenne and Normandy,\nWhatever English or Norman may say.\nNear him I saw, proudly marching on a horse,\nA woman armed in shining harness.\nShe seemed not a scholar or a merchant,\nBut robust, made firm by prowess.\nWhereat I marvelled to see a woman endued\nWith so great a heart, who urged on the men,\nCalled each one to give in\nAnd bade them war, as if always she\nHeld in safety the soldiers beneath her wing.\nShe had no distaff fastened at her side,\nBut a sword piercing and defensive;\nFleeing repose and long idleness,\nWherein a woman\u0026rsquo;s heart is readily swayed.\nTo other business she was not given\nThan to order men to set battles moving.\nWherefore I knew that it was, to see all,\nAccording to her proved manner and bearing,\nThe Maid, found by a miracle.\nLetters, Acts and Other Detached Pieces # I. Letter of the Maid to the English # 22 March 1429\nThis is the fifth time that this letter recurs in the present work. It is found inserted: 1st in the Trial of Condemnation (vol. I, p. 240); 2nd in the Journal of the Siege of Orléans (vol. IV, p. 139); 3rd in the Chronicle of the Maid (ibid., p. 215); 4th in the Dauphin\u0026rsquo;s register of Thomassin (ibid., p. 306). Contrary to established usage, we reproduce it so many times, not on account of the differences between all these texts, but on the contrary because of their conformity. As in her interrogatory of 22 February Joan denied having dictated the words Rendez à la Pucelle, je suis chef de la guerre, corps pour corps — and on this ground the judges of the rehabilitation and all the historians who came after them accused the English of having falsified the letter — it is important to criticism to possess the proof that, if falsification there be, it must not be imputed to the English. The contested words are in the three texts reproduced by the historians of the French party, and they will be found likewise in this one, which is still less suspect than the others, if that be possible.\nIt comes from a contemporary copy which perhaps no longer exists, but of which two transcriptions were made in the last century, both preserved today in the Bibliothèque Royale. One is in the Cabinet des Titres, in the d\u0026rsquo;Arc dossier; the other, made by the archivist Battenay, was sent for the collection of M. Moreau. Now, from this double transcription it follows that the lost copy was under the fold of another letter in Latin, of which only a fragment remains — a much-altered fragment, it is true, but from which one can doubt neither the patriotism of him who wrote, nor his sympathy for Joan. It will be found below, and one will be convinced, in reading it, that such an attachment sufficiently guarantees the authenticity of the despatch.\nJESUS MARY.\nKing of England, and you Duke of Bedford who call yourself regent of the realm of France; William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk; John, lord of Talbot; and you Thomas, lord of Scales, who call yourselves lieutenants of the said Bedford: do right to the King of Heaven for His royal blood (1); render to the Maid, here sent by God the King of Heaven, the keys of all the good towns you have taken and violated in France. She has come hither (2) by God the King of Heaven to reclaim the royal blood; she is quite ready to make peace, if you will do her right by giving up France and paying for what you have held. Among you archers, companions of war, gentle and others who are before the good town of Orléans, go hence, by God, into your own country; and if you do not so, expect tidings of the Maid, who will shortly go to see you, to your very great damage. King of England, if you do not so, I am chief of war, and in whatsoever place I shall reach your people in France, I shall make them go thence, will they or nill they; and if they will not obey, I shall have them all slain (1); and if they will obey, I shall take them to mercy. I am here come (2) by God, the King of Heaven, body for body, to drive you out of all France, against all those who would bring treason, malice or harm to the realm of France (3). And be not of the opinion that you shall hold the realm of France from God, the King of Heaven, son of Saint Mary; but King Charles, the true heir, shall hold it; for God, the King of Heaven, so wills it, and to him it is revealed by the Maid: who shall enter Paris with good company. If you will not believe the tidings from God and the Maid (4), in whatsoever place we find you we shall strike into it with mighty blows (5), and we shall make so great a hubbub that not for a thousand years in France has so great a one been made, if you do not do right. And believe firmly that the King of Heaven will send (6) more strength to the Maid than you could bring against her in all assaults, to her and her good men-at-arms; and then shall be seen (7) who shall have the better right, the God of Heaven or you (8). Duke of Bedford, the Maid prays and requires you that you do not let yourself be destroyed. If you do right, there may yet come a place (1) where the French shall do the fairest deed that was ever done for Christendom. And make answer in the city of Orléans if you wish to make peace; and if you do not so, remember shortly your very great damages. Written the Tuesday of Holy Week.\n(1) De son sang royal is wanting in the version inserted in the trial; but these words are found in the texts given at pp. 139 and 215 of our vol. IV.\n(2) Ayci is Battenay\u0026rsquo;s reading. The copy of the Cabinet des Titres has ayte; the text inserted in the trial, ci.\n(3) Jus in Battenay\u0026rsquo;s reading and in the trial.\n(1) Occire in the trial text.\n(2) Envoiée in the trial text.\n(3) All this member of the sentence from encontre tous ceulx is nowhere else.\n(4) Trial text: Et la Pucelle.\n(5) A horions is wanting in the trial.\n(6) Envoiera in the trial text.\n(7) Et aux horrions verra-on, ibid.\n(8) A good variant to the trial text, where the words ou de are wanting.\nBY THE MAID (2).\nAnd above: To the Duke of Bedford, styling himself regent of the realm of France, or to his lieutenants being before the town of Orléans.\n(1) The trial text is here preferable: encore pourrez venir en sa compaignie, ou que les François, etc. [you may yet come in her company, or where the French, etc.] It is an indirect invitation to the Duke of Bedford to co-operate in a universal triumph of the faith which the Maid then had in mind.\n(2) This subscription is nowhere else.\nII. Fragment of a Letter Written on the Back of the Preceding # Without address, without signature, incomplete and in a very corrupt Latin, this fragment seems to have belonged to a letter written by a knight of Saint John of Jerusalem to a commander of his order. This results from the qualifications of pater and of praeceptor placed in the preamble. It is certain moreover that knights of Saint John were fighting under the banner of Charles VII, since among the heroes of the siege of Orléans figures Nicole de Giresme, grand prior of the order in France.\nThe text that follows has been made from the two transcriptions indicated at the head of the preceding article.\nMost reverend father and our most worshipful preceptor, after humble salutation, may you deign to know that the almighty Lord, who had made a most cruel wound in the most Christian realm — whereof many have lamentably fallen, and others, oppressed by various torments, have too much desired to be taken from the midst — now little remembering his antiquity, his most high grace looking down upon his sons, exiled for a truth most undeservedly (1) from their own fields, has deigned to apply a remedy lofty indeed and shining (2) among the other wonders of his works, by a Maid of the age of eighteen years, and chosen (3) for the total care and reformation of the most Christian realm by a privileged election, and moreover for our king of the Franks, who then was beset by so grave a persecution that each man of sound mind might presume his total ruin, as a valiant successor appeared (4) to the eyes of the beholders. May your most reverend power hear, I pray, and let the soul exult in a maidenly gift so celestial as the Omnipotent has deigned to bestow in our times. The celestial Maid drew near (5); and that which the almighty Father Himself granted to the Virgin Mary above all others — namely that, beholding her so fair, each one, whosoever he was and of whatsoever immoral life, led his days free from all worldly concupiscence — the same might be asserted, it would be said, of the virgin sent to us, whose name is Joan? Joan, I say, the Maid, clothed in shepherd\u0026rsquo;s garb and as it were manly, by command of almighty God came to the king through divers fearful journeys, without violence, unharmed, unspotted, accompanied by persons; she came to the king, and since the thing was so formidable (?), it was ordained by disposition of the royal council that she should not forthwith speak to the king, but be diligently examined by many men and most exquisite clerks, doctors in the sacred page, and others. But it befell that, notwithstanding that proposed disposition, the Maid went without delay to the queen, and asked for the king, whom she called the Dauphin. The king held back not, but straightway went to her…\n(1) One of the transcriptions gives inexcusabili, the other inexusabili.\n(2) Correct pro digno micatam to par prodigio micantem.\n(3) There is acceptam quam in the two texts.\n(4) Patebat?\n(5) Correct caelesti Puello to coelestis Puella.\nIII. Letter of Charles VII to the Inhabitants of Narbonne # 10 May 1429\nA letter in the form of a mandate, presenting after the manner of an army bulletin all the phases of the deliverance of Orléans. It was written at three different times between the evening of 9 May and the morning of the 10th, as the news arrived at Chinon where the king was. M. Félix Ravaisson having noticed this piece among the papers of the town hall of Narbonne, made it known to me. At my request, the Minister of Public Instruction kindly had a copy delivered to me. It is this copy that I give to the press. It was made by M. Tournal, secretary of the archaeological commission of Narbonne and correspondent of the Travaux historiques.\nThe original is numbered 23, second case of the Municipal Archives of Narbonne.\nBY THE KING.\nDear and well-beloved, we believe that you have well known the continual diligences made by us to give all possible succour to the town of Orléans long since besieged by the English, ancient enemies of our kingdom, and the effort to which we have put ourselves divers times, having always good hope in our Lord that finally He would extend His grace there and would not suffer so notable a city and so loyal a people to perish or fall into the subjection and tyranny of the said enemies. And because we well know that, as loyal subjects, you could have no greater joy and consolation than to hear good tidings announced thereof: we inform you that, by the mercy of our Lord from whom all proceeds, we have newly victualled mightily and twice in a single week the said town of Orléans, well and greatly, in the sight and knowledge of the said enemies, without their being able to resist it. And since, that is to say last Wednesday, our people sent with the said victualling, together with those of the said town, assaulted one of the strongest bastides of the said enemies, to wit that of Saint-Loup; which, God aiding, they took and gained by force and a fair assault that lasted more than four or five hours. And there were dead and slain all the English who were within, without there being slain of ours save two persons only; and although the English of the other bastides then issued out in battle, making show of wishing to fight, nevertheless when they saw our said people before them, they returned basely without daring to reach them. And our said people have still remained beyond in hope of doing greater things.\nOn the other part we have presently received letters from our fair cousin of Vendôme, by which he informs us that his castle of the said place of Vendôme — into which, by means of a varlet of the garrison, the enemies had newly entered — has been promptly recovered by our people being in the said town and marches (1).\nAll which things well considered, we have good confidence in the mercy of our Lord, by means also of the good diligence that we mean to make in pursuing our good fortune, that our affairs shall come to a good issue. Which we will well communicate to you, knowing that so you would wish and desire; praying and exhorting you right heartily that, in recognition of all these things, you will by notable processions, prayers and orisons well praise and thank our Creator, beseeching Him ever to be our aid and to conduct our affairs; for in your good prayers we have right great hope. And in so doing, you will do well and your duty, and we shall be right grateful to you for it. And as other tidings come to us, we shall ever make them known to you.\n(1) The author of the Journal de Paris, alone of all the chroniclers, had knowledge of this fact, which he reports in terms very inexact besides. See vol. IV, p. 463.\nSince these letters were made, there has come to us a herald, about an hour after midnight, who has reported on his life that last Friday our said people passed the river in boats to Orléans, and besieged on the Sologne side the bastide of the bridge end. And the same day they gained the lodging of the Augustins; and on the Saturday likewise they assaulted the remainder of the said bastide, which was the boulevard of the bridge, where there were some six hundred English fighters under two banners and the standard of Chandos; and finally, by great prowess and valiance of arms, always by the grace of our Lord, they gained the whole of the said bastide. And all the said English who were there have been slain or taken. For this, more than before, you must praise and thank our said Creator, who of His divine clemency has not willed to put us in oblivion; and you could not enough honour the virtuous deeds and marvellous things which the said herald, who was present, has reported to us, and others also, concerning the Maid, who has ever been in person at the execution of all these things.\nAnd since again, before the finishing of these letters, there have arrived before us two gentlemen who were at the business, who certify and confirm all in the manner and more amply than the said herald; and thereof they have brought us letters in the hand of the lord of Gaucourt. Moreover we had this evening certain tidings that, after our people had last Saturday taken and discomfited the bastide of the bridge end, the morrow at daybreak the English who remained fled away and dislodged so hastily that they left their bombards, cannons, artillery and the greater part of their victuals and baggage.\nGiven at Chinon, the 10th day of May.\nSigned CHARLES, countersigned DUIS (1).\n(1) A like letter to this one was sent to the inhabitants of La Rochelle, as appears from the history of that town written by Arcère (vol. I, p. 271). The author adds that the Rochellais received the news with the manifestations of the greatest joy, and that they wished to mark the event by the pomp of a solemn festival.\nIV. Collect Introduced into the Office on Occasion of the Maid # Already published by M. Buchon after manuscript français 7301 of the Bibliothèque Royale. These sorts of prayers are alleged as a grievance against Joan in the trial of condemnation. See vol. I, p. 101 and 290.\nAntiphona. Our enemies are gathered together, and they glory in their might. Break their strength, O Lord, and scatter them, that they may know there is no other who fights for us but Thee, our God.\nV. Give them fear and wither their audacity.\nV. Let them be moved from their condition.\nO Lord, hear our prayer, etc.\nThe Lord be with you, etc.\nLet us pray.\nO God, author of peace, who without bow and arrow crushest the enemies that hope in Thee, come to our aid, we beseech, O Lord, that Thou mayest propitiously guard our adversity; that, as by the hand of a woman Thou hast delivered Thy people, so for Charles our king Thou mayest raise up an arm of victory whereby he may overcome in this present the enemies who trust in their multitude and glory in their arrows and their lances; and at length may come gloriously to Thee, who art the way, the truth and the life, together with the people committed to him. Through our Lord Jesus Christ.\nHere ends the prayer of the Maid throughout the realm of France.\nV. Letter of Guy and André de Laval to the Ladies of Laval, Their Mother and Grandmother # 8 June 1429\nThe original, today lost, appears to have formed part of the archives of the Chambre des Comptes. There is a copy of it in the twentieth volume of the Duchesne manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Royale, and Delaroque, in the forty-third chapter of his Traité de la Noblesse, published a fragment of it after another copy which he held from M. Vyon d\u0026rsquo;Hérouval. A third text, printed in full among the supplements to Godefroy\u0026rsquo;s Histoire de Charles VII, has since been reproduced to satiety.\nIt is to be noted that the principal author of this letter, Guy de Laval, fourteenth of the name, was the first of his house to bear the title of count, and that this title was conferred on him at the very coronation of Charles VII; that André de Laval, his brother, likewise became an illustrious man, in turn admiral and marshal of France, and it is he who figures so often in the chronicles under the name of Marshal de Lohéac; that their mother, Jeanne de Laval, was a woman of great heart who, during the time of a long widowhood, knew not only how to suffice for the education of a numerous family, but also to defend against the English the patrimony of her children; lastly that the grandmother, Anne de Laval, no less energetic than her daughter, had been in her youth married to the constable Bertrand Du Guesclin. These two ladies, driven from Laval by a passing reverse of their arms, were dwelling in the castle of Vitré at the beginning of 1429.\nMy most redoubted ladies and mothers, since I wrote to you from Sainte-Catherine de Fierbois last Friday, I arrived on the Saturday at Loches, and went to see my lord the Dauphin at the castle, at the end of vespers, in the collegiate church — who is a most fair and gracious lord, and most well formed and well nimble and able, of the age of about seven years which he must have; and there I saw my cousin the Lady of La Trémoille, who made me very good cheer; and, as they say, she has but two months more to carry her child.\nOn the Sunday I arrived at Saint-Aignan, where the king was, and sent to fetch and bring within my lodging the lord of Trèves, and my uncle (1) went to the castle with him, to signify to the king that I had come, and to know when it should please him that I should go before him: and I had answer that I should go thither as soon as it pleased me; and he made me very good cheer, and said me many good words. And when he had gone through the chamber or spoken (2) with some other, he turned again each time towards me, to put me in talk of sundry things, and said that I had come at the need, unsummoned, and that he was the better pleased with me for it. And when I told him that I had not brought such company as I desired, he answered that what I had brought sufficed well, and that I had good power to recover a greater number. And the lord of Trèves said at his lodging to the lord of La Chapelle, at … that the king and all those about him had been well content with the persons of my brother and of me, and that we pleased them well; and he swore right strongly that it was not to be mentioned that to one of his friends and kinsmen that he had he would have made so good welcome nor so good cheer — whereof it is not for him to make good cheer nor good welcome, as he said.\nAnd on the Monday I parted from the king to come to Selles-en-Berry, four leagues from Saint-Aignan; and the king had the Maid come before him, who was already at Selles. Some said that this had been in my favour, that I might see her; and the said Maid made very good cheer to my brother and to me, armed in all points save the head, and holding the lance in hand. And after we had dismounted at Selles, I went to her lodging to see her; and she had wine brought, and told me that she would soon make me drink at Paris; and it seems a thing altogether divine, her deeds, and to see her and to hear her. And she departed this Monday at vespers from Selles to go to Romorantin, three leagues onwards and approaching the enemy, the Marshal de Boussac and a great number of armed men and of the commons with her; and I saw her mount to horse, armed all in white save the head, a little axe in her hand, on a great black courser which at the door of her lodging stirred himself very greatly and suffered not that she should mount; and then she said: Lead him to the cross, which was before the church nearby, on the road. And then she mounted, without his stirring, as if he were bound. And then she turned towards the door of the church, which was very near, and said in a right woman\u0026rsquo;s voice: You priests and churchmen, make processions and prayers to God. And then she turned to her way, saying: Forward, forward, her folded standard borne by a gracious page, and she had her little axe in her hand. And a brother of hers (1) who had come eight days since departed likewise with her, all armed in white.\nAnd there arrived this Monday at Selles my lord the Duke of Alençon, who has a very great company; and I have won from him today at the palm-game a wager (2). And my brother of Vendôme (3) has not yet come hither. I have here found one of the gentlemen of my brother of Chauvigny (4), because he had already heard that I had arrived at Sainte-Catherine; and he has told me that he has written to the nobles of his lands, and that he thinks to be soon over here; and he says that my sister is well his mistress, and fatter than she was wont. And it is said here that my lord the constable comes with six hundred men-at-arms and four hundred men of shot, and that Jean de La Roche comes also, and that the king has not had for a long while so great a company as it is hoped will be here; nor ever did men go with better will to a business than they go to this. And my cousin of Rais (5) is to arrive here this day, and my company grows; and whatsoever it be, what is here is right honest and in good array; and here is the lord of Argenton, one of the principal governors, who makes me right good welcome and good cheer; but of money there is none at the court, save so straitly that for the present time I hope for no succour or support. Wherefore you, madame my mother, who have my seal, spare not my land by sale or mortgage, or advise a more convenient affair, whereon our persons are to be saved, or else by default abased, and perchance on the way to perish; for if we did not so, seeing there is no pay, we shall all remain alone. And hitherto our doing has still been and is in good honour; and our coming has been to the king and all his people, and also to the other lords who come from all parts, right agreeable; and they all make us better cheer than we could write you.\nThe Maid told me in her lodging, when I went to see her, that three days before my arrival she had sent to you, my grandmother, a very little gold ring, but that it was a very little thing, and she would gladly have sent you better, considering your commendation.\nThis day my lord of Alençon, the Bastard of Orléans and Gaucourt are to depart from this place of Selles and go after the Maid. And you have had delivered I know not what letters to my cousin of La Trémoille and lord of Trèves, by occasion whereof the king strives to wish to retain me with him until the Maid has been before the English places round Orléans, where they are going to lay the siege; and the artillery is already provided; and the Maid is not dismayed that she be not soon with the king, saying that when he shall take his way to draw forward towards Reims, that I should go with him; but God forfend that I should do it and that I go not (1). And my brother said as much (2), and likewise my lord of Alençon, that forsaken would be he who should remain (3). And I think that the king will depart this Thursday hence to approach nearer the host; and people come from all parts each day. Afterwards I shall let you know, as soon as anything has been wrought, what has been executed. And it is hoped that, before ten days be out, the thing will be well advanced on one side or the other. But all have so good hope in God that I believe He will aid us.\nMy most redoubted ladies and mothers, we commend ourselves, my brother and I, to you, the most humbly that we can; and I send you blank signs of my hand, that, if it please you, dated of this present, you write somewhat of the contents herein to my lord the duke (4), that you write him thereof; for I have never written him since; and may it please you also briefly to write us your news; and you, madame my mother, in what health you find yourself after the medicines you have taken, whereof I am in very great unease. And I send you herewith these presents the minute of my testament, that you, my mothers, may advise me and write me by the next comers what seems you good that I add thereto; and I think yet to add thereto between the two; but I have not yet had any leisure.\nMy most redoubted ladies and mothers, I pray the blessed Son of God that He give you good life and long, and we commend ourselves also both to our brother Louis (1). And for the reader of these presents, whom we greet, the lord of Boschet (2), and our cousin his daughter, my cousin of La Chapelle, and all your company. And for the access and … (3) of soliciting the means as best may be done; and we have no more in all than about three hundred crowns of the weight of France.\nWritten at Selles, this Wednesday the eighth of June.\nAnd this evening there have arrived here my lord of Vendôme, my lord of Boussac and others; and La Hire has drawn near the host, and likewise they shall soon do business. God grant it be to our desire!\nYour humble sons, GUY and ANDRÉ DE LAVAL (4).\n(1) Doubtless one of the lords of Montfort, brother of Jean de Montfort, called Guy XII of Laval.\n(2) Perhaps allant, parlant [going, speaking].\n(1) Pierre d\u0026rsquo;Arc.\n(2) A wager.\n(3) Louis de Bourbon, Count of Vendôme, was brother-in-law of the lord of Laval, having married his sister Jeanne de Laval. His arrival is announced in a postscript.\n(4) Guy de Chauvigny, lord of Châteauroux, husband of Catherine de Laval.\n(5) Gilles de Laval, Marshal de Rais.\n(1) That is to say, God forfend that I be retained near the king until the journey of Reims and that I go not to the siege of the said places.\n(2) Correct to et autretant, that is to say just as much.\n(3) Godefroy corrects: que abandonné seroit celui qui demeureroit. But by substituting qu\u0026rsquo;il for the first qui (a continual confusion in texts of that time), one arrives at an old location equivalent to our exclamatory tant: How forsaken would be he who, etc.\n(4) The Duke of Brittany.\n(1) Louis de Laval, lord of Châtillon, who was governor of Champagne and grand master of waters and forests under Louis XI.\n(2) A knight who made himself famous by retaking the town of Laval from the English on 25 September of the same year. An annual procession perpetuated in the country the memory of that event.\n(3) Lacuna in the copy.\n(4) Godefroy adds: et Guy de Laval, then he conjectures in a note that for Guy one must read Gilles. But we must see there only a useless doubling of the name of Guy, who on the original will have signed with his own hand after having been placed in the subscription by his secretary.\nVI. Supply of a Suit of Clothing Made to the Maid at the Expense of the Duke of Orléans # 14 or 20-24 June 1429\nTwo schedules, the one bearing the ordering of the sum necessary for the making of a complete suit, the other containing the receipt of the purveyors. The originals on parchment belong to M. Lemareschal of Beauvais. They have already been published in the Bibliothèque de l\u0026rsquo;École des Chartes (vol. I of the second series). The supply bearing for date the sojourn of the Maid at Orléans in the month of June 1429, relates either to the 14th or to the 20th or following days of that month; for Joan went to take some rest at Orléans both after the taking of Jargeau and after the battle of Patay.\nI. — Charles, Duke of Orléans and of Valois, Count of Blois and of Beaumont and lord of Coucy, to our beloved and loyal keepers of our accounts, greeting and love. We command you that the sum of thirteen old gold crowns of the weight of sixty-four to the mark, which by our beloved and trusty treasurer-general Jacques Boucher (1) has been paid and delivered in the month of June last past to Jean Luillier (2), merchant, and Jean Bourgois, tailor, dwelling at Orléans, for a robe and a huque (3) which the men of our council then caused to be made and delivered to Joan the Maid, being in our said town of Orléans; having consideration for the good and agreeable services that the said Maid has done us against the English, ancient enemies of my lord the King and of us: to wit, to the said Jean Luillier, for two ells of fine vermilion Brussels (1), of which the said robe was made, at the price of four gold crowns the ell, eight gold crowns; for the lining thereof, two gold crowns; and for one ell of lost green (2) to make the said huque, two gold crowns; and to the said Jean Bourgois, for the fashion of the said robe and huque, and for white satin, sendal and other stuffs, for all, one gold crown: do you, the said sum allow in the accounts of our said treasurer and abate from his receipt, without any contradiction or difficulty, upon rendering these presents and the receipt thereon of the aforesaid only, notwithstanding ordinances, restrictions, mandates or prohibitions whatsoever to the contrary. Given at the said place of Orléans, the last day of September, in the year of grace 1429.\nBy my lord the Duke, at the relation of you hereto commissioned by him. Signed LASSE.\n(1) See vol. III, p. 68, and IV, p. 153.\n(2) The same who deposed at the rehabilitation trial, vol. III, p. 23.\n(3) Robe, a sort of long gown for men\u0026rsquo;s use. Huque, a blouse or short coat worn either under the robe or over the armour.\n(1) A superfine crimson cloth of Brussels.\n(2) A dark green approaching black. Green and crimson were the colours of the livery of the house of Orléans. The green was gay or light in the time of Duke Louis. After he was assassinated, his son replaced the gay green with brown green. The lost green succeeded that last after the battle of Agincourt, when the prince was made prisoner. (See Catalogue des archives de Joursanvault, vol. I, p. 129.)\nII. — Jean Luillier, draper and burgess of Orléans, and Jean Bourgois, tailor of the said place, confessed to have had and received from Jacques Boucher, treasurer-general of my lord the Duke of Orléans, the sum of thirteen old gold crowns of the weight of sixty-four to the mark, for a robe and a huque which the men of the council of my said lord the duke caused to be made and delivered as from the month of June 1429 to Joan the Maid, being then at the said place of Orléans: to wit, the said Luillier, for two ells of fine vermilion Brussels of which the said robe was made, eight crowns; for the lining thereof two crowns; and for one ell of lost green to make the said huque, two gold crowns; and the said Bourgois, for the fashion of the said robe and huque and for white satin, sendal and other stuffs, for all, one gold crown; as, etc. And held themselves well content, etc., quit, etc. Done the 5th day of August, in the year 1430. Signed CORMIER.\nVII. Letter of Perceval de Boulainvilliers to the Duke of Milan, Filippo Maria Visconti # 21 June 1429\nPublished after a manuscript of the Charterhouse of Mölk in the Codex historico-diplomaticus, forming a sequel to the Thesaurus anecdotorum of Pez (part III, p. 237). M. Voigt, who did not know this, printed as an unpublished document a translation into Old German of the same piece found by him in the secret archives of Königsberg (see the Leipzig Literary Gazette, no. of 3 June 1820). This new text, in which the name of Boulainvilliers was travestied into that of Boulourmak, served to make a French translation which M. Buchon placed in the Panthéon littéraire.\nPerceval de Boulainvilliers, author of this epistle, was a very important man at the court of Charles VII. He styles himself in his subscription counsellor-chamberlain of the king and seneschal of Berry. Before being called to that office, he had had to fulfil several commissions for the recruiting of Scottish and Lombard auxiliaries. He was naturally in relation with the Visconti family, having married the daughter of Perceval de Gournay, governor of Asti for the Duke of Orléans.\nIt has been explained above (p. 22) how the letter of Perceval de Boulainvilliers was put into verse and accommodated to the events of 1430 by the poet Antoine Astesan.\nTo the most illustrious and magnificent prince the lord John (1) Angelo Maria, Duke of Milan, my honourable lord.\nMost illustrious and magnificent prince and my most honourable lord, the care of mortals, and chiefly of studious and excellent minds, desires to know new and elsewhere unheard-of things, and loathes things grown old as though long tasted. Hence it is, magnificent prince, that, heeding the praises of your serenity, your proclamations, and the inquiry and efforts of your marvellous desires, I have presumed to signify to you what and how great things have newly befallen our king of France and his realm.\nAlready, as I think, the fame of a certain Maid, sent to us, as is piously believed, from heaven, has sounded in your ears; and that I may touch in few words her life, deeds, estate and manners, I shall narrate the beginnings of her origin.\nShe was born in a little village named Domrémy, in the bailiwick of Bassigny (2), within and at the ends of the realm of France, upon the river Meuse. There hard by Lorraine she is known to be begotten of just and simple parents. On the night of the Epiphany of the Lord, on which peoples are wont more joyously to recall the acts of Christ, she entered this mortal light, and (marvellous to tell) all the common folk of that place were moved by an inestimable joy and, ignorant of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s birth, ran hither and thither, inquiring what new thing had befallen. The hearts of many had consented to a new joy. What more? The cocks, as if heralds of the new gladness, beyond their wont broke out into unwonted songs, and, touching their bodies with their wings, seemed for nearly two hours to foretell the issue of the new thing.\n(1) Correct Philippo. The ms. had Ph., which will have been read Jh.\n(2) Doubtless Bassignacensi.\nThe child is reared; and when she had grown and reached the years of seven, after the manner of country folk, she was deputed by her parents to the keeping of lambs, in which charge no lamb is known to have perished nor anything to have been devoured by a wild beast; and when she was in the paternal house, she protected all the household with such security that neither foe, barbarian fraud nor malice touched them in the least. At length, the twelve years of her age being accomplished, the first revelation was made to her in this wise:\nWhile she herself was keeping the sheep of her parents with the girls, certain of them wandered in the meadow. She is approached by the bystanders; they ask whether she would run a race for a posy of flowers or for some other prize. She assents and, the wager made, moved with such celerity in a second and a third course that they scarce believed she trod the earth, insomuch that one of the girls cried out: Joan (such is her name), I see you flying close to the ground. And when she had finished the course and at the end of the meadow, as if rapt and alienated from her senses, resting her wearied body to resume her breath, there stood by her a certain youth who addressed her thus: Joan, go home; for your mother said she has need of your help. And believing that he was her brother or one of the neighbouring boys, she came home in haste. Her mother meets her, asks the cause of her coming and of the sheep left behind, and chides her. And the innocent Maid answering said: Did you not send for me? To whom the mother: No.\nThen believing herself deceived by the boy, wishing to return to her companions, suddenly before her eyes a most bright cloud is presented, and from the cloud a voice was made saying to her: Joan, it behoves you to lead another life and to do wondrous deeds; for you are she whom the King of Heaven has chosen for the repair of the realm of the Franks and for the aid and protection of King Charles, expelled from his dominion. You shall be clothed in man\u0026rsquo;s garb; taking arms you shall be head of the war; all shall be governed by your counsel. And when this voice had been made, the cloud disappeared, and the Maid, astounded at so great a prodigy, giving no credence to the words as at first, but remaining perplexed whether she ought to believe or not, innocent knew not. By day and by night like apparitions were made to the said Maid and renewed at repeated times. She holds her peace; to none, save only to her parish priest, did she lay open her mind, and in this perplexity she persevered for the space of almost five years.\nAt length, the Earl of Salisbury sailing from England into France, the aforesaid apparitions and revelations of the said Maid were renewed and multiplied beyond the wont. The young girl\u0026rsquo;s soul is shaken, her mind seethes with anxiety, and on a certain day, while she contemplated in the field, an unwonted apparition, greater and clearer than she had ever seen, appeared to her, and a voice was made to her saying: How long do you tarry? Why do you not make haste? Or why do you not go with swift step whither the King of Heaven has destined you? For in your absence France is destroyed, towns are laid waste, the just perish, nobles are slain, famous blood is shed. And she, somewhat emboldened, answered her priest\u0026rsquo;s admonitions: What shall I do or how shall I do it? Shall I go? I know not the way, I know not the people, I know not the king; they will not believe me; I shall be a mockery to all, and deservedly. What is more foolish than to tell great men that a girl shall repair France, govern armies, bring back triumph over the foe? What more laughable than that a girl should be clothed in man\u0026rsquo;s garb? And when she had spoken these and many other things, she received this answer: The King of Heaven ordains and wills; seek no further how these things shall be: for as is the will of God in heaven, so shall it be also on earth. Go to the town lying near here, named Vaucouleurs (1), which alone in the parts of Champagne keeps faith to the king, and the keeper of that town shall lead you without hindrance whither you seek.\nSo she did, and after many foreshown wonders, he bade her be conducted, accompanied by nobles, by the roads to the king. And they coming passed through the midst of the enemies, no repulse interposed. And when they had come as far as the castle of Chinon (2) in the Touraine parts where the king fortified himself, it had been deliberated by the royal council that she should not see the king\u0026rsquo;s face nor be presented to him until the third day. But men\u0026rsquo;s hearts are suddenly changed. The Maid is summoned. Forthwith she dismounts from her horse and is most diligently examined in faith and morals by archbishops, bishops, abbots and doctors of either faculty. At last the king brings her to his parliament, that she might be questioned yet more strictly and vigilantly. And in all these things she was found a faithful Catholic, well-thinking in faith, sacraments and institutes of the Church. Moreover she was most curiously examined by learned women, experienced virgins, widows and married women, who felt nothing other than what beseems womanly honesty and nature.\nMoreover for the space of six weeks she is still watched, observed, considered, whether even any lightness or change from the undertaking might be conceived. But immovable in serving God, hearing mass, receiving the Eucharist, she continued her first purposes; every day with tearful sighs she implored the king that he give her licence to invade the enemies or to return to the paternal home. And the licence being with difficulty obtained, with victuals to be conducted she enters Orléans. Soon after she invades the camps of the besiegers, which though judged impregnable, yet within the space of three days she herself conquered. Not a few of the enemies were slain, more were captured, the remaining part put to flight. Now the city is freed from the siege. Which things done, she returns to the king. The king hastens to meet her, receives her joyfully, and for some interval of time she remains with the king, hastens, urges that he call forth expeditions, gather his battle-lines to overcome the remaining part of the adversaries. And the army renewed, she besieges the town called Jargeau (1); on the morrow she gives battle; it is taken by force, six hundred noble warriors being there conquered, among whom the Earl of Suffolk, an Englishman, and his german brother are captured, but the other brother is slain.\nYet after the space of three days interposed, Meung-sur-Loire and Beaugency, strong and fortified towns, she invades, storms and conquers. Nor does she delay, and on that Saturday which was 18 June, she meets the English army hastening to the succour. The enemies are invaded; our men obtain the victory, fifteen hundred fighting men being slain, a thousand captured, among whom certain captains were taken, to wit the lords of Talbot and of Fastolf, and the son of the lord of Hungerford, and very many others. But of ours not three were found slain. All which we attribute to a miracle wrought by God. These and many other things the Maid has wrought and, God granting, shall do greater than these.\nThis Maid is of comely elegance, claims for herself a manly bearing, speaks little, shows a wondrous prudence in things said and to be said. She has a woman\u0026rsquo;s voice, slender as it were, eats sparingly, takes wine more sparingly; delights in horse and in the beauty of arms, loves armed and noble men much, loathes the throng and converse of many, streams with an abundance of tears, bears a cheerful countenance, is of unheard-of labour and so strong in the bearing and sustaining of arms that for six days by day and night she remains unceasingly and completely armed. She says the English have no right in France, and says she is sent by God to expel them thence and overcome them — the warning having nevertheless been made by her. She venerates the king supremely. Him she says to be beloved of God and specially preserved and to be preserved. The lord Duke of Orléans, your nephew (1), she said was to be miraculously delivered — the warning nevertheless having first been made upon his liberty to the English detaining him. And that I may make an end of words, most illustrious prince, the things are and become more marvellous than I could write to you or the tongue speak.\n(1) Ventelori in the Pez text.\n(2) Gavenio in Pez; Chinon in M. Buchon\u0026rsquo;s translation.\n(1) Frangutam in the Pez text.\n(1) Valentine of Milan, mother of the Duke of Orléans, was sister of Filippo Maria.\nIn the writing beyond, it has presently befallen that the aforesaid Maid has already gone to the parts of the city of Reims in Champagne, whither the king hastens to his consecration and coronation, God helping (2).\nI humbly commend myself to you. Written the 21st day of June, in the year of the Lord 1429.\nYour most humble servant, Parceval (3), lord of Boulainvilliers, counsellor and chamberlain of the king of the Franks and seneschal of the lord duke of Berry.\n(2) It must be supposed that this paragraph is a postscript added several days after the letter was written. The departure for Reims did not take place until the 29th.\n(3) Read Parcevallis, a correction indicated by the genealogies of the house of Boulainvilliers and by the Königsberg document.\nVIII. Fragment of a Letter on Prodigies Come to Pass in Poitou # About 25 June 1429\nPublished for the first time by M. Buchon, after manuscript français 7301 of the Bibliothèque Royale. The letter to which this piece originally belonged must have been written at Maillezais or in some other town of the diocese of Luçon, a short time after the battle of Patay. That event is announced in it.\nOf news from the king our sire, it is said that the English have been slain in Jargeau, six hundred men-at-arms. The Earl of Suffolk rendered himself to the Maid, on his knees; La Pole his brother, dead; both he and the other brother, prisoner. There is enough of other news, for which our Lord be praised.\nCertain is the rout of the English, which was wrought between Meung and Orléans in fair battle. And there two thousand five hundred English were slain, and the rest of their company fled. Their captains were Talbot, Fastolf and Scales, who are said to be taken and slain. The places of Beaugency and of the said Meung are surrendered, and several others; and the king\u0026rsquo;s affairs are in higher degree than ever they were, and shall be yet, at the pleasure of our Lord (1).\nOne sees come to pass hereabouts the most marvellous things that man ever saw, as of men armed in all points riding in the air upon a great white horse, and over the armours a great white band, coming from the Spanish sea, and passing over two or three fortresses near Talmont, and drawing towards Brittany: whereof all the country of Brittany is frightened, and my said lord the duke — for he has made the oath to the English, they say (2) — they know their destruction by him. The king has sent to the bishop of Luçon to know the truth of this business. Who has informed himself thereof and has found by information that many people have seen it in several places of his bishopric, and that, as it passed over a castle near the said Talmont, named Bien (1), the people of the said castle, when they saw it come, thought they were all lost and thunderstruck, for it was in the midst of a great fire which touched it not within two fathoms; and it held in its hand a sword all naked, and came riding in the air with so great a rush that it seemed the castle was all ablaze. And those of the castle began to cry with a loud voice; and then the said man thus armed said to them three times: Be not dismayed. And these things have been affirmed to the king to be true by the said bishop of Luçon and by two gentlemen sent to the king for this cause, who have affirmed to have seen it, and more than two hundred persons; and so many other marvels that it is a great thing.\n(1) I have inverted the order of these two paragraphs, putting second the one that is first in the very defective copy of manuscript 7301. The order of the facts and that of the ideas demanded this change.\n(2) Disent for disant, as above venent for venant. This member of the sentence relates to the Bretons who accused their duke of leading them to their loss because he had sworn to the English.\n(1) I believe that one must read Chien, for there was a castle of this name near Talmont.\nIX. Letter of the Maid to the Inhabitants of Tournay # 25 June 1429\nIt is not unknown that the town of Tournay was of the domain of the crown of France until the beginning of the sixteenth century. Though isolated in the midst of the Burgundian power, it acknowledged Charles VII in 1426 and held for him all the time of his misfortune. It owed this strength of resistance to the form of its government, which was a democracy constituted with a rare wisdom. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s letter is taken from one of the registers in which the people\u0026rsquo;s answers to the communications made by the magistracy were inscribed. It was brought to Tournay on 7 July. Forthwith the four consaux or administrative committees summoned the clergy and the king\u0026rsquo;s delegates, to advise with them upon the content of the despatch. It was decided, after deliberation, that it should be communicated to the banners, that is to say to the thirty-six sections forming the whole body of the citizens. The despatch was made under a superscription thus conceived: Forasmuch as we know you to be always desirous of hearing and knowing good tidings of the estate and prosperity of the king our sire, we have had copied the letters which the Maid, who is at present with the king our said lord, has sent us.\nThe banners, after hearing the letter read, declared that they referred themselves to the wisdom of the consaux; whereupon the latter named deputies to go to the king, conformably to Joan\u0026rsquo;s invitation. The return of these envoys is entered in the same register, in the following terms:\nThursday evening, 21st day of July, Bettremieu Carlier, grand dean, Jacques Queval, sworn man, and master Henry Romann, general counsellor of the town, returned from the embassy whither they had been sent to the king our sire at his anointing and coronation at Reims and at the entries he had made into the towns of Troyes, Châlons and others. And the morrow, 22nd day of the said month, the said ambassadors made their report at the stone upon the steps of the entrance of the council hall of the town, in the presence and hearing of the people, and so presented the letters of the king our sire addressed to the consaux and commonalty, which were read in the hearing of the said people; and contained the answer that the king made upon the said embassy. And on the 26th day following, the said letters were read before the consaux and commissioners in hall.\nWe take these details from an article by M. Hennebert, inserted in the Archives historiques et littéraires du nord de la France (new series, vol. I, p. 520, year 1837) — an article which accompanies the publication of the document itself, the discovery of which is likewise due to M. Hennebert.\nJESUS MARY.\nGentle loyal Frenchmen of the town of Tournay, the Maid lets you know the tidings from here, that in eight days she has chased the English out of all the places they held upon the river Loire, by assault or otherwise; and many of them have been slain and taken, and she has discomfited them in battle. And believe that the Earl of Suffolk, La Pole his brother, the lord of Talbot, the lord of Scales and Sir John Fastolf (1) and several knights and captains have been taken, and the brother of the Earl of Suffolk and Glasdale slain. Keep yourselves right loyal Frenchmen, I pray you, and I pray and require you that you be all ready to come to the anointing of the gentle King Charles at Reims where we shall shortly be, and come to meet us when you shall know that we draw near. To God I commend you; God be your guard and give you grace that you may maintain the good quarrel of the realm of France. Written at Gien the 25th day of June.\nOn the address: To the loyal Frenchmen of the town of Tournay.\n(1) Sir John Fastolf was not made prisoner at the battle of Patay, since it was he who directed the retreat of the English army. Here however is the third document (see above, pp. 120 and 122) in which the news of his capture is announced. Here one can no longer suppose a false rumour; it is from Joan\u0026rsquo;s own mouth that the fact is attested. It must be believed that the French were deceived for a moment, either by the resemblance of one of their prisoners to Fastolf, or by the ruse of some English knight who had surrendered to them passing himself off as Fastolf.\nX. Letter of the Maid to the Duke of Burgundy # 17 July 1429\nPublished twice as unedited: first by the archivist Godefroy, in the Abbé Grosier\u0026rsquo;s Journal de la littérature, des sciences et des arts (year 1780, vol. IV, p. 448), and secondly by M. Berriat Saint-Prix, in the history of Joan of Arc which he brought out in 1817. In the interval, the original had been lost and found again. It has never left the archive deposit of Lille, formerly archives of the Chambre des Comptes of Flanders, today archives of the département du Nord.\nOur text has been established after a perfectly executed facsimile possessed by M. Aimé Martin.\nJESUS MARY.\nHigh and redoubted prince, Duke of Burgundy, Joan the Maid requires you, by the King of Heaven, my rightful and sovereign lord, that the King of France and you make a good firm peace, which endures long. Pardon one another with good heart, entirely, as loyal Christians must do; and if it please you to make war, then go upon the Saracens. Prince of Burgundy, I pray, beseech and require you, as humbly as I can require you, that you war no more upon the holy realm of France, and cause to withdraw forthwith and shortly your people who are in any places and fortresses of the said holy realm; and on the part of the gentle King of France, he is ready to make peace with you, saving his honour, if it lies not in you. And I make known to you, by the King of Heaven, my rightful and sovereign lord, for your good and for your honour and upon your life, that you shall not win battle against the loyal French, and that all those who war upon the said holy realm of France war against the King Jesus, King of Heaven and of all the world, my rightful and sovereign lord. And I pray and require you with joined hands, that you make no battle nor war against us, you, your people or subjects; and believe surely that, whatsoever number of men you bring against us, they shall not prevail there, and it will be great pity for the great battle and for the blood that will there be shed of those who shall come against us. And it is three weeks since I wrote you and sent good letters by a herald, that you should be at the anointing of the king which, today Sunday, the 17th day of this present month of July, is done in the city of Reims: whereof I have had no answer, nor heard since tidings of the said herald. To God I commend you and may He be your guard, if it please Him; and I pray God that He put good peace there. Written at the said place of Reims, the said 17th day of July.\nOn the address: To the Duke of Burgundy.\nXI. Letter of Three Angevin Gentlemen to the Wife and the Mother-in-law of Charles VII # 17 July 1429\nPrinted for the first time in the Bibliothèque instructive of Père Menestrier (vol. II, p. 90), after the original possessed in their archives by the religious of the abbey of Bénisson-Dieu in Forez. Père Griffet had knowledge of it and used it to annotate Daniel at the passage of the coronation of Charles VII. We have said (vol. IV, p. 380) that the date of this event had long been a subject of controversy, in consequence of errors of figure introduced into all the editions of Monstrelet. M. Buchon, who did not suspect this, did all the contrary of Père Griffet: he corrected the letter of the abbey of Bénisson-Dieu by the printed text of Monstrelet and reprinted it with the date of 27 July, without warning of the change he was making in it. It is well ascertained today that the good manuscripts of Monstrelet, as well as the private letters, as well as all documents having some authority, agree in placing the coronation on the 17th.\nOur sovereign and most redoubted ladies, may it please you to know that yesterday the king arrived in this town of Reims, where he has found all and full obedience. Today he has been anointed and crowned; and it was a most fair thing to see the fair mystery, for it was as solemn and furnished with all things belonging to it, as well and as suitably for doing the thing, both in royal robes and other things necessary thereto, as if he had ordained it a year before; and there were as many people as it is an infinite thing to write, and likewise the great joy that each one had thereof.\nMy lords the Duke of Alençon, the Count of Clermont, the Count of Vendôme, the lords of Laval and La Trémoille, were there in royal robes, and my lord of Alençon made the king a knight, and the aforesaid represented the peers of France; my lord d\u0026rsquo;Albret held the sword during the said mystery before the king; and for the peers of the Church there were present with their croziers and mitres my lords of Reims and of Châlons, who are peers; and in lieu of the others, the Bishops of Sées and of Orléans, and two other prelates; and my said lord of Reims performed the said mystery and anointing which belongs to him.\nTo go fetch the holy ampulla in the abbey of Saint-Rémy, and to bring it into the church of Notre-Dame, where the anointing was done, were ordained the Marshal de Boussac, the lords of Rais, Graville, and the admiral, with their four banners which each bore in his hand, armed in all points and on horseback, well accompanied to conduct the abbot of the said place who brought the said ampulla; and they entered on horseback into the said great church and dismounted at the entry of the choir, and in this state they returned it after the service into the said abbey; which service lasted from nine o\u0026rsquo;clock until two. And at the hour when the king was anointed, and also when the crown was set upon his head, every man cried Noël! and trumpets sounded in such wise that it seemed the vaults of the church must split.\nAnd during the said mystery, the Maid stood always hard by the king, holding her standard in her hand. And it was a most fair thing to see the fair manners that the king kept, and the Maid also. And God knows how much you were wished there.\nToday have been made by the king counts the lord of Laval and the lord of Sully, and Rais marshal (1).\n(1) This is not said in the Histoire généalogique of Père Anselme, who attests, on the contrary, on the authority of the accounts of that year, that Rais was marshal as from 21 June 1429; but the accounts having been rendered only at the end of September, it may be conceived that there was applied to him during all the time of the financial year 1428-1429 the title which he held only during two months and a half of that same year.\nFriday a week ago, the king laid siege before Troyes, and made them most hard war; then they came to obedience; and he entered it the Sunday after by composition. And if they had not done him obedience at his pleasure, he would have taken them by force; for it is a marvellous thing to see the great power of the people who are in his company. The Monday following the king departed from Troyes holding his way to Châlons. Those of Châlons sent before midday to render obedience. The king entered it Thursday and departed Friday, holding his way to this town. And likewise those of this town have come to render obedience, and are right joyful of his coming, as they show to their power.\nTomorrow the king is to depart hence holding his way towards Paris. It is said in this town that the Duke of Burgundy has been there and has returned to Laon, where he is at present; he sent to the king as soon as he arrived in this town. At this hour we hope that a good treaty will be found there before they depart. The Maid has no doubt that she will not put Paris into obedience.\nAt the said anointing, the king made several knights, and also the said peer lords make them marvellously; there are more than three hundred new ones.\nOur sovereign and redoubted ladies, we pray the blessed Holy Ghost that He give you good life and long.\nWritten at Reims, this Sunday 17th of July.\nYour most humble and obedient servants,\nBeauvau (1), Moreau, Lussé.\nAnd on the back is written: To the queen and to the Queen of Sicily, our sovereign and most redoubted ladies.\n(1) Doubtless Pierre de Beauvau, of whom mention is made above, p. 38.\nXII. Letter of Alain Chartier to a Foreign Prince # End of July 1429\nPrinted only once by Lami, in the Deliciae eruditorum (vol. IV, p. 38), after a manuscript of the Riccardi library in Florence. The Latin manuscript 8757 of our Bibliothèque Royale contains another reading of it; but the two texts are so corrupt that even after having worked them one by the other, it has been necessary to renounce establishing the sense of several passages.\nThe letter is without address, without subscription and without date. It is attributed to Alain Chartier because the two manuscripts in which it is found are collections of letters of that celebrated man. Lami conjectured that it had been written for the emperor Sigismund, but a secretary of the king of France writing to the emperor of Germany would not have called him illustrissime princeps. It is a question of a prince who had sent an express to Bourges to take information on the Maid from the abbot of Saint-Antoine in Dauphiné or from the archbishop of Vienne. The choice of these two ecclesiastical dignitaries, both belonging to the same province, both neighbours of Savoy, would seem to me bound to carry conjectures in that direction. If Amadeus VIII, Duke of Savoy, is not the personage to whom Alain Chartier addresses himself, one may choose between his son Louis, prince of Piedmont, the marquis of Montferrat, the marquis of Saluzzo or the Duke of Milan.\nMost illustrious prince, your messenger Corardus met me yesterday at Bourges; who asserted that he had been sent by you into Gaul that he might obtain in letters, from the abbot of Saint-Antoine or the archbishop of Vienne (1), what is said of the Maid; but finding neither of them, he asked me earnestly that if I desired to do you a pleasing and agreeable thing, I should compose these letters on the Maid. And I, moved by your splendour and greatness, have willingly given my pains, that your messenger should not return empty and void of great and illustrious things which you greatly desire to know.\nFirst, as I suppose, you wish to know who the Maid is. If you ask her nation, she is of the realm; if her country, of Vaucouleurs, a town which is near the river Meuse; born of parents who were given to husbandry and to flocks. Having entered the age of childhood, she was set to the care of the cattle. But when she had reached her twelfth year, by a voice born of a cloud she was admonished many times to go to the king and succour the failing realm. But when the English had besieged Orléans with a strong army and strong castles and bastides, she was not only admonished by the oracle of those above, but also visited with threats that she should suffer a most heavy penalty unless she went speedily to the king. To her asking [how] she should journey and what it behoved her to do when arrived (2), the answer was: Putting off woman\u0026rsquo;s garb, take man\u0026rsquo;s, and companions who may accompany you to the king and conduct you, from the captain of Vaucouleurs. When you have journeyed and spoken with the king, deliver Orléans from the siege. Then bring the king to be consecrated at Reims; when crowned, restore Paris and give him back his realm.\n(1) Remensi [Reims] in Lami\u0026rsquo;s edition.\n(2) A passage visibly corrupted by the copyists. The edition gives quod nil vel instead of quid vel. I should propose quidve profectam.\nThe Maid made no delay; she went to the captain, received companions, put on man\u0026rsquo;s garb, and mounting a horse — which she had never done before — undertook the journey, and through the fields, through the camps, through hostile towns and the midst of the enemies\u0026rsquo; weapons, herself unharmed and all her companions safe, advanced and at last arrived where the king was. But the king, hearing of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s coming and learning why she came and what she declared she would do, used the counsel of a most wise king, and resolved neither to despise her nor admit her until by experience he should know what there was in her of good or ill, feigned or true, honest or wicked. Therefore the Maid is brought to examination before most learned men, as if into a battle; where being questioned again and again on many and arduous matters human and divine, she answered nothing but what was excellent and worthy of praise; so that she seemed not to have pastured flocks in the fields, but to have learnt letters in the schools. A most fair spectacle indeed: a woman disputing with men, the unlearned with the learned, one alone with many, the lowliest on the loftiest things! But when the king heard with what words and what constancy she spoke, he had her summoned before him and heard her speaking diligently. What she said, no man knows; yet it is most manifest that the king was filled, as it were by the Spirit (1), with no mean alacrity.\nAfter this the Maid, since she burned to fulfil the divine commands, asked that an army be given her forthwith wherewith to succour Orléans now in peril; to whom, lest anything should be done rashly, it was at first denied, but at length granted. Which received, with a mighty abundance of victuals she repairs to Orléans. Passing under the enemies\u0026rsquo; camps they perceive nothing hostile; for the enemies, as if from foes made friends, from men made women, or as if all were bound hand and foot, suffer the victuals to pass into the town with equanimity. The victuals being brought into the town, she herself going against the camps, it is a certain marvel in what manner, or in how brief a space, she took them — especially the one raised in the midst as it were of the bridge (1), which was so strong and so furnished and ramparted with all things that, if nations, if peoples of the whole world had attacked it, it could not, it was believed, be taken. At last she attacks one, then another and a third fort, which, as they were girt about with rivers and full of armed men and all garrisons, seemed in no wise able to be stormed. Which forts indeed this warrioress overwhelmed like a tempest; and then hearing that the English with an army were at hand, she led her army and battle-line against the enemies, invaded them with great spirit. Nor was she moved from her purpose because the enemies were far superior in number. The English could not sustain the Maid\u0026rsquo;s onslaught, so that conquered, they were slain to a man like cattle. After this she pronounces that it must not be ignored that the time had come when the crown was to be received by the king; that they must therefore go to Reims: which seemed to many not only difficult but impossible, since they must needs proceed through towns and places held by the enemies. But the towns themselves gave themselves up to the king of their own accord. And so they came to Reims and the king, the Maid leading him, was consecrated.\n(1) Spretum in Lami\u0026rsquo;s edition.\n(1) The edition and the manuscript have Pontem instead of pontis; the one and the other indicate by a blank that there is a lacuna between medio and quasi.\nBut lest I go on too long, and to touch many things in few words if I can: there is no mortal who, if he thinks upon her, does not admire — who does not stand amazed at the words, the deeds and feats which in so brief a time, so many and so marvellous, she has wrought. But what marvel? For what is there of the things that leaders must have in wars which the Maid has not? Military prudence? She has it wondrous. Fortitude? She has a lofty spirit above all. Diligence? She surpasses the brave. Justice? Virtue? Felicity? And in these she is adorned beyond the rest. And if she is to fight with the foe, she herself leads the army, herself places the camps, herself arrays the battle and the line, and uses bravely the work of a soldier and performs the work of a leader. For the signal given, she seizes her lance, brandishes it seized, hurls it at the enemies, and, her horse touched with the spurs, breaks with mighty onset into the host.\nThis is she who has not come forth from any other lands, but seems sent down from heaven to sustain falling Gaul with her neck and shoulders. She has borne the king, labouring in a vast gulf of storms and tempests, into port and shore, and raised his spirits to hope for better things. She, repressing English fierceness, has stirred up Gallic audacity, has forbidden Gallic ruin, has shaken off the Gallic conflagration. O singular virgin, worthy of all glory, of all praise, worthy of divine honours! Thou art the glory of the realm, the light of the lily, thou the light, thou the glory not of the Gauls alone but of all Christians. Let not Troy remember and rejoice in Hector, let not Greece exult in Alexander, Africa in Hannibal, Italy in Caesar and all the Roman captains glory. Gaul, though she have many of the ancients, yet content with this one Maid, will dare to vaunt herself and compare herself in warlike praise with other nations, yea, if need be, to set herself above them.\nThese are the things which I have had to say of the Maid for the present; and if I have said them more briefly than perhaps you would wish, that was done because I fear that if I had spoken them more diffusely, they would have gone out not into a letter but into a book. Farewell.\nXIII. Fragment of a Letter of the Duke of Bedford # End of July (?)\nPrinted in Rymer\u0026rsquo;s Pacta, Foedera, etc., vol. X, p. 408, under the following title: On the death of the Earl of Salisbury, on the enchantments of the diabolical woman whom they call the Maid, and on the state of things then in France, among other things these words of the Duke of Bedford to the king are related. Because the death of Salisbury is spoken of in it, Rymer has placed it among the pieces of the year 1428, but wrongly, since not only had the Maid appeared at the moment of the despatch, but already she had astonished the world with her successes.\nAnd all thing there prospered for you, till the time of the siege of Orleans taken in hand, God knoweth by what advis. At the which time, after the adventure fallen to the person of my cousin of Salisbury, whom God assoil, there fell, by the hand of God, as it seemeth, a great stroke upon your people that was assembled there in great number, caused in great part, as I trow, of lack of sad belief, and of unlawful doubt that they had of a disciple and limb of the Fiend, called the Pucelle, that used false enchantments and sorcery. The which stroke and discomfiture not only lessened in great part the number of your people there, but as well withdrew the courage of the remnant in marvellous wise, and encouraged your adverse party and enemies to assemble them forthwith in great number, etc. (1)\n(1) Here is the literal translation of this piece [into French in the original]: And all things prospered for you until the time of the siege of Orléans undertaken, God knows by what counsel. At which time, after the adventure that befell the person of my cousin of Salisbury, whom God absolve, there happened by the hand of God, as it seems, a great mischief upon your people who were assembled there in great number; which arose in great part, as I think, by entanglement of the false beliefs and foolish fear that they had of a disciple and hound of the Enemy (that is to say of the Devil), called the Maid, who used false enchantments and sorcery. Which mischief and discomfiture not only diminished a great part of the number of your people, but also withdrew the courage of the remainder in a marvellous manner, and encouraged your adversaries and enemies to assemble forthwith in great number.\nXIV. Exemption from Taxes Granted to the Inhabitants of Greux and Domrémy in Consideration of the Maid # 31 July 1429\nA vidimus of the year 1483, preserved until lately in the town hall of Greux (2), furnished the text of this piece to M. Jollois, who had it printed for the first time in his Abridged History of the Life and Exploits of Joan of Arc. Lenglet Dufresnoy had promised to give it in the third part of his work, but did not do so, doubtless because the copy did not reach him in time.\nThe privilege of Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s fellow townsmen subsisted until the last century. I have seen a confirmation of it by Louis XV dated 10 August 1723, in which were alleged as antecedents an ordinance of March 1656 and a decree of the council of 28 February 1682. Ancient memoranda, drawn up at the beginning of the seventeenth century, found the perpetuity of the same usage upon the constant reproduction of the formula Néant, la Pucelle [Nothing, the Maid], placed before the names of the villages of Greux and Domrémy on all the taille-rolls of earlier times.\nCharles, by the grace of God king of France, to the bailiff of Chaumont, to the treasurers (1) and commissioners commissioned and to be commissioned to assess and impose the aids, tailles, subsidies and subventions in the said bailiwick, and to all our other justices and officers or their lieutenants, greeting and love. We make known to you that in favour and at the request of our well-beloved Joan the Maid, considering the great, high, notable and profitable service which she has done and does daily to us in the recovery of our lordship: we have granted and do grant of special grace by these presents to the tenants and inhabitants of the town and village of Greux and Domrémy, in the said bailiwick of Chaumont in Bassigny (2), of which the said Joan is a native, that they be henceforth frank, quit and exempt from all tailles, aids, subsidies and subventions laid and to be laid in the said bailiwick. So we command and enjoin you and each of you that of their said enfranchisement, quittance and exemption you make and let the said tenants and inhabitants have joy and use fully, without putting or giving them, or suffering to be put or given them, any hindrance or impediment to the contrary, now or for the time to come; and in case the said tenants and inhabitants be assessed or charged to the said tailles and aids, let each of you for his part have them held quit and peaceable thereof: for so it pleases us and we will it to be done, notwithstanding any ordinances, restrictions, mandates or prohibitions to the contrary. Given at Château-Thierry, the last day of July, in the year of grace one thousand four hundred twenty-nine, and of our reign the seventh. Thus signed: By the king in his council. BUNE (1).\n(2) M. Melcion, the present mayor of Greux, has, at my request, sought this deed among the papers of his commune and no longer found it.\n(1) Aux tiers in M. Jollois\u0026rsquo;s edition.\n(2) Later, the élections having been multiplied, Domrémy alone remained in that of Chaumont. Greux was of the bureau of Bar.\n(1) The secretary\u0026rsquo;s name could not be deciphered by the author of the copy printed by M. Jollois; but this name is given, with the analysis of the piece, in the Traité sommaire du nom et des armes de la Pucelle [Summary Treatise of the Name and Arms of the Maid], p. 4. In the same work, at the same place, we read: By other letters patent given at Chinon, 6 February 1459, it is seen that the inhabitants of the said villages of Greux and Domrémy being troubled in the said exemption, the king commands that they be preserved and maintained therein according to the said first patent of the year 1429, in these words: In favour of the said Maid, native of that parish and in which are her kinsfolk: the said second patent verified and executed by sentence of the élus of Langres of the first of April, in the said year 1459 before Easter.\nXV. Letter of the Maid to the Inhabitants of Reims # 5 August 1429\nPrinted for the first time in 1844 by M. Varin, in the Archives administratives de Reims (vol. I, p. 596). The original was preserved in the town hall of Reims at the beginning of the seventeenth century; only a copy of the same period exists, which is found interpolated in the manuscript of Rogier, in the Bibliothèque Royale (French Supplement, no. 1515-2); it is thence that M. Varin has exhumed it.\nMy dear and good friends the good and loyal Frenchmen of the city of Reims, Joan the Maid lets you know her news, and prays and requires you that you make no doubt in the good quarrel that she leads for the royal blood; and I promise and certify you that I shall not abandon you so long as I live. And it is true that the king has made truce to the Duke of Burgundy for fifteen days, so that he must render the city of Paris peaceably at the end of fifteen days. Nevertheless, be not at all marvelling if I do not enter there so briefly, seeing that of the truces so made I am not content, and I know not if I shall keep them; but if I keep them, it will be only to keep the honour of the king; seeing also that they shall not abuse the royal blood, for I shall keep and hold together the king\u0026rsquo;s army to be all ready at the end of the said fifteen days, if they do not make peace. Wherefore, my most dear and perfect friends, I pray you that you be not in distress so long as I live; but I require you that you keep good watch and guard the king\u0026rsquo;s good city; and let me know if there be any traitors who wish to grieve you, and as soon as I can, I shall remove them from among you; and let me know your news. To God I commend you, who be your guard.\nWritten this Friday, the fifth day of August, near a lodging in the fields on the way to Paris.\nOn the address: To the loyal Frenchmen dwelling in the town of Reims.\nXVI. Deliberation of the Council of the Town of Reims # 5 September 1429\nPrinted after what remains of the registers of the town hall of Reims, by M. Varin; same work and same volume as the preceding piece, p. 743.\nMonday, 5th of September 1429, by Antoine de Hellande, captain, and present my lord of Saint Denis, master N. Syrene, master C. Duguet; J. Caillart, C. Hurtaut, aldermen; G. Hodierne, G. Lescot, master P. Chardon, master J. Cabert, master P. de Montfaucon, master H. La Barbe, and several aldermen and others to the number of 400 persons:\nIt has been deliberated to pay the expenses of the father of the Maid (1) and to give him a horse to go away.\nItem, to write to the king and to my lord of Reims, concerning the raids made by the men of Poton being at Château-Thierry and other garrisons, and that it please them to provide therein; and likewise to the Maid, that provision be made therein.\n(1) See the article of the town accounts which states the payment of this expense, below, in the chapter of Extracts borrowed from the account books, under the heading of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s journey and sojourn at Reims.\nXVII. Public Outrage Done to the Magistracy of Abbeville on Account of the Maid # About 15 September 1429\nA remission from the Trésor des Chartes, published here for the first time, after register J, 175 (piece 125) of the Archives of the Realm. The Benedictines have cited it at the word Persina of their supplement to Du Cange\u0026rsquo;s Glossary, on account of the expression sentir la persinée which is employed in it twice.\nHenry, by the grace of God king of France and of England, make known to all present and to come that there has been humbly set forth to us on the part of Colin Gouye, called le Sourd, and Jehannin Daix, called Petit, natives of the town of Abbeville, prisoners in our prisons at Amiens:\nHow that all their lives they have maintained and governed themselves under our obedience and employed their powers in our service; which men, soon after our enemies and adversaries, being in their company the woman vulgarly named the Maid, had come into our realm and country of France and especially before our town of Paris — on a certain day the said suppliants, being in the company of one named Colin Broyart before and near the hostel of a marshal named Guillaume Dupont, in our town of Abbeville, heard that certain persons were speaking of the deeds and delusions of the said woman vulgarly named the Maid, and especially a herald; to which herald the said Petit had said: Faugh, faugh, and that whatsoever thing the said woman said or did was nought but delusion; and likewise said the said Colin and the others aforesaid; and that no faith should be given to the said woman; and that those who had belief in her were fools and smelt of the persinée, or words similar in substance; and moreover that there were in the said town several others who smelt of the persinée; not thinking to give charge to any of the good burgesses and tenants and inhabitants of our said town;\nFor which cause and other words whereof they were suspected by the mayor and aldermen of our said town of Abbeville, the said suppliants and the said Colin Broyart were made prisoners by the said mayor and aldermen and long held in strait and hard prisons, and afterwards put in our prisons at Abbeville, where they were for a certain space of time in great rigour from the said mayor and aldermen. And they being in the said prisons, had knowledge that we and our most dear and most beloved uncle and cousin the Duke of Burgundy were making assembly of men-at-arms and of shot to resist the enterprise of our enemies and adversaries: wherefore the said suppliants and the said Broyart together were moved to depart thence. And in fact they departed from the said prisons by a hole which they made between two beams and went as far as the fortress, by which they let themselves down by a rope into the moats, passed beyond and went into our service, both at the siege of Compiègne and elsewhere; where they have always continued until a certain time when they returned into our said town, we being in our town of Rouen, with intention of going to us to be provided upon the said case.\nAnd they being there, had knowledge that one named Jean Laudée, burgess and tenant in our said town of Abbeville, was pursuing very hard to give them hindrance: wherefore they concluded together and attacked the said Jean Laudée about the evening and drew their swords upon him, without the said Laudée being in any wise hurt or wounded; and fearing the power of the said Jean Laudée, who was making a great assembly of people to find and bring danger upon the bodies of the said suppliants, they passed over the walls of the said town and beyond the said moats secretly.\nFor which causes the said suppliants have been called to our rights and banished from our realm of France for ever. And nevertheless they have continued in several places in our service, in such wise that lately, as they were going in the company of the lord of Omont with intention of going to the siege of Lagny, they have been taken by our people and officers of Montreuil and led to our bailiff of Amiens, where they are prisoners, in the way of ending their days miserably unless, thereupon, our grace and mercy be imparted to them, as they say, etc.\nWherefore we, these things considered, willing that mercy be preferred to rigour of justice, to the said suppliants and to each of them in the said case, have acquitted, remitted and pardoned, remit, acquit and pardon of our special grace, full power and royal authority, the deeds and things aforesaid, etc.\nGiven in the fields before Lagny-sur-Marne, the 6th day of July in the year of grace 1432 and of our reign the tenth.\nThus signed: By the king at the relation of my lord the governor and regent of France, Duke of Bedford. J. DE RIVEN.\nXVIII. Communications of the King and of the Maid to the Inhabitants of Troyes # 2 October 1429\nExtract from the Register of the assemblies made with the leave, licence and authority of M. the bailiff of Troyes or his lieutenant, by MM. the clergy, burgesses and inhabitants of the town of Troyes, since Wednesday the 21st day of the month of September in the year 1429, in the archives of the Aube. Communicated by M. Ph. Guignard, archivist of the département.\nSunday, 2nd day of the month of October in the year 1429, there were assembled in the royal hall at Troyes, by the ordinance and commandment of M. the bailiff of Troyes, the persons who follow, to wit, etc., … and several others, come in great number, to hear the reading of certain letters sent by the king to MM. the clergy, burgesses and inhabitants; which were read and expounded word for word; containing in substance that the king has written to Mgr. de Vendôme that he succour us in our necessity and that he come over here, for favour of the necessities from hereabouts, and they were written at Gien, the 23rd of September.\nThere were published in the said assembly certain letters of Joan the Maid, written at Gien the 22nd day of the said month, by which she commends herself to MM., lets them know her news, and that she has been wounded before Paris (1).\n(1) See the first letter written by the Maid to the inhabitants of Troyes in the preceding month of July, in the extract from Rogier, vol. IV, p. 284.\nXIX. Note of Divers War Provisions Furnished by the Town of Clermont-Ferrand at the Request of the Maid # 7 November 1429\nExtract from the register called the Papier du chien [Dog\u0026rsquo;s Paper] or Book of the memoirs and diligences of the town of Clermont, fol. 47 verso; printed by M. Buchon in the Panthéon littéraire, corrected after a new copy by M. Desbouis, archivist of the town of Clermont.\nBe it remembered that the Maid Joan, messenger of God, and my lord d\u0026rsquo;Albret sent to the town of Clermont on the 7th day of November in the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, letters making mention that the town should be pleased to aid them with cannon powder and shot and artillery for the siege of La Charité. And it was ordained by my lords of the church, the aldermen and inhabitants of the said town, to send them the things which follow, which were sent to them by Jean Merle, quartermaster of my lord the Dauphin, as appears by his receipt, which is in this paper: and firstly two quintals of saltpetre, one quintal of sulphur, two cases of bolts containing a mailer\u0026rsquo;s worth; and for the person of the said Joan, one sword, two daggers and a battle-axe. And it was written to Messire Robert Andrieu, who was with the said Joan, that he should present the said harness to the said Joan and lord d\u0026rsquo;Albret (1).\n(1) See the two pieces which follow, as well as the account of the supplies made by the town of Orléans for the same expedition, below, among our Extracts from the account registers.\nXX. Letter of the Maid to the Inhabitants of Riom # 9 November 1429\nA piece discovered in 1844 among the papers of the town hall of Riom, by M. Tailhand, president of the royal court of that town. It was then published by several daily newspapers. We give a facsimile of the original, which is on paper, signed in the very hand of the Maid. This circumstance agrees very well with the avowal she made to her judges of not knowing how to write. The uncertain and cramped form of the letters shows that she only succeeded in giving this signature by having her hand guided. The original of Riom, which I have seen and held, had been sealed with a red wax seal of which the imprint has been destroyed. The back alone is preserved: one sees there the mark of a finger and the remains of a black hair which appears to have been placed originally in the wax.\nDear and good friends, you know well how the town of Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier has been taken by assault; and, with God\u0026rsquo;s aid, I have intention of clearing the other places which are contrary to the king; but because great expenditure of powders, shot and other implements of war has been made before the said town, and that the lords who are in this town and I are but poorly provided with them for going to lay siege before La Charité, whither we are presently going: I pray you, upon as much as you love the good and honour of the king and also of all the others hereabouts, that you will forthwith send and aid for the said siege with powders, saltpetre, sulphur; shot, strong crossbows and other implements of war. And do herein so much that, for want of the said powders and other implements of war, the thing be not long, and that one may not be able to call you negligent or refusing therein. Dear and good friends, may Our Lord be your guard. Written at Moulins, the ninth day of November.\nSigned: JEHANNE.\nOn the address: To my dear and good friends, the churchmen, burgesses and inhabitants of the town of Riom.\nXXI. Letter of the Lord d\u0026rsquo;Albret to the Same # Same date.\nSame provenance as the preceding piece; printed for the first time by M. Tailhand, in the Presse judiciaire (journal of Riom) of 10 August 1844.\nMost dear and great friends, you have been able to know well how the town of Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier has been taken by assault; at which taking we have made great expenditure of powders, shot and other implements of war: wherefore at present we are but poorly provided with them. And because our intention is, with God\u0026rsquo;s aid, to pursue and labour at the remainder of the deliverance and clearing of the other places contrary and enemies of my lord the king, and of his countries and subjects, and namely of La Charité, Cosne and others: it is need and necessity for us to have presently great quantity of powders, shot and other implements of war — which things to recover, nor the money that would be needed therefor, we could not so largely nor presently furnish as is needful, without the aid of you and of the other good towns and loyal subjects of my lord the king: wherefore you, who desire, as we firmly believe, the clearing and deliverance of the said places — seeing that by the adversaries and enemies of my lord the king, who detain and occupy the same places, you and the other subjects of my said lord are greatly oppressed and damaged, and also that no good man or good merchants dare go or travel through the country for fear of the said enemies — we pray and require you most earnestly and upon as much as you love and desire the clearing and deliverance of the said places, and the good of you and of the neighbouring countries of the same, that you will aid us and send presently by our beloved Jean Merle, whom for this cause we send to you, as largely as you can and know presently to aid with cannon powders, saltpetre, sulphur, crossbows and other implements of war, so that our enterprise be not long, and that for want of powders and other things aforesaid the business be not in any wise hindered or delayed. And what the bearer of these shall tell you from us touching the said matter, will you please to believe and give him full faith and credence; and forthwith deliver him and give him and cause to be given and delivered what shall be necessary to bring and conduct before the town of La Charité where Joan the Maid, my lord de Montpensier and we are presently going to lay the siege. And of what you will aid us and of your will and intention, upon what is said, let us know by the said Jean Merle; and if there be anything you wish we could do, we shall do it: this knows Our Lord, who have you in His guard. Written at Moulins, the 9th day of November.\nSigned: The lord d\u0026rsquo;Albret, Count of Dreux and of Gavre, lieutenant of the country of Berry for my lord the king, in the matter of war, CHARLES.\nOn the address: To my most dear and great friends, the churchmen, burgesses and inhabitants of the town of Riom.\nXXII. Ennoblement of Joan of Arc and of Her Family # December 1429\nPrinted for the first time by Jean Hordal, in his history of Joan of Arc; reproduced by Delaroque and many others. The present text is corrected after a vidimus of Henri II which is in register 260 (piece 306) of the Trésor des Chartes, in the Archives of the Realm. The author of the pamphlet entitled De extraction et parenté de la Pucelle [Of the extraction and kindred of the Maid] says that the original charter was in his time (1610) in the hands of a member of the family dwelling in Normandy.\nCharles, by the grace of God king of the Franks, for the perpetual memory of the thing. Being about to magnify the most abundant and most splendid graces of the divine loftiness, which by the celebrated ministry of the Maid, Joan d\u0026rsquo;Ay (1) of Domrémy, our dear and beloved, of the bailiwick of Chaumont or its jurisdiction, have been bestowed upon us, and are hoped, the same divine clemency cooperating, to be yet amplified: we judge it fitting and opportune that the said Maid, and all her kindred, as well for the merits of her office as for the praises of the divine laud, should be raised and exalted with the worthy insignia of the honours of our royal majesty, so that, thus ennobled by divine brightness, she may leave to her lineage some eminent gift of our royal liberality, whereby the divine glory and the fame of such great graces may increase and endure for everlasting times. We therefore make known to all present and future, that we, attending to the premises, considering moreover the laudable, acceptable and convenient services, already manifoldly rendered to us and to our realm by the said Joan the Maid, and which we hope shall be rendered in future, and certain other causes inducing our mind to this: the aforesaid Maid; Jacques d\u0026rsquo;Ay, of the said place of Domrémy, her father; Isabelle his wife, her mother; Jacquemin and Jean d\u0026rsquo;Ay, and Pierre Pierelo (1), brothers of the said Maid, and all her kindred and lineage, and in favour and for the contemplation of the same, their posterity also, masculine and feminine, born and to be born in lawful matrimony, have ennobled, and by these presents, of special grace and of our certain knowledge and plenitude of power, do ennoble and make noble; expressly conceding that the said Maid, the said Jacques, Isabelle, Jacquemin, Jean and Pierre, and all the kindred and lineage of the said Maid, and their posterity born and to be born, be held and reputed in their acts, in judgment and out, by all for nobles; and that they enjoy peaceably the privileges, liberties, prerogatives and other rights which the other nobles of our said realm, begotten of noble stock, have been wont and do use. And the same and their said posterity we aggregate to the fellowship of the other nobles of our said realm begotten of noble stock; notwithstanding that they, as is said, took not their origin from noble stock, and perchance are of another condition than free: willing also that the same aforenamed, and the said kindred and lineage of the oft-said Maid, and their posterity masculine and feminine, may, whensoever and as often as it shall please them, obtain from any knight the girdle of knighthood, or be decorated therewith. Moreover conceding to the same and their posterity, as well masculine as feminine, procreated and to be procreated in lawful matrimony, that they may acquire fiefs and arrière-fiefs and noble things from nobles and any other persons whomsoever, and may retain, hold and possess perpetually both things acquired and to be acquired, without being compelled to put them, now or in future time, out of their hand by occasion of unnobility; nor be held or compelled to pay us, or our successors, any finance whatsoever on account of this ennoblement: which finance indeed, by intuition and consideration of the aforesaid, to the same abovenamed and to the said kindred and lineage of the said Maid, of our ampler grace we have given and quitted, and do give and quit by these presents, notwithstanding any ordinances, statutes, edicts, usage, revocations, custom, inhibitions and mandates made, or to be made, to the contrary hereof. Wherefore to our beloved and faithful people of our accounts, and to the treasurers as well generals as commissioners ordained or to be deputed upon the business of our finances, and to the bailiff of the said bailiwick of Chaumont, and our other justices or their lieutenants present and future, and to each of them, in so far as it shall pertain to him, we give in command by the tenor of these presents that they make and permit the said Joan the Maid, and the said Jacques, Isabelle, Jacquemin, Jean and Pierre, and all the kindred and lineage of the said Maid, and their posterity aforesaid born and to be born in lawful matrimony, to use and enjoy peaceably our present grace, ennoblement and concession, now and hereafter, and that they in no wise hinder or molest the same against the tenor of these presents, or suffer them to be molested or hindered by any whomsoever. And that this may obtain the strength of perpetual stability, we have caused our seal to be set to these presents, ordained in the absence of the great seal; our right in others, and that of others in all, being always safe. Given at Meung-sur-Yèvre, in the month of December, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred and twenty-ninth, and of our reign the eighth.\nOn the fold: By the King, the Bishop of Sées, the lords of La Trémoille and of Trèves, and others being present. Signed, MALLIERE.\nAnd lower: Expedited in the King\u0026rsquo;s Chambre des Comptes, the sixteenth day of the month of January, in the year of the Lord 1429, and registered there, in the book of charters of this time, fol. 121. Signed, AGRELE.\nSealed with the great seal of green wax, on double queue, in laces of red and green silk.\n(1) Great surprise has been expressed that the Maid\u0026rsquo;s family name should have been thus altered in so capital a document; this comes from the manner of pronouncing of the Lorrainers, who at that time, even more than today, made narrow a\u0026rsquo;s and extinguished the r\u0026rsquo;s. For the people of Domrémy, the name d\u0026rsquo;Arc was foreign; probably Jacques d\u0026rsquo;Arc, born in Champagne, pronounced his name in one fashion and his children in another.\n(1) It is believed that this name should be read Pierrelot, and that it was thus that Pierre d\u0026rsquo;Arc was called in the village.\nXXIII. Deliberations of the Council of the Town of Tours on a Request of the Maid # 19 January and 7 February 1430\nExtracted from one of the ancient registers preserved in the archives of the town hall of Tours. These documents were published for the first time by M. Vallet de Viriville in the Bibliothèque de l\u0026rsquo;École des Chartes, vol. IV (first series), p. 488.\nThe 19th day of January, in the year 1429, at the Tablier of the said town, in the presence of Guyon Farineau, judge of Touraine, assembled Sire Jean Dupuy (1), counsellor of the Queen of Sicily; the aldermen of the town, master Léonard Champenoys, canon of the church of Tours, commissioned by the said church; masters Jean Chemier and Rigaut de Voillon, canons of the church of Tours, for the chapter of Tours; masters Jean Deslandes, canon of Monseigneur Saint-Martin; Pierre Briconnet, Olivier Duboillon, Estienne Gemier;\nTo deliberate upon certain closed letters sent by Joan the Maid to the four aldermen of the town and Sire Jean Dupuy, making mention that there be given to Heuves Polnoir, painter (2), the sum of one hundred crowns to dower his daughter, and that it be kept for him.\n(1) Host of the Maid when she was at Tours. See vol. III, p. 101.\n(2) He was the painter who had decorated Joan\u0026rsquo;s banner and standard at her departure for Orléans. See below the Extracts from the account books.\nAppointed that thereupon they shall speak to the said Heuves and write thereof to Sire Jean de Pontchier and master Jean Lepicart, being at Bourges (1), etc.\n— The 7th day of February, in the year 1429, at the place of La Massequière, present Jean Godeau, lieutenant, etc., and Guyon Farineau, judge of Touraine, the aldermen assembled: Master Pierre Léonart, official of Tours, for Mgr. the archbishop; master Jean Chemier, canon and archpriest of the church of Tours, for the said church; master Jean Deslandes called Bonamy, for the chapter of Monseigneur Saint-Martin; Jean Debrion, Macé de la Bretonnière, Pierre Briconnet, Jean Vésantier, Guillaume de Montbazon, Jean Laillier, Colas de Montbazon, Jean Herviet, Jean Pesthieu, Roulet Berthelot, Gillet Debrion and others.\nBy whom it has been deliberated that to the daughter of Heuves Polnoir, painter, who has newly married — for the honour of Joan the Maid, come into this realm to the king for the business of the war, saying that she had been sent to him by the King of Heaven against the English, enemies of this realm; who has written to the town that, for the marriage of the said daughter, the said town should pay her the sum of one hundred crowns: that of this nothing shall be paid nor given her, because the moneys of the town must be employed in the repairs of the town and not elsewhere. But, for love and honour of the said Maid, the said churchmen, burgesses and inhabitants shall do honour to the said daughter at her blessing, which shall be next Thursday; and prayers shall be made for her in the name of the said town; and to make the said prayer to the notable men of the said town, Michau Hardoin, notary of the said town, is ordained. And to the said daughter shall be given bread and wine on the day of her said blessing; to wit, for bread, a septier of wheat, and four gallons of wine (1).\n(1) They were both at court for the affairs of the town.\n(1) See among our Extracts from the account books the payment of the sum voted for this gift.\nXXIV. Letter of the Maid to the Hussites of Bohemia # 3 March 1430\nGerman translation of a letter which one easily recognises as having been originally written in Latin. It was brought to light by M. de Hormayr, in the Taschenbuch für vaterländische Geschichte of 1834. Although the editor is silent on the provenance of this piece, it is none the less of incontestable authenticity. Composed by a cleric, it breathes the research of a mind formed to literary exercises, and cannot consequently be compared to any of the other letters of the Maid.\nWe refer the reader to our fourth volume (p. 503), for knowledge of the testimony which the Dominican Jean Nider bore upon this letter.\nJESUS MARY.\nLong since the fickle report, but lately the certain voice of the people as the voice of God, has brought to my ears, to me the Maid Joan, the knowledge of this: that from Christian heretics you have become blind heathens and Saracens; that you have abolished the true faith and all edification of the service of God; that you labour at a revolting superstition; that you defend it by blood and flame; that by means of terror and outrage you suffer it to spread mightily; that you cast down the holy images, that you lay the holy buildings in ruins and rubbish! Are you then utterly raving? What senseless fury possesses you? You would persecute the sublime faith, undermine it, yea root it out — that faith which almighty God, the Son and the Holy Ghost have awakened, instituted, exalted, sealed by the sublimest sacrificial death, confirmed by thousands of miracles. They who lack sight and the light of the eyes are clear-sighted beside you, first of the blind. Think you aught is committed unpunished? Know you not that God suffers your wickedness to stride forward, your errors to grow, your darkness to increase, your murderous swords to prevail, that when you have climbed the summit of godlessness He may suddenly cast you into the abyss?\nI, the Maid Joan — to speak to you truly the truth — would long since have visited you with avenging arm, if the war with the English did not still hold me here. But if I hear not soon of your amendment, of your return into the bosom of the Church, I shall perchance leave the English and turn against you, to extirpate the outrageous superstition with the edge of iron and to take from you either heresy or life. If however you return to the former light, if you return into the bosom of the Catholic confession, then send your envoys to me. I shall tell them what you have to do. But if you harden yourselves in your obstinacy, may the horror of the harm you have wrought, of the crimes wherewith you have defiled yourselves, shake your stubbornness. Expect me with the strongest human and divine power to repay you like for like.\nGiven at Sully, the 3rd of March.\nXXV. Letter of the Maid to the Inhabitants of Reims # 16 March 1430\nCopy of the seventeenth century interpolated in the manuscript of Rogier (French Suppl., no. 1515-2, in the Bibliothèque Royale), and printed by M. Varin, in the Archives législatives de la ville de Reims, second part, vol. I, p. 596.\nThe original, formerly preserved in the town hall of Reims, was signed in Joan\u0026rsquo;s hand like the letter above, p. 147, and sealed with a red wax seal completely broken.\nMost dear and well-beloved and well-desired to see, Joan the Maid has received your letters making mention that you fear having the siege. Know that you shall not have it, if I can meet them; and if so it were that I met them not, and they came before you, do you shut yourselves up stoutly, for I shall be very shortly towards you; and if they are there, I shall make them wear out their spurs so hastily that they shall not know where to take them, and their seil (1) is so brief that it will be soon. Other thing I write you not for the present, but that you be always good and loyal. I pray God that He have you in His guard. Written at Sully, the 16th day of March.\nI would send you yet some news whereof you would be right joyful; but I fear that the letters might be taken on the way and that the said news might be seen.\nSigned: JEHANNE.\nOn the address: To my most dear and well-beloved, the churchmen, burgesses and other inhabitants of the town of Reims.\n(1) Sic. Although the copy of Rogier was made with care, collated and corrected by someone practised in the reading of old deeds, it is impossible that there should not be some fault in this place. One might conjecture essil instead of seil, as one would say in better French, et leur essil est si bref — that is, their destruction is so near, etc.\nXXVI. Letter of the Same to the Same # 28 March.\nSame provenance as the preceding, and likewise published by M. Varin. The seal was still whole on the original; but the author of the copy declares that he could not discern either the figure or the legend.\nMost dear and good friends, may it please you to know that I have received your letters, which make mention how it has been reported to the king that within the good city of Reims there were many evil ones. Know that it is quite true that it has been reported to him — verily that there were many who were of an alliance — which were of an alliance (1) — and who were to betray the town and put the Burgundians within. And since, the king has well known the contrary, because you sent him the certainty thereof: whereat he is well content with you; and believe that you are well in his grace; and if you had need, he would succour you as regards the siege; and he knows well that you have much to suffer for the hardness that these traitor Burgundian adversaries do you; so he will deliver you thereof at God\u0026rsquo;s pleasure right soon, that is as soon as it can be done. So I pray and require you, most dear friends, that you guard well the said good city for the king, and that you keep right good watch. You shall hear right soon my good news more fully. Other thing for the present I write you not, save that all Brittany is French and the Duke is to send the king three thousand fighting men paid for two months. To God I commend you, who be your guard. Written at Sully, the 28th of March.\nOn the address: To my most dear and good friends the churchmen, aldermen, burgesses and inhabitants and masters of the good town of Reims.\n(1) Sic. See vol. IV, p. 299 what Rogier says on the subject of this affair.\nXXVII. Edict Against the English Captains and Soldiers Who Refused to Cross into France for Fear of the Maid # 3 May 1430.\nPrinted in Rymer\u0026rsquo;s Pacta foedera, etc., vol. X of the old edition, p. 459. The Maid is not named a single time throughout the whole length of the act; but a rubric of the time, reproduced by the editor, attributes to it the following title: De proclamationibus contra capitaneos et soldarios tergiversantes incantationibus Puellae terrificatos [Of proclamations against captains and soldiers holding back, terrified by the enchantments of the Maid].\nThe king, to the sheriffs of London, greeting. Whereas it has been given us to understand that very many captains and soldiers, who are retained to set forth with us in our present voyage towards the parts beyond the sea, who according to the force and effect of the indentures made between us and the said captains ought to have shown themselves before our commissioners on the first day of May last past, and thenceforth, during their term of such retention, to have served us, make tarrying and expectation in the city aforesaid, to our grave prejudice and contempt, and against the form and effect of their retention aforesaid — our person, who are personally in the parts beyond the sea, and our country and subjects there, so far as in them lies, exposing to manifest peril: we, willing to obviate their perversity, contempt and prejudice, enjoining you as strictly as we can, command that forthwith, these presents seen, in each of the places of the city aforesaid and the suburbs of the same where it shall seem to you most expedient, you cause to be publicly proclaimed on our behalf, that all and singular such captains and soldiers, being in the city aforesaid and resorting to it, of whatsoever estate, degree or condition they be, who are retained to set forth with us in our voyage aforesaid towards the parts aforesaid, draw themselves towards the sea-coasts unto our town of Sandwich or of Dover, all delay and retardation laid aside, for their shipping and that of their horses and harnesses, and to our person with all possible celerity, and make haste there, upon pain of loss of their horses, harnesses and imprisonment of their bodies at our will; and that all those whom after and against the proclamation aforesaid, after the day of such proclamation made by you, you shall find making tarrying in the city aforesaid, without our licence or that of our dearest uncle Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, keeper of England, containing in writings the cause of their tarrying, signed with our seal or the signet of the keeper, you cause without delay, together with their horses and harnesses aforesaid, to be arrested and taken, and the bodies of them arrested to be put into our prison, and their horses and harnesses aforesaid under safe and secure custody to be kept, until we shall have ordained otherwise for their deliverance. And this, as you love us and our honour, and would avoid our grave indignation, in no wise omit. Witness Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, keeper of England, at the city of the king of Canterbury. The third day of May.\nXXVIII. Mass Sung for Charles VII and for the Maid # 5 May 1430.\nExtract from an unedited manuscript of the miracles of Saint Catherine of Fierbois, which is in the Bibliothèque Royale (Latin no. 7339). I must warn that this collection, executed about the year 1472, contains no mention either of the passage of the Maid at Sainte-Catherine or of the discovery of the famous sword.\nI, Jean Boucher, licentiate in laws, canon of the churches of Tours and of Angers, and dean of Saint John of Angers, on the Tuesday after the feast of Easter, that is the 18th of the month of April, in the year of the Lord 1430, in my house at Angers, about the ninth hour of the night, began to fall gravely ill. Whereupon so great and intolerable a pain of the head invaded me (which lasted with me almost until the fourth hour after midnight) that I hoped more for the pain\u0026rsquo;s sake to die than to recover. At that hour, mindful of the glorious virgin Catherine, to whom in necessities I have ever been wont to have recourse, trusting to be aided by her prayers and merits, I commended and vowed myself to her; and suddenly and without interval, by the grace of God and of the said glorious virgin, as I firmly believe, the so great and unbearable pain disappeared; and within a few days I recovered my health; and took the road on foot, to fulfil my vow. And, thanks be to God, in the present chapel I celebrated a high-voiced mass as well for the king as for the Maid, pleasing to God, and for the prosperity and peace of this realm, on Friday the fifth of May, in the year abovesaid.\nXXIX. Sojourn of the Maid in the Parish of Élincourt # Beginning of May 1430.\nThe fact is recorded in these terms in the manuscript history of Beauvais, by M. Hermant (Bibliothèque Royale, French Suppl., no. 5-2, vol. III).\nIt is held by an ancient tradition, in the extremity of this diocese (1), that the Maid Joan dwelt some time at the castle of Borenglise, of the parish of Élincourt, between Compiègne and Ressons; and this popular belief is altogether probable (2).\n(1) Of Beauvais.\n(2) The more probable as the dedication of the parish of Élincourt, dedicated to Saint Margaret, was a reason for Joan to seek the neighbourhood of that church.\nXXX. Letter of the Duke of Burgundy to the Inhabitants of Saint-Quentin on the Capture of the Maid # 23 May 1430.\nCopied from the original on paper which is in the archives of Saint-Quentin, by M. Janin, archivist-palaeographer. The manuscript department of the Bibliothèque Royale possesses two copies of the same piece. One forms part of the Cabinet des Chartes, the other belongs to the collection of Dom Grenier (packet 13, no. 5).\nBY THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY, COUNT OF FLANDERS, OF ARTOIS, OF BURGUNDY AND OF NAMUR.\nMost dear and well-beloved, knowing that you desire to know our news, we signify to you that this present day, 23rd of May, about six hours after noon, the adversaries of my lord the king (1) and ours, who had gathered themselves in very great power and entered the town of Compiègne, before which we and the men of our army are lodged, sallied out of the said town in power upon the lodging of our vanguard nearest to them; at which sally was she whom they call the Maid, with several of their principal captains. Against whom, fair cousin, Messire Jean de Luxembourg, who was present there, and others of our people and some of the people of my lord the king whom he had sent to us to pass beyond and go to Paris, made very great and sharp resistance; and quickly we arrived there in our own person, and found that the said adversaries were already driven back; and by the pleasure of our blessed Creator, the thing so came to pass and He did us such grace that the said woman called the Maid has been taken, and with her several captains, knights, squires and others taken, drowned and slain, of whom at this hour we do not yet know the names, without any of our people or of the people of my said lord the king having been slain or taken there, or there having been of our people wounded twenty persons, God be thanked. Of which capture, as we hold certain, there will be great tidings everywhere, and the error and foolish belief of all those who in the deeds of the said woman have rendered themselves inclined and favourable will be known; and this thing we write you for our news, hoping that you will have joy, comfort and consolation thereof and will render thanks and praises to our said Creator, who sees and knows all, and who, by His blessed pleasure, may will to conduct the rest of our enterprises to the good of our said lord the king and of his lordship and to the relief and comfort of his good and loyal subjects. Most dear and well-beloved, may the Holy Spirit have you in His holy guard.\nWritten at Coudun near Compiègne, the 23rd day of May. Signed: MILET.\nOn the back is written: To our most dear and well-beloved the churchmen, burgesses and inhabitants of Saint-Quentin in Vermandois.\n(1) Henry VI.\nXXXI. Analysis of a Letter of the Chancellor of France to the Inhabitants of Reims on the Same Subject # Same date.\nJean Rogier, in his Memoirs, gives this analysis of a piece which in his time existed in original in the archives of the town hall of Reims, and which unfortunately is lost today. The passage forms part of the fragment of Rogier brought to light by M. Varin (see the fourth volume of the present work, p. 284 and following). It is found in the midst of a very confused enumeration of the despatches sent by Archbishop Regnault de Chartres, chancellor of Charles VII, to the people of his metropolitan town.\nHe gives advice of the capture of Joan the Maid before Compiègne, and how she would not believe counsel; but did all at her pleasure. That there had come to the king a young shepherd, keeper of ewes from the mountains of Gévaudan in the bishopric of Mende, who said neither more nor less than Joan the Maid had done; and that he had commandment from God to go with the king\u0026rsquo;s people; and that without fail the English and Burgundians would be discomfited. And upon being told that the English had put Joan the Maid to death (1), he answered that so much the worse would it befall them; and that God had suffered Joan the Maid to be taken because she had constituted herself in pride and for the rich garments she had taken; and that she had not done what God had commanded her, but had done her own will.\n(1) From these words some may believe that Rogier has fused together two letters, one on the capture of Joan, the other posterior to her execution. That seems to me improbable, having regard to Rogier\u0026rsquo;s manner of proceeding in the rest of his inventory. The mention of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s death may very well be explained as a false rumour reported to the Shepherd, whether in good faith or to test him.\nXXXII. Particulars Concerning the Shepherd by Whom It Was Wished to Replace the Maid # I place these fragments here for the completer understanding of the preceding document. They are all extracts from chroniclers, concerning an encounter of French and English which took place between Beauvais and Gournay at the beginning of August 1431.\nThe author of the Journal de Paris.\nItem, that year the feast of Saint Dominic fell on a Sunday; and that day the regent returned to Paris, who had been spied upon by the Armagnacs when he meant to pass Mantes, and they thought to take him; but, being well advised, he repassed the river and came day and night until he was at Paris. The news of this ran to those of the host who were before Louviers; so they left two or three captains at the siege with all their people, who thought that the regent was taken. When they knew that he was not, they hardened themselves and went as far as before Beauvais and ambushed themselves. So it was told to those of the city; so they made haste to issue out who best could. The regent\u0026rsquo;s people knew their manner by their spies: so a party issued out who put themselves between the town and the Armagnacs, and the others came before and assailed them most sharply, and they defended themselves very well; but when they saw the others coming behind, they thought there were more of them than there were; so they discomfited themselves; and the biggest captains were taken or slain. And among the others there was a wretch named Guillaume le Berger [the Shepherd] who made the people idolise him, and rode sideways, and showed from time to time his hands and feet and his side; and they were stained with blood, like Saint Francis\u0026rsquo;s. And a captain named Poton de Saintrailles of very great renown was taken, and others enough, and they were led to Rouen.\n— Item, on Saint Andrew\u0026rsquo;s day, last day of November, came to lie Henry, aged nine years or thereabouts, in the abbey of Saint-Denis in France, on a Friday; who styled himself king of France and of England.\nItem, the Sunday following, first day of the Advents, the said king came to Paris by the gate of Saint-Denis, etc.\nItem, before him were the nine worthies and the nine worthy ladies, and after, a multitude of knights and squires; and among the others was William, who called himself the Shepherd, who had shown his wounds like Saint Francis, of whom mention is made above; but he could not have joy, for he was strongly bound with good cords like a thief.\nJean Lefèvre de Saint-Remy.\nOf the battle of the Shepherd where the French were discomfited by the English (ch. 472).\nYou have well heard tell how some of light and fickle credence took it into themselves to believe that the deeds of the Maid were miraculous things and permitted by God, and many were strongly inclined to believe it. Now nevertheless, upon the death of Joan the Maid, likewise some of foolish credence set up a foolish shepherd, who, as the Maid Joan had said, said that he had divine revelation that he should put himself forward in arms, to aid this noble king of France: which folly was experienced to the charge, loss and dishonour of the realm. And it befell that several notable lords and captains, trusting in that shepherd, put themselves into the fields; and when the English knew it, they made a great assembly to resist against them. On the part of the French were the Marshal de Boussac, Poton de Saintrailles, La Hire, and several other captains; in their company, as chief, that wretched shepherd. On the part of the English were the Earl of Arundel, the lord of Talbot and several others. Which French and English assembled in battle and fought most valiantly both the one and the other. Nevertheless fortune turned upon the French; and there many were slain and taken. The valiant Poton de Saintrailles, who afterwards was marshal of France, was taken there; and there was taken the poor Shepherd on whom was the hope of the French. The Marshal Boussac, La Hire and others withdrew to Beauvais; and the English with great honour, triumph and glory returned to Rouen with all their spoils and conquests; and there the Shepherd was led. What became of him afterwards I know not, but I heard say that he had been cast into the river Seine and drowned. That battle was called of the Shepherd: which battle is written more at length in the books of those who have chronicled (1). And so I pass on, and it sufficed me to make mention thereof.\n(1) He speaks there of chroniclers whose works are not known.\nMonstrelet.\nIn the abovesaid year, the Marshal de Boussac, Poton de Saintrailles, Messire Louis de Wancourt and certain other captains holding the party of King Charles, accompanied by eight hundred fighting men or thereabouts, departed from the town of Beauvais to go seek their adventure and foray the country around Gournay in Normandy; with whom was one whom the French named Pastourel [Little Shepherd], and they wished to exalt him in renown as and in such manner as Joan the Maid had been before. So their enterprise was known and reported to the Earl of Warwick, etc., etc.\nBerry.\nAt this time were the lord of Sainte-Sévère and of Boussac, marshal of France, Poton de Saintrailles and several other captains in the town of Beauvais, where was Messire Regnault de Chartres, archbishop of Reims and chancellor of France; who had assembled with several men-at-arms to go to Rouen, and had deliberated to go there with a little shepherd child who said he had been sent to introduce them there, and resolved to depart the morrow. So the English knew it, etc.\nJean Chartier.\nFinally the French were discomfited: whereof many were slain and taken by the said Earl of Arundel. Namely there were slain many men of the said town of Beauvais who were on foot; and the said Poton de Saintrailles was taken and a little varlet who was called Shepherd, who said that he came from God; and he was held for a fool.\nMartial d\u0026rsquo;Auvergne.\nAnd there was also taken in the said place\nA young child, a shepherd all simple,\nSaying himself sent by God,\nFor the love of the late Maid\nWho had been seen thus to conquer:\nEach one wished to do like her\nAnd meddle in the war.\nXXXIII. Extract from a Memorandum to Be Consulted on Guillaume de Flavy # An unpublished piece of which the original is in the Cabinet des Titres of the Bibliothèque Royale (Flavy dossier). This memorandum, which may date from the time of Henri II, is a summary of the pleadings pronounced for Guillaume de Flavy or for his memory, in the interminable succession of criminal trials of which the parliament remained seised on his occasion until beyond the fifteenth century. The documents alleged by the author of the memorandum are: an abolition, dated 4 November 1437, granted to Guillaume de Flavy; the remission of his assassination delivered in the month of July 1449 to his wife Blanche d\u0026rsquo;Overbruche, but ratified only by decree of the parliament of 5 June 1500; another decree of 9 September 1509 which terminated, at the costs of Jeanne de Flavy, grand-niece of the late Guillaume, the suit begun as early as 1440 for the sequestration of the Marshal de Rochefort. Researches in the judicial section of the Archives of the Realm have not enabled me to find any of these acts. For want of them, I esteem myself fortunate to be able to produce something of the factum which sums them up, because it contains on the situation of Compiègne at the moment of the siege details altogether unknown.\nOn 18 August 1429, those of Compiègne going to present to King Charles VII, making his entry there after his coronation, Messire Guillaume de Flavi, whom they had elected captain of the said town as the most experienced and faithful who was in the country — in order, according to their privilege, to have him confirmed and admitted — Messire Georges de la Trémoille, grand master of France, who had represented one of the twelve peers at the said coronation, having the favour of His Majesty and the principal authority near his person and council, obtained the said captaincy and brought it about that the said de Flavi contented himself with the lieutenancy; and in that quality he was left in the said town, where nevertheless the inhabitants always held him for captain.\nThe king soon after his departure having sent mandate both to the said de Flavi and to the échevins (1) and inhabitants, to receive into the town the people and commissioners of the Duke of Burgundy, to whom, by treaty made at the said Compiègne on the 28th of the said month of August with the deputies of the said duke, a truce had been granted until Christmas day, afterwards prorogued by three months, during which the said town of Compiègne should be put into the hands of the said duke or of those commissioned by him therefor: the said de Flavi on his part offered to satisfy it, and for the hindrances and refusals made by the inhabitants, departed from the town; into which Messire Regnault de Chartres, archbishop of Reims and chancellor of France, betook himself and other principal counsellors and ministers of the king, who had the principal inhabitants assembled in the town house and showed them that, seeing the necessity of the king\u0026rsquo;s affairs, who desired to gratify the Duke of Burgundy in order to withdraw him and make him depart from the alliance of the English, it was necessary to put the town into his hands during the truces, as he had desired and as had been granted to him. To which the inhabitants with one common voice made answer that they were most humble subjects of the king, desiring to obey him and serve him with body and goods; but to commit themselves to the said lord Duke of Burgundy, they could not for the great hatred that the said duke had conceived against them, because they had not been willing to do what he desired to the prejudice of the good and service of His Majesty, as they would set forth to His Majesty by their most humble supplication and remonstrance; insomuch that neither the said lord chancellor nor all the injunctions several times reiterated could make them depart from their remonstrances, resolved rather to lose themselves, their wives and children than to be exposed to the mercy of the said duke.\n(1) This is the name borne by the échevins of Compiègne.\nThe latter, at the hearing of this refusal, Pont-Sainte-Maxence having been put into his hands because Compiègne would not obey, at the decline of the truce gave rendezvous to all his force and to the Earl of Montgomery and of Huntingdon in the environs of Compiègne, which he invested in the month of April 1429 (old style), and before taking the nearest lodgement, reduced by force or composition all the neighbouring places and castles to his obedience so as to receive no incommodity from them; among others Choisy, where Louis de Flavi commanded, Gournay held by Tristan de Maingnelers, Saintines. And as he designed to approach by trenches, the border waters of the rivers Oise, Aisne and Aronde then hindering him, several troops entered the town from the side of the forest of Cuise, among which was the Maid. They made an enterprise to raise the lodgement of Messire Baudo de Noyelle, marshal of the army, who had his quarters at the village of Margny, the nearest to the town. They sallied out to that end on Wednesday 24 May (1), at five in the evening, five or six hundred men partly on foot and partly on horseback, and found there great resistance, because all the chiefs and captains were assembled there to resolve what was to be done at the approaches. The resistance of these gave leisure to all the troops lodged at Venette, Clairoix and Bienville, even to the Duke of Burgundy lodged at Coudun, to succour their captains engaged in the combat with such ardour and pursuit that, on the retreat, they found themselves pell-mell as far as the barriers; the Maid and the captains being in the rear of their troops to stay the violence of the enemies. Who seeing themselves comforted by all the army that came pouring down on those who had sallied, entered the barriers, unable to be stayed by the archers, crossbowmen and culverin-men whom Flavi had disposed to defend them and favour the retreat. And had it not been for the little covered boats, furnished with archers and crossbowmen, ranged along the bank of the river, where the greater part of the men on foot were gathered in, the enemies would have occupied the barriers and put the town in danger; in which there were none but inhabitants who with their captain stayed the fury of the enemies, the disorder and confusion having fallen upon the cavalry chiefs, who were so hotly received and pressed that the Maid, Poton the Burgundian and five or six others of the most valiant were constrained to give their faith and remain prisoners. The Maid, dragged down from her horse by her long garments, gave her faith to the Bastard of Wandomme, who was of the company and suite of Messire Jean de Luxembourg, to whose lodgings she was led after having spoken to the Duke of Burgundy.\n(1) The date of Tuesday the 23rd is established in an incontestable manner by the piece above, p. 166, and by the register of the Parliament of Paris given in vol. IV, p. 458.\nThis greatly disfavoured the defence of the town, ill furnished with men, victuals and munitions of war, those who had entered it with the Maid having withdrawn to their garrisons from the morrow; and there remained only Barette, lieutenant of the said Maid, and thirty-two men-at-arms of his company.\nThe approaches were made by trenches from the morrow; the town beaten and mined in several places; the bridge and the mills broken, without for that giving up to the enemies an inch of ground: the inhabitants having been constrained to make a bridge of ropes covered with cloths, to pass over the river Oise and defend the boulevard which was at the bridge end; where they were three months entrenched and at hand-grips with the enemies.\nXXXIV. Assessment of a Tenth of the Tax Voted by the Estates of Normandy for the Purchase of the Maid and the Continuation of the War # September 1430.\nThis piece is printed in M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s Recherches historiques sur Orléans (first part, vol. I, p. 256), after a copy preserved in the Orléans library. The original formed part, before the revolution, of the cabinet of charters of the priory of Saint-Martin-des-Champs. The Orléans copy was made in 1775 by Barthélemy Mercier, former librarian of Sainte-Geneviève, abbot of Saint-Léger de Soissons and prior of Saint-Pierre de Montluçon. The Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres possessed another copy, on which M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy had made a dissertation of which he speaks in his Mémoire sur Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc; but this work has not seen the light, and the copy in question is not found again in the library of the Institut.\nThe assessment made by us Édouard Apparvel, squire, élu of Argentan, Exmes, Domfront and Saint-Silvin, in the year 1430, on the 20th day of September, in the presence of and with Gilles Brochart, lieutenant-general of the bailiff of Alençon, Macé Delahaye, lieutenant-general of the viscount of Argentan and Exmes, Guillaume Millet and Jean de Pierres, procurator and advocate of the king our sire, the serjeants and other notable persons, called thereto, of the sum of eight thousand six hundred and thirty livres tournois upon the commons and inhabitants of the towns and parishes of the said viscounty of Argentan and of Exmes; the said assessment made by virtue of the letters of which the tenor follows:\nThomas Blount, knight, treasurer and general governor of the finances of the king our sire in Normandy, and Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of the said finances, commissioners of the king our said lord in this part, to the élus for the matter of the aids at Argentan and Exmes, and to the viscount of the said place, or to their lieutenants, greeting.\nReceived by us the letters of the king our said lord, given at Rouen the second day of this present month of September, by which we are commanded and commissioned to assess, cause to be gathered and levied, and to receive within the last day of the same month the sum of eighty thousand livres for the first payment of the aid of six hundred thousand livres tournois granted to the king our said lord by the people of the three estates of the duchy of Normandy and country of conquest made by the late of good memory his late lord and father, on whose soul God have mercy, in the assembly made at Rouen in the month of August last past; to turn and convert, to wit ten thousand livres tournois, to the payment of the purchase of Joan the Maid who is said to be a sorceress, a person of war, conducting the hosts of the Dauphin; ten thousand livres tournois to the business of the siege of Louviers or Bons-Moulins, if without siege Louviers can be delivered, and the remainder to the payment of the wages of the captains and soldiers of the said duchy of Normandy and country of conquest, for the quarter year ended at Saint John\u0026rsquo;s day, and of this present quarter ending at Michaelmas next coming; and besides the said sum of eighty thousand livres tournois, we are commanded to assess upon the said burgesses, tenants and inhabitants the sum of ten thousand livres tournois, to turn and convert to the payment of a greater number of men than the hundred lances which had been advised for the said siege, and understood of the second month of the same:\nWe, having thereupon the advice and deliberation of several counsellors and officers of the king our said lord, have ordained and ordain by these presents that there be assessed, gathered and levied upon the inhabitants of the said towns and viscounties of Argentan and Exmes, for their share and portion of the said sums, the sum of three thousand two hundred and sixty-one livres, by assessments made by you upon each of the towns and parishes of the said viscounty; not comprising therein the churchmen, nobles living nobly, frequenting the wars or who by impotence of body are excused, and miserable persons, whom the king our said lord exempts therefrom by his said letters.\nSo we command you, and by power to us given, commission that forthwith and without delay, having called with you the counsellor and procurator of the king at the said places of Argentan and Exmes, the serjeants of the said viscounty and other notable persons in sufficient number, you make good and loyal assessment of the said sum of three hundred and sixty-five livres tournois by serjeantry, upon each of the towns and parishes of the said viscounty, according to the power of the inhabitants thereof, as best and most loyally and equally as may be done; and that assessment made, give or cause to be given to the inhabitants of the said towns and parishes, severally, under your manual signs, for their portion to be assessed upon them, and to gather, levy and bring it before you, by Jean Duval, viscount of the said place of Argentan, whom we have commissioned and by these presents commission to receive the same sums hastily, so that within the said last day of this present month of September they may be paid, delivered and brought frankly, entirely and without any diminution before us, Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of Normandy abovesaid, to be converted and employed in the things aforesaid. Of all which things, their circumstances and dependencies to do and accomplish, we give power to you, to the said viscount and to each of you, as it shall pertain to him; commanding all the officers and subjects of the said lord that they obey and attend diligently you and your commissioners and deputies acting therein.\nGiven at Rouen, the third day of September in the year 1430.\nThus signed, V. FAIRE.\nItem follows the tenor of certain closed letters sent by Messire Thomas Blount, knight, treasurer, and Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of Normandy.\nDear and good friends,\nIt has presently been ordained and commanded us by the king our sire and by his letters patent given this day, to assess and cause to be gathered and levied in the duchy of Normandy and country of conquest the sum of ten thousand livres tournois over and above the impost which has lately been sent you, to convert to the payment of a certain number of men-at-arms and of shot of increase, advised to be necessary for the siege which is presently being laid before Louviers. So we command and strictly enjoin you, by virtue of the power given and committed to us by the said lord, that forthwith and without delay you assess, gather and levy upon the inhabitants of your viscounty, together with the abovesaid impost, over and above the same and all by one assessment, the sum of three hundred and sixty-one livres tournois, for your part and portion of the said sum of two thousand livres tournois. And that assessment made, do you, viscount, gather and receive it, so and so diligently that within the last day of this present month it be by you brought or sent to us in the town of Caen, on pain of incurring the indignation of the king and privation of your office. So take heed that there be no fault herein; and certify us by this messenger of the reception of these letters. Our Lord be your guard.\nWritten at Rouen, the 14th day of September, in the year 1430.\nAnd in the margin is written: Thomas Blount, knight, treasurer, and Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of Normandy; and signed, V. FAIRE.\nAnd besides this there is assessed the sum of ten livres of the said assessment, ten sous tournois for the costs and expenses, given to the honourable and wise Jean Duval, viscount of the said viscounty, to make receipt thereof under our signet and manual sign of Jean de Dompierre, clerk of the said élection.\nThe shares by serjeantries follow:\nTHE VISCOUNTY OF ARGENTAN.\nThe serjeantry of Argentan. — St.-Germain and St.-Martin d\u0026rsquo;Argentan, lx livres; Marneville; Collandon, xxi s.; Poitronville, lx s.\nThe serjeantry of Almenêches. — Bouray; Saint-Christophe; Juvigny.\nThe serjeantry of Auge. — Carel; L\u0026rsquo;Escos, v s.; Launay; Aize; Ailléry; La Noe; Quarresselles, xx; Lisorres, xxv; La Beusière, xv; Mesnil-Durant, xix; Saint-Cloce (?), Notre-Dame, v x; Notre-Dame de Viette, xv; Saint-Michel de Livet, xii; Roiville; Les Écolles (Argentan and Exmes), lx; Mesnil-Bacquelley, vi.\nThe serjeantry of Escouchié. — Escouchié; Tré, xxxv; Joué du Plain, xxy; Vieux-Pont; Avignon, x; Goult; Sevrey; Sainte-Croix sur (?); Putanges; Lande de Goult; Bonu (?), xxv; Carrouges; Lonlaye, xxx; Sainte-Marie-la-Robert, lxxv; Notre-Dame du Chasteler and Le Hôte, xv; Mesnil-Seelleur; Saint-Gervais de Messie, lii; Saint-Andrieux de Messie, xxx; Saveau (?), x.\nThe serjeantry of Gieffroy-Lebreton. — Fresnay-le-Buffard; Rouctemy (?), lxxv; Chancellières, taxed in Exmes; Vaulx-le-Baudril (Argentan and Exmes), xviii; Merry, xxxx; Ne (?) and St.-Nicolas de Viggats; Perteville, lx; St.-Barthélemy des Houeacues, x; Brieux; Criu (Argentan and Exmes); Montabar, taxed in Exmes; Beaumais, taxed in Exmes; Hablouville, taxed in Exmes; Lacourbe (Argentan and Exmes), c; Englescheville, nil; Fourcheu, x; St.-Lambert (Argentan and Exmes), x; Pont-Escreppin (Argentan and Exmes), lx; Sepriey (?) Fontaume, xx; La Lande-Saint-Syméon, xxii; Mesnilage and Courtilles, taxed in Exmes; —, xxv; Ru (Argentan and Exmes), xxx; Pierre-Ficte (Argentan and Exmes); Saige; Goullet (Argentan and Exmes), xxxi; Montgueroul (Argentan and Exmes), xiii; Cuvée, x; Moulins (Argentan and Exmes), xxii; Centilly, vii; Urou, xvii; Ners, nil; Fontenoy, taxed in Exmes; La Gouppillière, vi.\nThe serjeantry of Trun. — Trun, taxed in Exmes; Saint-Pierre de la Rivière, xi x s.; Avernes (Argentan and Exmes), xvi; Néauffle, vi; Lignères (Argentan and Exmes), vi x; Tournay (Argentan and Exmes), xlii; Fontaines-les-Bassez, taxed in Exmes; Les Moussiers (Argentan and Exmes), xv; Bailleul, xxxii; Champpeaux (Argentan and Exmes), xii; Mesnil-Geuffroy, xii; Crouptes, iv x; Montgommery (Argentan and Exmes), xxxiv; Pont-de-Vie, c; Camenbert, xxiii; La Chapelle-Hastegon (Argentan and Exmes), vi; Mesnil-Ybert, iv; Regnouard (Argentan and Exmes), xxxiii; Bonmesnil, nil; Champposoul, taxed in Exmes; Aubert-en-Exmois, x x; Fresnoy-le-Sançon, xxvii; Tertu, taxed in Exmes; Sainte-Ruger; St.-Gervais des Sablons; Le Marescq (Argentan and Exmes); Saint-Légier des Araceys, nil; Sourmes, taxed in Exmes; Louvières, taxed in Exmes.\nTHE VISCOUNTY OF EXMES.\nThe serjeantry of Exmes. — Exmes, lx; Chaigny; Court-Mesnil; Argentelle; St.-Arnoul; Villebadin; —; Mesnil-Hubert; Anneperus (?); Champauber and Courgeron; Avernes, taxed in Argentan; Gysnay; Sourmes (Argentan and Exmes); Saint-Pierre de la Rivière; Champposoul (Argentan and Exmes); Champpeaulx, taxed in Argentan; Néauffles; Chambon; Saint-Anataize (?); Le Pin; Ville-Adam; Belestele (?); Lacochière; Chauffour. [The register\u0026rsquo;s column of figures for this block gives, without certain alignment: x, v, lx, cv, vi, xvii, xviii, viii, vii, xxviii, xxiii, iv.]\nSt.-Lambert, taxed in Argentan; Le Bourg-St.-Losnard; St.-Denys; Hommeel; Avernelles; Nonnant; Mermouilliers; La Roche-de-Nonnant; Mont-Marion; St.-Germain de Clerefeuille; Godisson; La Bresice (?) Havel; Mesnil-Frogier; Montopmet (?); Saint-Légier des Aracys; Grebert; Les Astelles, nil; Lamessoure (?).\nSerjeantry of Mesnil. — Sancloux, c; Fontenay (Argentan and Exmes); Tanques; Breveraulx; Goullet, taxed in Exmes; Gaignyes; Moulins, taxed in Argentan; Vaulx-le- (?), taxed in Argentan; Ru, taxed in Argentan; Poumanville; Savigny; Silly; Vieux-Brou; Pierre-Ficte, taxed in Argentan; Aunou. [Stray figures in the margin: », x, xiv, xxviii, xxviii, xxv, vi, xxx, lx, lx.]\nLe Hammel de Chantellou, vii; Mesnilage (Argentan and Exmes), xxx s.; Sopus (?), x; Lacourbe, taxed in Argentan; Pont-Escrepin, taxed in Argentan; Commeaux; Montgommery, taxed in Argentan; Chancellières (Argentan and Exmes), viii.\nThe serjeantry of Auberton. — Marion; Marcey, xxii; Lestel; Del; Site, lx; Brancilieville; La Lande-Dermil (?), xx x; —; St.-Lohier; St.-Père de Vrigny; St.-Martin (Argentan and Exmes), xxx.\nThe serjeantry of Montagne. — Collonces, x; Lhommay, x; Tapoterie, lx; Guesprey, xvi; Fontaines-les- (Argentan and Exmes); Louvières (Argentan and Exmes), x x; Nomsterenl; Quatre-, x x; Le Fouqueran; Les Lignères, taxed in Argentan; Escorches and Vary.\nVimoutiers; Crouptes; Renouard, taxed in Argentan; Montgueroul, taxed in Argentan; Guernetot; St.-Gervais des Sablons (Argentan and Exmes); La Gipalleste, taxed in —; —, x; Le Mareseq, taxed in Argentan.\nThe serjeantry aux Truns. — Occaignes; Niontahari (?); Tournay, taxed in —; Tertu (Argentan and Exmes); Fougle; Grentes-Mesnils; —; Abbeville; Barou; Les Moustiers, taxed in Argentan; Sentilly; Mannoier; Beaumais (Argentan and Exmes); Morteaux; Englescheville (Argentan and Exmes); Mesnil-Glaize, nil; Crosy; Olendon, nil.\nThe serjeantry of Montpinçon. — Revillon; Vaudeloges; Douvai. [Stray figures: xxxiv, xxiv, vii, xiv, xxviii, xviii, », xii, xvii.] Jontiee, v; Hontepres-Jontyee, xxx; Notre-Dame de Fresney, x; Huertevent, x; Mont-Pinçon, x; Lagravelles, lx; Sainte-Busve, x x.\nThe serjeantry of Habloville. — Criu, taxed in Argentan; Giel, lx; Habloville (Argentan and Exmes), vii x.\nThe serjeantry of Mellerault. — Le Mellerault, xlv; St.-Losnard, x; Les Ostielx near the Merlerault, ix; —, xl; Sainte-Colombe, xvi; —, xvi; Carveles, xii; Dapenevra; St.-Germain-le-Vieil, nil, forasmuch as nobody dwells there.\nThus signed, DOMPIERRE, with flourish.\nXXXV. Purchase of Gold Coin to Pay the Price of the Maid # October 1430.\nOrder of the lord treasurer of Normandy to make the said purchase, and restitution to the king\u0026rsquo;s particular cashier, purveyor of the specie demanded. These two pieces were printed in the same work as the preceding (p. 265); they have the same provenance.\nI. — Thomas Blount, knight, treasurer and general governor of the finances of the king our sire in the country and duchy of Normandy, [to] Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of the said finances: accomplish the contents of the letters of the king our sire to which these presents are attached under our signet (1), by causing to be bought, of the moneys of your receipt, at the expense of the king our said lord, the sum of two thousand six hundred and thirty-six gold nobles of two sous one denier sterling, money of England; and by paying, giving and delivering the said sum to Jean Bruyse, squire, keeper of the coffers of the king our said lord, all as, for the causes and in the form and manner that the king our said lord wills and commands by his said letters, and as is contained in them. Given at Rouen, the 24th day of October, in the year 1430.\nThus signed, LUITIER, with flourish.\n(1) These letters have not been preserved.\nII. — Know all that I, Jean Bruyse, squire, keeper of the coffers of the king our sire, confess to have had and received from Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of Normandy, the sum of five thousand two hundred and forty-nine livres nineteen sous ten deniers obole tournois, for the repayment and restitution of two thousand six hundred and thirty-six gold nobles of two sous five deniers sterling, money of England, which, by letters of the king our said lord, given at Rouen the 20th day of October last past, expedited by my lord the treasurer of Normandy, were ordained to be paid and restored to me by the said receiver; forasmuch as, by ordinance of the king our said lord, I had given them of the moneys of his said coffers and treasure, to employ in certain of his affairs touching the ten thousand livres tournois paid by the said lord to have Joan who calls herself the Maid, prisoner of war; which have been valued at the sum of five thousand two hundred and forty-nine livres nineteen sous ten deniers obole tournois. Of which sum of five thousand two hundred and forty-nine livres nineteen sous ten deniers obole tournois paid me in cash — to wit, in two hundred gold nobles, and the remainder in money — I am content and well paid, and thereof quit by these presents the king our said lord, the said receiver and all others. And in witness hereof, I have signed this present receipt with my manual sign and sealed it with my signet, the 6th day of December, in the year 1430.\nThus signed, JEAN BRUYSE, with flourish.\nXXXVI. Edict Against the English Subjects Who Deserted for Fear of the Maid # 12 December 1430.\nPrinted in Rymer\u0026rsquo;s Pacta, Foedera, etc. (vol. X, p. 472), under the title: De fugitivis ab exercitu, quos terriculamenta Puellae exanimaverant, arestandis [Of arresting the fugitives from the army whom the terrors of the Maid had driven out of their wits].\nHenry, by the grace of God king of England and of France, and lord of Ireland, to the sheriff of Kent, greeting. Whereas it has been given us to understand that very many of our lieges and subjects, who were lately retained to remain with us in our retinue in the parts of our realm of France, there in our service, at our wages, as well for the safe keeping of our person as of the same parts, until a certain time not yet elapsed, and even set forth, have fraudulently, craftily and iniquitously diverted themselves and withdrawn from the same parts into our said realm of England, within the time aforesaid, without our special licence had in that behalf, and do not cease daily so to do — our person and our realm of France abovesaid, so far as in them lies, exposing to perils and leaving wholly undefended: we, willing to obviate the infidelities and malices of our said lieges and subjects, and to provide for the security of us and of our said realm of France in this behalf, command you as strictly as we can, firmly enjoining that all such our lieges and subjects, who from the parts aforesaid into our said realm of England, without our special licence as aforesaid, have diverted themselves, wheresoever in your bailiwick, within liberties and without, they can be found, you arrest and take; and them, when so arrested, you bring, or cause to be brought without delay, before our Council of England, there to answer upon the premises. And this, as you love and affect the security of our person, and, under our grave indignation, in no wise omit. Witness Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, keeper of England, at Wyx, the 12th day of December, in the ninth year of our reign.\nLike writs are directed to the sheriffs underwritten, under the same date; to wit: the sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. — The sheriffs of London. — The sheriffs of Surrey and Sussex. — The sheriff of Southampton. — The constable of the king\u0026rsquo;s castle of Dover and the Keeper of the king\u0026rsquo;s Cinque Ports, and his lieutenant there.\nXXXVII. Indemnity to Pierre Cauchon for the Negotiations Which Preceded the Purchase of the Maid # 31 January 1431.\nA receipt published here for the first time, after the original schedule on parchment preserved in the Bibliothèque Royale, Gaignières collection, Titres scellés des évêchés, vol. IV.\nWe Pierre, bishop and count of Beauvais, peer of France, vidame of Gerberoy, counsellor of the king our sire, confess to have had and received from Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of Normandy, the sum of seven hundred and sixty-five livres tournois which was due to us for seven score and thirteen days which we affirm to have spent in the service of the king our said lord and for his affairs, both in the town of Calais and in several journeys, going to my lord the Duke of Burgundy and to Messire Jean de Luxembourg, Count of Guise, in Flanders, to the siege before Compiègne, at Beaurevoir, for the business of Joan who is called the Maid, as for several other businesses and affairs of the king our said lord, and also in the town of Rouen, by ordinance and commandment of the king our said lord and of his great council; the said 153 days beginning the first day of May 1430 and ending the last day of September following last past, inclusive, at the price of a hundred sous tournois per day ordained to us to take and have upon the said receipt, for the half of ten livres tournois per day ordained and assessed to us by the king our said lord for each day that we have spent and shall spend for his affairs in the journey wherein we presently are and until our return to the town of Paris; as by letters of assessment of the king our said lord, given the 14th day of the said month of May, expedited by the treasurer and general governor of the finances of Normandy, appears. Of which sum of 765 livres tournois we hold ourselves content and well paid, and thereof acquit the king our said lord, the said receiver-general and all others. In witness whereof we have set to these presents our signet and manual sign, the last day of January, in the year 1430.\nSigned, P. BISHOP OF BEAUVAIS.\nXXXVIII. Tower Baptised with the Name of the Maid at Poitiers # 3 March 1431.\nPiece communicated by M. Redet, archivist of the département of the Vienne. The original, written on parchment, exists in the archives of that département under the number J, 939.\nKnow all that of right in the court of the seal for contracts at Poitiers, established for the king our sire, personally established himself Geoffroi Jambin, mason dwelling at Poitiers, who has known and confessed to have had and received from Pierre Gautier, procurator and receiver of MM. the mayor, échevins and burgesses of the town of Poitiers, the sum of three hundred and sixty-nine livres twelve sous of and upon the sum of five hundred and forty livres which he is to have from the said town, by bargain made with it, by reason of his farm or taskwork of the tower of Tranchepié, called the Tour de la Pucelle. Of which sum of 369 l. 12 s. the said Jambin has held and holds himself well content and paid, and thereof has acquitted and acquits the said town, the said receiver and all others by these presents sealed at his request with the counter-seal of the seal abovesaid. Given and done the third day of the month of March, in the year one thousand four hundred and thirty.\nSigned, RICHARD, at the request of the said Jambin. PAQUET, at the request of the said Jambin.\nXXXIX. Payment Made to the Paris Doctors for Attending the Trial # 4 March 1431.\nCollective mandate and receipt, printed in M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s Recherches historiques sur Orléans (first part, vol. I, p. 255), after a copy in the Orléans library made by the Genovefan Barthélemy Mercier. The originals were at Saint-Martin-des-Champs, like those of pieces nos. XXXIV and XXXV.\nI. — Thomas Blount, knight, treasurer and general governor of the finances of the king our sire in the country and duchy of Normandy, [to] Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of the said finances: having seen by you the letters of the king our said lord to which these presents are attached under our signet, we command you that, of the moneys of your receipt, you pay, give and deliver to masters Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicole Midi, Pierre Morice, Girard Feuillet, doctors, and to Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor formed in theology, and to each of them, the sum of twenty sous tournois for each day that they shall affirm to have spent in the matter declared in the said royal letters, all as, for the causes and in the form and manner that the king our said lord wills and commands by his said letters and as is contained in them. Given at Rouen, the first day of March, 1430.\nThus signed, LUITIER, with flourish.\nII. — The venerable and discreet persons, masters Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicole Midi, Pierre Morice, Girard Feuillet, doctors, and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor formed in theology, confess to have had and received from the honourable and wise Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of the finances of the king our sire in Normandy, the sum of six score livres tournois, in deduction and abatement of what may and shall be due to them by reason of a certain assessment made to them by the king our said lord; to wit, of twenty sous tournois for each of the said masters and the bachelor, for each day that they shall affirm they spend or have spent at the ecclesiastical trial begun against that woman who calls herself Joan the Maid, reckoning from the 16th day of February last past, inclusive, until their return to Paris. Of which sum of six score livres tournois the said masters and bachelor hold themselves well paid and content, and thereof acquit the king our said lord, the said receiver and all others. Witness the manual sign of me, Jean Thiessart, notary of the king, here set the 4th day of March, 1430.\nThus signed, THIESSART, with flourish.\nXL. Gratification Granted to Jean Beaupère Over and Above His Days of Attendance at the Trial # 2 April 1430 [recte 1431].\nOrdinance of the king of England, published here for the first time after a modern copy of the Fontanieu portfolio, no. 136, in the Bibliothèque Royale.\nHenry, by the grace of God king of France and of England, to our beloved and trusty knight Thomas Blount, treasurer and general governor of all our finances of Normandy, greeting and love. Whereas some time since our most dear and most beloved daughter the University of Paris had ordained several doctors and masters to go to the holy General Council which was said shortly to be held at Basel, and among the other doctors and masters had to that end our well-beloved master Jean Beaupère, doctor in the faculty of theology, to go to the said holy Council; and for this cause the said master Beaupère had furnished and mounted himself with three horses, as he says; and it so is that, to make and ordain the trial of Joan who calls herself the Maid, we have had and have to do with several doctors and masters who are at present in this our town of Rouen, and whom we have caused to come into this said town, and namely the said master Jean Beaupère, whom we have retained to labour and attend to make the said trial with the others; and for this cause we have assessed and ordained to each of them twenty sous tournois per day to aid in supporting the costs and expenses which they must make during the time of the said trial: know that we, considering the great costs, outlays and expenses which he has had and has to make, the said master Jean Beaupère, by reason of his said horses and otherwise, to the said master Jean Beaupère have assessed and do assess by these presents the sum of thirty livres tournois, for one time, to aid him in supporting the said costs, outlays and expenses which he has had to make during the time that he has sojourned in this said town until now, over and above the sum of twenty sous tournois per day of which mention is made above. So we command and expressly enjoin you that by our beloved Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of our said finances of Normandy, you cause to be paid and given, of the moneys of his receipt, to the said master Jean Beaupère or to his certain command, the said sum of thirty livres tournois over and above the said twenty sous tournois per day; and upon rendering these presents and sufficient receipt thereof only, we will that the said sum of thirty livres tournois be allowed in the accounts of the said Pierre Surreau and abated from his receipt by our beloved and trusty keepers of our accounts and treasurers at Paris; to whom we command by these same presents that they so do without any contradiction or difficulty; for so we will and it pleases us to be done. Given in our town of Rouen, under our ordinary seal ordained in the absence of the great seal, the 2nd day of April, in the year of grace 1431 and the ninth of our reign, after Easter.\nBy the king, at the relation of the Great Council being with him.\nSigned, CALLOT, with flourish (1).\n(1) The Fontanieu copy adds: To the said letters are attached the mandate of Thomas Blount of the 13th of the same month and the receipt of Jean Beaupère.\nXLI. Second Payment to the Paris Doctors # 9 April.\nReceipt printed in M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s Recherches sur la ville d\u0026rsquo;Orléans (first part, vol. I, p. 269), after a copy by Barthélemy Mercier. The original was formerly at Saint-Martin-des-Champs, like that of piece no. XXXIX.\nThe venerable and discreet persons, masters Jean Beaupère, Jacques de Touraine, Nicole Midi, Pierre Morice, Girard Feuillet, doctors, and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor formed in theology, confess to have had and received from the honourable and wise Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of the finances of the king our sire in Normandy, the sum of six score livres tournois, over and above two hundred and forty livres tournois which they have received for twenty days, in deduction and abatement of what may and shall be due to them by reason of a certain assessment of twenty sous tournois made to them by the king our sire for each of them, for each day that they shall affirm to have spent at the ecclesiastical trial begun against that woman who calls herself Joan the Maid, reckoning from the 16th day of February last past, inclusive, until their return to Paris; at which trial they have affirmed to have attended continually, from the said 16th day of February until this day, and still attend from day to day. Of which sum of six score livres tournois the said masters and bachelor hold themselves well paid and content, and thereof acquit the king our said lord, the said receiver and all others. Witness the manual sign of me, Jean Thiessart, notary of the king. The 9th day of April, in the year 1431, after Easter.\nThus signed, THIESSART, with flourish.\nXLII. Deliberations of the Chapter of Rouen on the Trial of the Maid # 13 and 24 April 1431.\nThese pieces, extracted from a capitular register today preserved in the departmental archives of Seine-Inférieure, were printed in a note with the trial of condemnation. (See vol. I, p. 354.)\nXLIII. Gratification to the Inquisitor Jean Lemaître # 14 April 1431.\nOrdinance published in M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s Recherches historiques sur la ville d\u0026rsquo;Orléans (l. c., p. 269), after a copy of the same provenance as those indicated above, pp. 178, 196 and 200. I shall dispense with reproducing the mandate of Thomas Blount addressed to Pierre Surreau, dated 27 April. That piece, which repeats in abridged form the terms of the present one, is also printed in M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s work, p. 272.\nHenry, by the grace of God king of France and of England, to our beloved and trusty Thomas Blount, knight, treasurer and general governor of all our finances of our country and duchy of Normandy, greeting and love. We will and command you that, by advice of the men of our Great Council being at present with us, by our beloved Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of our said finances and of the moneys of his receipt, you cause to be paid, given and delivered to our dear and well-beloved master Jean Lemaître, prior of the convent of the Friars Preachers of Rouen and vicar in that place of the Inquisitor of the faith, the sum of twenty salus d\u0026rsquo;or; which we, by the advice aforesaid, have ordained and assessed to him, and do ordain and assess by these presents, to have and hold of us for one time, of the moneys of our said finances: for his pains, labours and diligences in having been and assisted at the trial which has been made of Joan who calls herself the Maid, accused in the matter of the faith, with the reverend father in God our beloved and trusty counsellor the Bishop of Beauvais, her ordinary judge; and upon rendering, with these presents, sufficient receipt thereof from the said vicar of the Inquisitor, we will that the said sum of twenty salus be allowed in the accounts and abated from the receipt of our said receiver-general, by our beloved and trusty keepers of our accounts, to whom we command that they so do without contradiction or any difficulty. Given in our town of Rouen, under our seal ordained in the absence of the great seal, the 14th day of April after Easter, in the year of grace 1431 and the ninth of our reign.\nOn the fold: By the king, at the relation of the Great Council being with him. Signed, CALLOT, with flourish.\nXLIV. Indemnity to the Doctors Sent to Paris to Submit the Trial to the Faculties # 21 April 1431.\nPiece of the same provenance as the preceding, printed like it in the Recherches sur la ville d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, l. c., p. 270. The mandate of Thomas Blount to Pierre Surreau, not reproduced here, is dated the morrow, 22 April.\nHenry, by the grace of God king of France and of England, to our beloved and trusty Thomas Blount, treasurer and general governor of all our finances in Normandy, greeting and love. We will and command you that, to our well-beloved masters Jean Beaupère, master Jacques de Touraine, friar minor, master Nicole Midi and master Girard Feuillet, doctors in theology, who presently go on our behalf to our good town of Paris, to our most dear and most beloved uncle the Duke of Bedford, the men of our Great Council being there and our most dear and most beloved daughter the University of Paris, to set forth, say and declare the trial and proceedings touching the matter of her who calls herself Joan the Maid, and all that has been done herein in these parts, so that thereupon the said men of the University send back their deliberation and conclusion, and that, if need be, the said doctors for this cause return to us at Rouen or elsewhere where we shall be: you, of the moneys of our said finances of Normandy, cause to be paid and delivered by our well-beloved Pierre Surreau, receiver-general thereof, the sum of one hundred livres tournois for one time: to wit, to each of them twenty-five livres tournois. Which sum of one hundred livres tournois, to aid the abovesaid four doctors in supporting the costs which they shall have to make, both in going to our said town of Paris and in returning thence to us, we have, by advice of the men of our Great Council being at Rouen with us, assessed and ordained, and do assess and ordain by these presents; and upon rendering, with these presents, sufficient receipts thereof from each of the said four doctors for his said part and portion only, we will that the said sum of one hundred livres tournois be allowed in the accounts of our said receiver-general and abated from his receipt by our beloved and trusty keepers of our accounts at Paris, to whom we command that they so do without contradiction. Given in our town of Rouen, under our seal ordained in the absence of the great seal, the 21st day of April, in the year of grace 1431, and the ninth of our reign, after Easter.\nOn the fold: By the king, at the relation of the Great Council being with him. The signature and the seal have fallen off.\nXLV. Payment to Guillaume Erard for His Participation in the Trial # 6-8 June 1431.\nRoyal ordinance followed by a mandate of the treasurer at two days\u0026rsquo; interval (the said mandate not given here), and receipt of the party concerned. These pieces, of the same provenance as the preceding, are likewise printed in the Recherches historiques sur la ville d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, l. c., pp. 275 and 276.\nI. — Henry, by the grace of God king of France and of England, to our beloved and trusty counsellor Thomas Blount, knight, treasurer and general governor of our finances in Normandy, greeting and love. Know that we, considering the great diligences and labours which our dear and well-beloved master Guillaume Erard, doctor in theology, has taken for several days to labour and attend with other masters, doctors and clerks, both in theology and in canon law, at the ecclesiastical trial of that woman who called herself Joan the Maid, lately condemned as erring in our holy Catholic faith; wishing to recompense him somewhat for the charges, expenses and costs which he has had to make for the cause aforesaid, to him, by the advice and deliberation of the men of our Great Council being with us, have assessed and ordained, and do assess and ordain by these presents, the sum of twenty sous tournois for each day that he has attended, laboured and been occupied in the matter abovesaid. So we command, charge and expressly enjoin you that, by our well-beloved Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of our said finances of Normandy, you cause to be given and delivered to the said master Guillaume Erard the said sum of twenty sous tournois for each day that he shall affirm to have attended, laboured and been occupied in the said matter; and upon rendering these presents or a vidimus of them made under royal seal, with receipt of the said master Guillaume, affirmatory of the days that he shall have attended, laboured and been occupied in what is said, all that shall have been paid and given to the said master Guillaume Erard shall be allowed, accounted and abated from the receipt of the said Pierre Surreau by our beloved and trusty keepers of our accounts at Paris, to whom we command that they so do without contradiction and any difficulty. Given at Rouen, the 6th day of June, in the year of grace 1431, and of our reign the ninth.\nOn the fold: By the king, at the relation of his Great Council being with him. Signed, DE RIVEN, with flourish.\nII. — I, Guillaume Erard, doctor in theology, confess to have had and received from Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of Normandy, the sum of thirty-one livres tournois which was due to me by reason of twenty sous tournois assessed to me by the king our sire, for each day that I have attended and been occupied with other lords, masters, doctors and clerks, both in theology and in canon law, in the business and trial of that woman who called herself Joan the Maid, lately condemned as erring in the Christian faith; with whom I affirm to have attended and been occupied in the business and trial aforesaid, in this town of Rouen, for thirty-one days beginning the 6th day of May last past and ending the 5th day of this present month of June, inclusive, and I still attend there, and have attended since then until this day; this payment being made to me by the said receiver, by virtue of the said letters of the king our said lord, given the 6th day of this present month, expedited by my lord the treasurer of Normandy. Of which sum of thirty-one livres tournois I am content and well paid, and thereof acquit by these presents the king our said lord, the said receiver-general and all others. Witness my manual sign here set, the 8th day of June, in the year 1431.\nThus signed, G. ERARD, with flourish.\nXLVI. Definitive Settlement of Account with the Paris Doctors # 12 June.\nPiece preserved like the preceding, and likewise printed in the Recherches historiques sur la ville d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, l. c., p. 277. It will be remarked that the account of the Paris doctors, which is always collective as heretofore, embraces only four persons instead of six. Jacques de Touraine and Girard Feuillet, named in the analogous pieces of 4 March and 9 April, do not figure here.\nThe venerable and discreet persons, masters Jean Beaupère, Nicole Midi, Pierre Morice and Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor formed in theology, confess to have had and received from the honourable and wise Pierre Surreau, receiver-general of all the finances of the king our sire in Normandy, the sum of one hundred and two livres tournois due to them in remainder, by reason of the assessment of twenty sous tournois made to them by the king our said lord for each of them, for each day that they shall affirm to have attended at the ecclesiastical trial which has been made against that woman who called herself Joan the Maid. At which trial the abovesaid have affirmed and do affirm to have attended in the manner following:\nTo wit, the said Beaupère, from the 23rd day of February in the year 1430 inclusive, until the 28th day of May following, likewise inclusive; at which time there are one hundred days which at the said rate of twenty sous tournois for each of the said days amount to one hundred livres tournois, whereof he has received from the said receiver 85 l. tournois; so there remains due to him 15 l. tournois;\nThe said Nicole Midi, from the said 16th day of February until the 10th day of June following, the one and the other inclusive, comprising therein his return to Paris, at which time there are one hundred and thirteen days which at the abovesaid rate are worth 113 l. tournois, whereof he has received from the said receiver in four payments 88 l. tournois; so there remains due to him 25 l. tournois;\nThe said Pierre Morice, from the 18th day of February to the 7th day of June following, the one and the other inclusive, at which time there are one hundred and ten days, of which are to be deducted 11 days that he was absent for his own businesses and affairs, leaving 99 days, which at the abovesaid rate amount to 99 l. tournois, whereof he has received from the said receiver in four payments 76 l. tournois; so there remains due to him 22 l. tournois;\nAnd the said Thomas de Courcelles, from the said 18th day of February until the 10th day of June following, the one and the other inclusive, comprising therein his return, at which time there are one hundred and thirteen days which at the abovesaid rate amount to one hundred and thirteen livres tournois, whereof he has received from the said receiver in four payments 76 l. tournois; so there remains to be paid him 37 l. tournois.\nWhich remainders make together the said sum of one hundred and two livres tournois. Of which sum the said masters hold themselves well paid and content, and thereof acquit the king our said lord, the said receiver and all others. Witness the manual sign of me, Jean Thiessart, notary of the king, here set, the twelfth day of June, in the year 1431.\nSigned, THIESSART.\nXLVII. Tumult at Serqueux in Champagne, for the Payment of a Debt Contracted by Pierre du Lys, Prisoner of the Burgundians # Unpublished piece from the Trésor des Chartes (J, 177, no. 45), in the Archives of the Realm.\nCharles, etc. Know to all present and to come, that we have received the humble supplication of Nicolas de Verrecourt, young companion of war, native of the place of Verrecourt in the bailiwick of Chaumont in Bassigny, containing that all his time and especially since he has known himself, he has served us against our adversaries, both in the company of the late Philibert de Brécy, in his lifetime knight, and otherwise, and has employed therein his body, his time and his goods. And he being with the said late de Brécy, it befell that Pierre d\u0026rsquo;Alix [du Lys], knight, brother of Joan the Maid, to whom we had then given the profit and revenue of our high passages in our said bailiwick of Chaumont, gave to the said late de Brécy, by way of gage, what the town of Serqueux (1) in our provostry of Montigny could owe on account of the said high passages, for a certain sum of money which the said d\u0026rsquo;Alix owed him for a loan made to him by the said de Brécy, to aid him in paying his ransom to the Bastard of Vergey who held him prisoner (2); which town of Serqueux and the inhabitants thereof refused to pay the said de Brécy what they owed him at a certain term then elapsed; and because the said inhabitants, after several long summonses made to them by the said late de Brécy, were ever refusing to pay the said de Brécy, in the year 1439 or thereabouts he commanded the said suppliant and three or four other companions of war, his servants, that they should go to the said place of Serqueux and take and distrain the said inhabitants in their goods for his said payment. Which said suppliant and others, obeying the commandment of their said master, went to the said place of Serqueux where they took certain horses, cattle and other goods, which they led away and were returning to their said master without doing harm to any person; but the inhabitants of the said Serqueux sallied out of the said place armed and weaponed, and came to the said suppliant and other companions of war crying: Death to the traitors! they shall be hanged! And they ran upon them and especially upon the said suppliant, and set themselves with all effort to do them harm and to kill them. And when the said suppliant saw that they pressed them, and because the said inhabitants during the wars had been contrary and bore all hatred to the said suppliant and his said companions, who all their lives had been in our service, fearing to fall into their mercy, put himself in defence against some of the said inhabitants who pressed him hard; and in defending himself the said suppliant struck with a lance that he held one named Jean Landrey of the said place of Serqueux, through the head or other part, so that death ensued thereof in the person of the said Landrey. For occasion of which case the said suppliant absented himself from the country, etc… and would never dare return or dwell safely in our realm, unless our grace and mercy were imparted to him thereon, as he has caused to be said and shown to us, etc., etc. Therefore it is that we, having considered what is said, willing that mercy be preferred to rigour of justice, to the said Nicolas de Verrecourt, suppliant, have acquitted, remitted and pardoned, and do acquit, remit and pardon of special grace, full power and royal authority, by these presents, the deeds and cases aforesaid, etc., etc. Given at Saint-Mihiel in Barrois, the 21st day of May, in the year of grace 1445 and of our reign the twenty-first.\nThus signed: By the king in his council, DELALOIRE. Visé, contentor, P. LE PICART.\n(1) Today in the département of the Haute-Marne, canton of Bourbonne.\n(2) He had been made prisoner at the same time as his sister at the sortie from Compiègne.\nXLVIII. Donation of the Île-aux-Boeufs to the Same Pierre du Lys # 28 July 1443.\nThis act, formerly registered in the Chambre des Comptes of Paris, is no longer found today. Estienne Pasquier, in his Recherches sur la France (bk. VI, ch. 5), first pointed out its existence and made known its considerations. There is a fuller extract of it (and it is the one we give here) in the Traité sommaire du nom et des armes de la Pucelle, revised in 1628 (p. 27). The donation made by the Duke of Orléans bore upon a great sandbank which is still today in the bed of the Loire, one league above Orléans. The historians of Orléans, and lastly M. Jollois, have believed that the Île-aux-Boeufs was the Île Saint-Loup; but that is an error, since by the terms of the fragment below, the Île-aux-Boeufs was situated at the level of Chécy. It was a pasture ground whose revenue could not constitute a rich gift, nor one worthy of the services rendered to the Duke of Orléans by the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family. In 1481 the Île-aux-Boeufs brought in only eight gold crowns of rent to Pierre du Lys\u0026rsquo;s son; it is true that a certain extent of meadows and arable lands was excepted from the lease; but account must be taken of thirty-eight years of possession, during which the du Lys family had not failed to improve the domain (1).\n(1) Extract from the lease passed on 15 October 1481, before Courtin, notary at the Châtelet of Orléans; given at p. 31 of the Traité sommaire du nom et des armes de la Pucelle: Noble man Jean du Lis, called la Pucelle, squire, lord of Villers in the parish of Ardon, confesses to have let at farm and pension, from next All Saints for six years, to Estienne Mignon, merchant butcher of the great borough of Orléans, the Île-aux-Boeufs, in what is enclosed in water, not including the meadows nor the lands that are at present under tillage, which the lessor retains to himself, for and at the sum of ten gold crowns of farm and pension each year.\nM. Lottin, in his Recherches sur Orléans (part II, vol. I, p. 311), cites an account of 1477 which states that 115 sous of forestage were paid that year to the same Jean du Lys, for 2,500 faggots of willow taken on the Île-aux-Boeufs.\nThe Île-aux-Boeufs passed out of the du Lys family in 1524 and was reunited to the domain a few years after.\nHere is what has been preserved for us of the terms of the donation:\nThe supplication of Messire Pierre du Lis, knight, having been heard, containing that to acquit his loyalty towards the king our sire and us, he departed from his country to come to the service of the king our said lord and of us, in the company of Joan the Maid, his sister; with whom, until her departure, and since until the present, he has exposed his body and his goods to the said service and to the business of the king\u0026rsquo;s wars, both in the resistance to the ancient enemies of the realm who held the siege before our town of Orléans, and in several journeys made and undertaken for the king our said lord and his chiefs of war, and otherwise, in several and divers places; and by fortune of the said wars has been prisoner of the said enemies and constrained to sell the inheritances of his wife to pay his ransom; requesting that it please us to give him, etc. Wherefore we, in consideration of the things abovesaid, have given and do give to the said Messire Pierre du Lis, knight, of special grace, in favour and contemplation of the said Maid, his german sister, and of the great and notable services which she and the said Messire Pierre, her brother, have done to the king our said lord and to us, the fruits, profits, usufructs, revenues and emoluments of an island called the Île-aux-Boeufs, situated in the river Loire near the Salle, opposite Chécy, as it lies; to enjoy the same during his life and that of Jean du Lis, his eldest son, each of them so long as the survivor of them two shall live and have life in body, etc.\nXLIX. Alms of the Duke of Orléans to One of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s Brothers # 31 July 1450.\nOne cannot qualify otherwise, both because of its smallness and because of the terms in which it is made, the gift stated by the following document. The original on parchment is preserved in the King\u0026rsquo;s particular library at the Louvre. It formed part of the Joursanvault archives, and is entered in the catalogue of that collection under no. 155.\nI, Remon Fricon, knight and first master of household of my lord the Duke of Orléans, certify to all whom it may concern that Jean Chardon, treasurer and receiver-general of the finances of my said lord, has paid the sum of fifty-five sous tournois for a gift made by my said lord: to wit, 27 s. 6 d. to the mute who dwells at Orléans, who was formerly a scullion; and to the brother of the late Maid (1) 27 s. 6 d.; to aid them in having their necessities; whereof they have held themselves content. Witness my manual sign here set, the last day of July in the year 1450.\nSigned FRICON.\n(1) Probably Pierre, who certainly had not wherewith to live from the Île-aux-Boeufs. The catalogue of the books and historical documents of the cabinet of M. de Courcelles, printed in 1834, mentions another schedule emanating from the treasury of the same Duke of Orléans, which stated the gift of a sum of ten livres tournois made in 1463 to Messire Pierre du Lis, knight, brother of the late Joan the Maid.\nL. Works for the Rehabilitation While the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville Was Gathering Information at Rouen # 4 May 1462.\nExtract from one of the capitular registers of the cathedral of Rouen, today in the departmental archives of Seine-Inférieure. Communicated by M. Floquet.\nThe request of master Guillaume du Désert (1) [and] of master Jean de Gonnys (2), deputed by the lord archbishop in the matter of faith in the cause touching the matter of the Maid, having been heard: they concluded that the end of the matter should be awaited.\n(1) This canon deposed as a witness to the irregularity of the first trial, on 8 May 1452. See vol. II, p. 337.\n(2) I defer to the authority of M. Chéruel, professor of history at the royal college of Rouen, in correcting in this way a name which I have often printed in the preceding volumes under the forms Gouys and Gouvis.\nLI. Notice on the Memoir of Pierre Lhermite, Sub-Dean of Saint-Martin of Tours, Concerning the Irregularities of Joan\u0026rsquo;s Trial # M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy, at p. 518 of his Mémoire sur Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, gave in five lines the summary analysis of this work, which he knew only through a French translation contained in the Soubise manuscript. I should willingly place it among the lost pieces, in spite of the existence of manuscript 144 (French Jurisprudence) of the Arsenal, which passes for the copy of that of Soubise. In that volume, it is true, I do find a consultation — not theological, as M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy says, but wholly judicial — under the name of Pierre Lhermite; I can even recognise that this consultation is an answer to seventeen of the articles proposed by Paul Pontanus, outside the questions of dogma (see vol. II, p. 64). But besides that the transcription is made with very little care, the translation is so faulty, it so betrays its author\u0026rsquo;s ignorance in matters of law, that one cannot truly attribute the value of a document to so disfigured a piece.\nMay it suffice to give here the first and last paragraph of this translation, for the convenience of those who will make researches on the same subject.\nIncipit.\nHere follows the opinion of Messire Pierre Lhermite, sub-dean of the church of Saint-Martin of Tours.\nIt seems to me, under correction, that to the questions and demands made in the trial of the late Joan the Maid, one may say and answer in this manner to what is asked in an article, to wit, whether the trial and the sentence were valid and reasonable, etc.:\nSince the said late woman did not offend in the territory of the Bishop of Beauvais and that otherwise she was not his subject, I say that he could not and ought not to have the cognisance of her case, nor have power to retain her in his jurisdiction. For she was not his subject for having merely passed over his land or for having been taken within his territory; for, as a law says, it would be very hard for a pilgrim or a sailor to have to defend himself in every place through which he passes, if he were accused or apprehended there of any malefice; and consequently I will say that all that the said bishop did and pronounced against her is unjust, unreasonable and of no value, as is written in the chapter Si clerici, where the Office of Judges is spoken of.\nExplicit.\nAt the 17th and last article, I prove that she is guiltless: 1st, because a true and just judge must always have before the eyes of his conscience truth and equity, without stretching nets, cord or snares for anyone to deceive and trick him, by the chapter De viduis; 2nd, because he must always strive to save and deliver from death a poor prisoner, man or woman. But because this bishop did all to the contrary, to wit, that to the simple, rustic and innocent Maid, who knew nothing of trials, he proposed and asked difficult, subtle and captious questions to take her and condemn her by her own words, to put her into confusion and fraudulent deception: I say and conclude that falsely and iniquitously.\nIn the honour and reverence of the holy, sacred and inseparable Trinity of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.\nLII. Cooperation of the Chapter of the Cathedral of Rouen in the Rehabilitation Trial # 19 December 1455.\nExtract from a capitular register preserved in the archives of Seine-Inférieure, cited by M. Chéruel in an article in the Revue de Rouen et de Normandie for June 1845.\nFriday 19 December, capitulating the lord and master Robert Sutor, etc. The capitulating lords deputed M. Nicholas de Bosco, dean; Philip de Rosa, treasurer; Hector de Coquerel; William Roussel; Lawrence Surreau; Jean Du Bec and Jean de Gonnys, to assist with the lord judges ordained for the trial of the Maid. And that the aforesaid shall have their distributions so long as they shall assist and be occupied in the said business.\nLIII. Bequest of a Copy of the Rehabilitation Trial to the Church of Paris # Extract from the testamentary execution of Bishop Guillaume Chartier, entered on the obituary of Notre-Dame of Paris (vol. IV, p. 95, of the Cartulaire de l\u0026rsquo;église de Paris published by M. Guérard). The copy of the trial in question is the one which had been delivered to Guillaume Chartier as judge of the rehabilitation, and which is still in the collection of the manuscripts of Notre-Dame at the Bibliothèque Royale (no. H, 10).\nTwelve volumes of books, together with a certain other [book] in paper and parchment containing the trial of the Maid of Orléans, the executors of the said reverend father in Christ despatched and actually delivered to us; and we caused it to be laid up in the library and chained in two wooden lecterns, at the arms of the said reverend father, with the ironwork, seats and other things belonging thereto (1), made at the costs and of the goods of the execution of the said reverend father in Christ.\n(1) See above, p. 78.\nLIV. Confirmation of the Privilege of Nobility Granted to the Descendants of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc Family # October 1550.\nSeveral times partially printed after a register, now destroyed, of the Chambre des Comptes. Godefroy first made it known (Histoire de Charles VII, p. 897). The present text has been corrected and completed on register 260 of the Trésor des Chartes (piece 306). De La Roque, in chapter XII of his Traité de la Noblesse, speaks of an enrolment decree rendered by the Cour des Aides of Normandy, dated 13 December 1608.\nHenry, by the grace of God king of France, make known to all present and to come, that we have received the humble supplication of our dear and well-beloved Robert Le Fournier, baron of Tournebeu, and Lucas du Chemyn, lord of Feron, his nephew, for themselves and their kin, issued and descended of the lineage of the Maid Joan d\u0026rsquo;Ay (2), of Domrémy near Vaucouleurs in the bailiwick of Chaumont, containing that the late King Charles VII, whom God absolve, for certain good, just and reasonable great causes and considerations, ennobled the said Maid Joan d\u0026rsquo;Ay, Jacques d\u0026rsquo;Ay her father, Isabelle his wife, mother of the said Joan, Jacquemin and Jean d\u0026rsquo;Ay, and Pierre Prerel, brothers of the said Maid; together with all their lineage and posterity in masculine and feminine line; and thereof had his letters expedited in form of charters, of this tenor:\nCarolus, Dei gratia, Francorum rex, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, etc. (1)\n(1) See above, p. 150, this piece given entire.\n(2) They were issued from Catherine du Lys, second daughter of Pierre du Lys, brother of Joan. (Traité sommaire du nom et des armes de la Pucelle, revised in 1628, p. 42.)\nOf the contents of which letters made for this cause by our predecessors, the heirs and successors of the said Maid, her said father, mother and brothers, have ever since enjoyed and made use, namely the said suppliants, as they still do at present; but fearing that by reason of the decease of the late of good memory the king our most honoured lord and father, last deceased, whom God absolve; and that since him and our coming to the crown they have had no confirmation from us, they fear to be hindered herein in future if they had not our letters of confirmation thereon, which they have most humbly caused us to be supplicated and required to be willing to grant them, and to impart to them thereon our grace and liberality: therefore it is that we, inclining liberally to the humble supplication and request of the said suppliants, duly informed of the just occasions and services divinely done to our predecessors and realm by the said Maid in expelling the enemies usurping our said realm, which moved our said predecessors to give and grant the said ennoblement; not willing to do less than they in this behalf: to the said suppliants, together with the other successors issued and descended of the masculine and feminine lineage of the said Maid and of her said father and mother and brothers, have of our certain knowledge, full power and royal authority, continued and confirmed, and do continue and confirm by these presents, the said ennoblement above inserted, to enjoy and use it by them henceforward in perpetuity, as much and as fully, and in the form and manner contained in the said letters and charters above inserted, and as they have heretofore well and duly enjoyed and used it, and as they still enjoy it at present. So we give in commandment, etc. Given at Rouen, in the month of October, in the year of grace 1550, and of our reign the fourth.\nAnd underneath is written: Collation of the letters above transcribed has been made to their originals by me, notary and secretary of the king, MAUTEU. And on the fold: By the king, MANGEU. Visé. Contentor, GORE; and sealed with green wax on silk lace.\nLV. Contracts for the Restoration of the Monument of the Maid at Orléans # 1570–1571.\nTwo pieces of which the originals, one on parchment, the other on paper, form part of manuscript no. 411 of the Orléans library. The first was printed, but in a very incomplete manner, in M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s Recherches historiques sur Orléans (first part, vol. I, p. 480).\nWhat little is known of the origin of the monument has been said in our fourth volume (p. 449). It is here a question of the new form it received after having been almost entirely destroyed at the second occupation of Orléans by the Calvinists, in 1567. Great changes were made to the primitive arrangement. Whereas formerly the principal group consisted of a Christ on the cross with a Mater dolorosa placed standing before Him, since the restoration the Christ was laid dead on His mother\u0026rsquo;s knees, and she seated at the foot of the cross against a rock figuring Calvary. The kneeling statues of Charles VII and of the Maid which, from the origin, had been set right and left of the group, were maintained there; but the second had to be remade from imagination, the iconoclasts having left subsisting only the legs and arms of it.\nThe ancient state of the monument is attested by a painting in the Orléans museum representing a view of the bridge and the town about the year 1560. An idea may be formed of what it was since 1571, both by the tokens struck at the end of the sixteenth century for the common house of Orléans, and by two engravings of Gaultier executed, the one for Jean Hordal\u0026rsquo;s book, the other for the Recueil d\u0026rsquo;inscriptions à la gloire de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc which appeared in 1628. La Fontaine visited it in 1633; he thus opens his mind about it to his wife in the second letter of his journey to Limoges: In going upon the bridge, I saw the Maid; but, my faith, it was without pleasure. I found in her neither the air, nor the figure, nor the face of an amazon. The Infanta Gradafilée is worth ten of her; and were it not that M. Chapelain is her chronicler, I know not whether I should make mention of her. I looked at her, for love of him, longer than I should have done. She is on her knees before a cross, and King Charles in the same posture over against her; the whole very puny and of small appearance. It is a monument that smacks of the poverty of its century.\nSee below the inscriptions placed on the pedestal remade in 1771.\nFoundry work.\nBefore Girard Dubois, notary of the king our sire in his Châtelet of Orléans, appeared Hector Lescot, founder, dwelling at Orléans in the parish of Saint-Pierre-Puellier, called Jacqueminot, who confessed that he had undertaken and undertakes for the mayor and échevins, who gave and give him to do what follows:\nIn what is required to refound and resolder the effigies of Our Lady of Pity and the Maid, which used of old to be on the bridges of this town: first, the whole body of the said Maid must be resoldered, save the legs, arms and hands; further, to resolder anew a lance with the guidon turning at the end of the said lance, her armet with a plume, a sword and spurs, a cross, a pelican, three nails, a crown of thorns above the cross, another lance on the other side of the cross and a sponge; further, to refound an arm for the crucifix, and set a great piece at the stomach; to make an encolleture at the neck and several other pieces which must be made and resoldered; and moreover to repair several arquebus shots at the body and the head of the king, and to remake him a crown which is set upon his arms; and generally to do all that shall be required to be done, and to accommodate and seat the said Maid, and in the like manner that she used to be.\nFor doing which, the said mayor and échevins shall furnish copper or pewter, iron, lead and other matters necessary thereto. And as to the moulds, the said contractor shall have them made at his costs and expenses. And the said Maid and all the contents above, the said contractor shall render repaired, made and perfected, seated upon the bridge where she was accustomed to be seated, the whole well and duly, as it belongs, within the sixth day of January next, for the sum of six score and ten livres tournois which the said mayor and échevins have promised to pay and cause to be paid by the receiver of the common moneys of the said town: to wit, in advance, fifty livres tournois, and the surplus amounting to four score livres tournois, forthwith upon the abovesaid works being received well and duly made and perfect, delivered to the said mayor and échevins by the said contractor, obligating his costs and renouncing. Present Robert Charpentier and Jean Cornu, dwelling in the said Orléans, witnesses, the 9th October 1570. Signed DUBOIS.\nAnd on the fourteenth of the said month of October, the said Lescot confessed to have had and received from the honourable man Jacques Alleaume, receiver of the common moneys of the town of Orléans, the sum of fifty livres tournois in advance upon the abovesaid works; whereof receipt in the presence of Joseph Morcheron and Jacques Sayntonge of the said Orléans, witnesses.\nSigned DUBOIS.\nMasonry work.\nThe twenty-second day of March, in the year 1571.\nThe mayor and échevins of the town of Orléans, assembled in sufficient number in the common house of the said town, in the presence of Girard Dubois, notary of the king our sire in his Châtelet of Orléans, registrar of the said common house, have advised and deliberated that by the honourable and prudent man Jacques Aleaume, receiver of the common moneys of the town of Orléans, there shall be paid and given to master Pierre Guillaumect, master mason and stone-cutter of this town of Orléans, the sum of forty-five livres tournois, for which the said mayor and échevins have heretofore made verbal bargain with the said Guillaumect, to do the masonry which he has done, both of cutting and otherwise, which had to be done at the place and spot where the effigy of Our Lady, of the king and of the Maid have lately been set and seated on the said bridge of this said town, and to do which the said Guillaumect furnished stone of Apremont, lime, sand and cement, as was required. And upon the said receiver rendering these presents with receipt of the said Guillaumect, the said sum of 45 l. t. shall be allowed him in his account. Done and enacted in the said town house, the year and day abovesaid. Signed, DUBOIS.\nThe year and day as above, the said Guillaumect abovenamed confesses to have received from the said Aleaume, receiver abovesaid, the said sum of forty-five livres tournois for the causes aforesaid, as, etc.; whereof receipt. Witnesses, Jacques Sainctonge and Jacques Colas, treasurer clerks. Signed, DUBOIS.\nLVI. Permission to the Cadet Branch of the du Lys Family to Resume the Arms of the Maid # 25 September 1612 [recte October].\nLetters patent of which an ampliation exists in the judicial section of the Archives of the Realm (Cour des Aides, bundle of 1611 to 1614). They were printed for the first time separately, in a little booklet of duodecimo format, without date or printer\u0026rsquo;s name. Godefroy reproduced them at p. 899 of the Histoire de Charles VII. They are also found in the Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises (vol. XVI, p. 33), and in M. Buchon\u0026rsquo;s Collection des chroniques nationales, vol. IX of Monstrelet, as well as in the Panthéon littéraire.\nLouis, by the grace of God king of France and of Navarre, to all present and to come, greeting.\nOur beloved and trusty MM. Charles Dulis, our counsellor and advocate-general in our Cour des Aides at Paris, and Luc Dulis, squire, lord of Reisnemoulin, also counsellor, notary and secretary of our house and crown of France, and audiencier in our chancellery of Paris, brothers; have most humbly shown us that, as during the wars and divisions which were in this realm under Kings Charles VI and Charles VII of happy memory, our predecessors, the English having for a long space of time usurped our town of Paris and a great part of the other best towns and provinces of our realm, it pleased God, true protector of our said realm, to raise up from the borders thereof that magnanimous and virtuous girl, named Joan of Arc, since vulgarly called the Maid of Orléans; who, against the opinion of everyone and against all human appearance, miraculously caused in very little time, and as by the hand of God, the siege which the English held before our town of Orléans to be raised, and the said lord King Charles VII to be crowned in our town of Reims, with such prosperity that thenceforward the English were entirely subdued and expelled from our realm: in recognition of which great and signal services rendered to the State and crown of France, she was not only ennobled with her father, mother, brothers and all their posterity, both in masculine and feminine line, but by a special privilege of the said lord King Charles VII it was permitted to her, together with her said brothers and their posterity, to bear the lis, both in their names and in their arms, which were then granted them and blazoned with a shield azure, two fleurs-de-lis or, and a sword argent with the guard golden, the point uppermost, struck into a crown of gold; of which brothers of the said Maid, the eldest, Jean d\u0026rsquo;Arc, called Dulis, provost of Vaucouleurs, and his descendants continued to bear the said names and arms Dulis until this day; and the younger Pierre d\u0026rsquo;Arc, also thence surnamed Dulis, following the profession of arms, after having attained to the order and degree of knighthood, by letters patent of the Duke of Orléans, given at Orléans the twenty-eighth of July one thousand four hundred and forty-three, was recognised and recompensed under the name Dulis, and in quality of german brother of the said Maid, for the signal services rendered by him, in deeds of arms, with his said sister, and after the decease of the same, both to the said lord King Charles VII and to the said Duke of Orléans, since his happy deliverance from his long prison, under the auspices of the said Maid, as appears amply by several extracts of our Chambre des Comptes and other titles attached under the counter-seal of these presents (1); and that of the said Pierre Dulis, knight, younger brother of the said Maid, were issued and descended in right line the said exposants, brothers, children of Michel Dulis their father, son of Jean Dulis their grandfather, who was son of another Jean Dulis the younger: which was also younger son of the said Pierre Dulis, knight, still younger brother of the said Maid: which Jean Dulis the younger, great-grandfather of the said exposants, was named and sent to be one of the échevins in the town of Arras by the king Louis XI, son and successor of the said lord King Charles VII, when he willed to have it re-established and repeopled, by his letters patent given at Chartres in the month of July 1481 (1), verified in our Cour des Aides the tenth of September following, and remained there until the year 1491, when the said town having withdrawn from the obedience of the crown of France by the interposition of the archduke Maximilian, the good and true French who had been established there by the said lord King Louis XI were all pillaged and chased from the said town, notably the said Jean Dulis, who was constrained to withdraw to Lihons in Santerre, without nevertheless discontinuing the profession of arms; and seeing himself the youngest of the youngest of the brothers of the said Maid of Orléans, he contented himself with bearing the name Dulis, retaining the arms of the name and of their ancient family of Arc, which are azure, a bow or set in fess, charged with three arrows intercrossed, the points uppermost struck, two or, steeled and plumed argent, and one argent, steeled and plumed or, and the chief argent with a lion passant gules; and forasmuch as the said names Dulis and arms of Arc are found to have passed from father to son down to the said exposants, and that these are recognised today as the sole representatives of the said Pierre Dulis, their great-great-grandfather, german brother of the said Maid, by reason that Jean Dulis the elder, in his lifetime always surnamed la Pucelle, eldest son of the said Pierre Dulis, knight, brother of the said Maid, deceased without heirs (1), they desired to resume the arms Dulis, granted to the said Maid and her brothers, together with those of Arc, which the said Jean Dulis the younger, their great-grandfather, and his descendants are found to have retained and kept until now; and that it be permitted them to bear them both together, quartered in the same escutcheon, and crested in such fashion as it shall please us to ordain for them, for a mark of the valorous acts of the said Maid and of their ancestors, and even to employ therein the banner which she bore to the war, which was of white cloth sown with fleurs-de-lis of gold, with the figure of an angel presenting a lily to God, borne by the Virgin His mother; which they doubt they may do without having our suitable and necessary letters thereon, humbly requiring the same: therefore it is that we, recognising the great, mysterious and signal services done to the State and crown of France by the said Joan of Arc, called the Maid of Orléans, and desiring to continue the recognition and gratification which has been made therefor to her and to her brothers and their posterity, and besides, well and favourably to treat the said exposants, both in contemplation of their said extraction, which has sufficiently appeared to us by the titles and extracts attached under our said counter-seal, as of several good and agreeable services which they have rendered us, and to the late King Henry the Great, our most honoured lord and father, of happy memory, not only in the exercise of their offices, but in several other charges, commissions and negotiations wherein they have been employed and have worthily acquitted themselves: for these causes and other great considerations moving us thereto, by the advice of the queen regent, our most honoured lady and mother, and of our council, we have, of our certain knowledge, full power and royal authority, by these presents signed with our hand, permitted and do permit the said exposants to adjoin the arms Dulis to those of Arc, which they were accustomed to use; and to bear the same henceforward, they and their posterity, quartered in the right quarter of those Dulis, which were granted to the said Maid of Orléans and her brothers, as those who are recognised issued and descended of the elder brother of the said Maid, Jean Dulis, who was provost of Vaucouleurs, have retained and now bear them; and in the second and third quarter those of Arc, which the said exposants have retained and kept from father to son, from the said Jean Dulis the younger, their great-grandfather, who was named, as is said, for échevin in the town of Arras, by the said lord King Louis XI, as they are blazoned above and represented under the counter-seal of these presents; as also we will and permit that the said exposants may bear their helm crowned with the torse of knighthood and nobility, of the armorial colours, and crested, to wit the said Charles and his heirs, with a figure of the said Maid, clothed in white, bearing in her right hand a crown of gold sustained on the point of her sword, and in the left, her white banner, figured and represented as in her lifetime she bore it; and the said Luc Dulis, younger, and his heirs, with a fleur-de-lis of gold issuant between two pennants of the same blazon as the banner of the said Maid; and that the cry of the said Charles and of his heirs be La Pucelle! and that of the said Luc, lord of Reisnemoulin, be Les Lys! without their being able to be troubled, molested or disquieted in any manner whatsoever, nor that the said change or quartering and addition can harm them or be imputed to them in prejudice of our ordinances. So we give in commandment to our beloved and trusty counsellors the men holding our courts of Parliament and of the Aides at Paris, and to all other justices and officers to whom it shall belong, that they cause these presents to be registered, and the said exposants and their posterity to enjoy and use the contents thereof, without any trouble or hindrance being made them thereon; and if any be made or given them, to cause it to be lifted and removed, notwithstanding all ordinances, prohibitions, and whatsoever letters to the contrary: for such is our pleasure. And so that this be a thing firm and stable for ever, we have caused our seal to be set to these said presents. Given at Paris, the twenty-fifth day of October, in the year of grace 1612, and of our reign the third. Signed, LOUIS. And on the fold, By the king, the queen regent his mother being present, BRULART, and sealed with green wax. And beside is written: Visé. And on the said fold is further written: Registered, the king\u0026rsquo;s procurator-general heard, to be enjoyed by the impetrants of the contents thereof, according to their form and tenor. Done in Parliament, the eighteenth of December one thousand six hundred and twelve. Signed, DU TILLET. And on the same fold is written: Registered in the Cour des Aides, the king\u0026rsquo;s procurator-general heard, to be enjoyed by the impetrants of the contents thereof, pursuant to decree of the said court of this day. Done at Paris, the thirty-first day of December, one thousand six hundred and twelve. Signed, DU PUY.\n(1) See above, p. 213.\n(1) See indeed article 11 of this ordinance in the Recueil des Ord., vol. XVII, p. 643.\n(1) He left a daughter who died without posterity.\nExtract of the registers of the Parliament. — Seen by the Court the letters patent of 25 October last, signed LOUIS, and on the fold, By the king, the queen regent his mother being present, BRULART; by which, inclining to the supplication of MM. Charles Dulis, advocate of the king in the Cour des Aides, and Luc Dulis, secretary and audiencier in the chancellery, descended from Joan of Arc, called the Maid of Orléans, they are permitted to adjoin to the arms of Arc those of Lis, granted to the said Maid and to hers, as the said letters contain at length; the request by them presented to the Court for registration; conclusions of the king\u0026rsquo;s procurator-general; all considered: the said Court has ordained and ordains that the said letters shall be registered therein, the king\u0026rsquo;s procurator-general heard, to be enjoyed by the impetrants of the contents thereof. Done in Parliament, the eighteenth day of December, one thousand six hundred and twelve. Signed, VOISIN.\nExtract of the registers of the Cour des Aides. — Seen by the Court the letters patent of the king, given at Paris the twenty-fifth day of October last, signed LOUIS, and on the fold, By the king, the queen regent his mother being present, BRULART, beside visé, and sealed with green wax on laces of red and green silk, bearing permission to Messire Charles Dulis, his counsellor and advocate-general in the said Court, and Luc Dulis, squire, lord of Resnemoulin, also counsellor, notary and secretary of His Majesty\u0026rsquo;s house and crown of France, and audiencier in the chancellery of Paris, to adjoin the arms Dulis to those of Arc, and to bear the same henceforward, and their posterity, as being descended from one of the brothers of Joan of Arc, called the Maid of Orléans, as the said letters contain more at length; request of the impetrants for the verification thereof; conclusions of the king\u0026rsquo;s procurator-general, and all considered: the Court has ordained and ordains that the said letters shall be registered in the registry thereof, to be enjoyed by the impetrants of the contents therein. Pronounced the thirty-first day of December, one thousand six hundred and twelve. Signed, DU PUY.\nLVII. Reduction of the Privilege of Nobility for the Descendants of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc Family # June 1614.\nThis provision is carried by article 10 of the edict of 1614 for the reduction of privileges in the matter of the tailles. It is stated a second time in the edict of the month of January 1634 on the same matter. I borrow the text from the Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises of MM. Isambert and Taillandier, vol. XVI, pp. 48 and 398.\nThe descendants of the brothers of the Maid of Orléans who now live nobly shall enjoy in future the privileges of nobility, and their posterity, from male to male living nobly, even those who to this effect have obtained our letters patent and decrees of our sovereign courts. But those who have not lived and do not live nobly at present shall no longer enjoy in future any privileges. The daughters and women also descended from the brothers of the said Maid of Orléans shall no longer ennoble their husbands in future.\nLVIII. Donation of Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s Hat to the Oratorians of Orléans # 22 April 1631.\nCertificate printed by Lenglet Dufresnoy in his Histoire de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, part III, p. 278. Lenglet saw this hat, which still existed in his time. It was of blue satin, he says, with four brims embroidered with gold, and enclosed in a case of red morocco leather with fleurs-de-lis of gold. Today there is no one in Orléans who can say what this relic has become.\nJesus Maria.\nIn the reign of the most Christian king Louis the Just, thirteenth of the name, I, Paul Metezeau, priest of the congregation of the Oratory of Jesus, have given to our house of the Oratory in this town of Orléans, this hat which I certify to be the true one of the heroic and famous girl Joan of Arc, commonly called the Maid of Orléans, in the order and succession in which it has devolved to me, from damoiselle Marguerite de Therouanne, wife of Jean de Metezeau my brother, secretary of the king, and only daughter of Monsieur de Therouanne, counsellor in the court of Parliament at Paris, and of damoiselle Marguerite de Bongars, native of Orléans; to which damoiselle de Bongars this hat had remained by ancient hereditary and ever-descending succession down to her, by alliance of the family and house in which the said Maid was received and lodged when she arrived at Orléans to chase from before the town and out of the realm of France the English; and so carefully kept for the space of two hundred years, and left by inheritance from parents to children under that name, for a memorable title of the antiquity of their house, until at last it was given and put into my hands by her who in that rank of succession possessed it, to be, by divine providence, brought back to the said town and given by me to our house of the Oratory with this case, to be worthily preserved therein in future, to save it from the ashes and to commend it to posterity, according to the piety, worth, merit and holiness of that girl and heroic virgin in whom the arm of God appeared, and that she was chosen by Him for the salvation and the liberty of France. In witness whereof and of the gift which I make, I sign this writing made by hand, this 22 April 1631.\nSigned, PAUL METEZEAU, priest of the Oratory of Jesus, with flourish.\nLIX. Inscriptions of the Fountain Erected at Rouen # A monument constructed on the place called de la Pucelle, which is a portion of the ancient Place du Vieux-Marché. A statue of a woman in heroic costume, representing Joan of Arc, surmounts a triangular base from which water escapes by three jets disposed on each of the faces. The statue is due to the chisel of the sculptor Slodz; the whole of the monument is of the design of the architect Dubois. This work is all in white marble. It replaced an old fountain of Renaissance style, erected in a corner of the same place, at the spot where the expiatory cross decreed by the judges of the rehabilitation had been planted. The design of that fountain, engraved following the Mémoire of M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy, may be seen (Notices des manuscrits, vol. III, p. 604). It was in vain that the Rouennais authors wished to maintain that it dated from the reign of Charles VII. They proved only one thing, that it existed in 1525, when the famous Livre des fontaines de Rouen was executed. After its architecture, it is evident that it did not go back beyond the reign of Louis XII.\nAs for the modern fountain, it was saved in 1793 by the presence of mind of the administrators of the commune, who pointed out that Joan of Arc was of the third estate, and that in that title her image ought to be preserved. They contented themselves with erasing the inscriptions, of which here is the tenor, after the Dictionnaire indicateur des rues et places de Rouen, by P. Périaux.\nOn the first face.\nREGNANTE LUDOVICO XV,\nNORMANNIAM GUBERNANTE FR. FRED. MONTMORANCIO\nDUCE LUXEMBURGIO,\nD. D. ANTONIO DE GAUGY, EQUITE ET SANCTI LAZARI,\nET HONORARIO IN CURIA PRAESIDIALI\nURBIS MAJORE;\nJOANNE PETRO DECLERE; ELIA LEFEBURE; CAR. NIC. BORDIER;\nJOANN. B. FR. CHAPAIS; HEN. JOS. VACHIER, SCUTIFERO; NIC. PREVEL,\nAEDILIBUS:\nJAC. PH. MULLOT, SCUTIFERO, PRO. REG.; N.B.E. COIGNARD, TAB. ET SCR.;\nJAC. L. MULLOT, SCUTIF. QUAEST.; P. JARRY OP. MAG.\nVIRGINI BELLATRICI\nDICATUM MONUMENTUM, VETUSTATE PROLAPSUM,\nSIC RENOVARI\nOPERA ET GENIO D. ALEX. DUBOIS, CURAVIT CIVITAS\nANNO MDCCLV.\n[In the reign of Louis XV, Normandy being governed by Fr. Fred. Montmorancy, Duke of Luxembourg, D. D. Antoine de Gaugy, knight of Saint Lazarus and honorary mayor in the presidial court of the city; Jean Pierre Déclère, Elie Lefebure, Charles Nicolas Bordier, Jean B. Fr. Chapais, Henri Joseph Vachier, squire, Nicolas Prevel, édiles; Jac. Ph. Mullot, squire, for the king; N.B.E. Coignard, tabellion and scribe; Jac. L. Mullot, squire, quaestor; P. Jarry, master of works: the city caused this monument, dedicated to the warrior Virgin and fallen in decay with age, to be thus renewed by the work and genius of D. Alex. Dubois, in the year 1755.]\nOn the second face.\nJOANNA D\u0026rsquo;ARC,\nQUAE SEXU FOEMINA, ARMIS VIR,\nFORTITUDINE HEROS,\nPOST AURELIAM OBSIDIONE LIBERATAM,\nDUCTUM PER MEDIOS HOSTES AD SACRA\nRHEMESIA\nCAROLUM VII,\nASSERTUM EIDEM PLURIBUS VICTORIIS SOLIUM,\nAD COMPENDIUM CAPTA, ANGLIS TRADITA,\nIMMERITA SORTE\nIN ISTO URBIS ANGULO\nCOMBUSTA, DIE XXX MAII, ANNO\nM. CCCC. XXXI,\nEXUIT FLAMMIS QUOD MORTALE.\nGLORIA SUPEREST NUNQUAM MORITURA,\nET IN HAC EADEM URBE\nSOLEMNITER VINDICATA\nDIE VII JULII, ANNO M. CCCC. LVI.\n[Joan of Arc, who in sex a woman, in arms a man, in courage a hero, after Orléans had been delivered from siege, and Charles VII led through the midst of enemies to the sacred rites of Reims and the throne asserted to him by many victories, taken at Compiègne, delivered to the English, by undeserved fate in this corner of the city burned, on the 30th day of May, in the year 1431, put off in the flames what was mortal. Her glory survives, never to die, and in this same city was solemnly vindicated on the 7th day of July, in the year 1456.]\nOn the third face.\nFLAMMARUM VICTRIX, ISTO REDIVIVA TROPHAEO,\nVITAM PRO PATRIA PONERE VIRGO DOCET:\nEMINET EXEMPLUM, SUCCENDAT PECTORA, REGNO\nSUSCITET HEROAS, NEUSTRIA DETQUE SUOS.\nSTEMMA VIDES, SCULPSIT VICTORIA, FACTA PUELLAE\nRITE TRIUMPHALI SUNT IBI SCRIPTA MANU:\nREGIA VIRGINEO DEFENDITUR ENSE CORONA,\nLILIA VIRGINEO TUTA SUB ENSE NITENT.\n[Conqueror of the flames, restored to life by this trophy, the Virgin teaches to lay down life for one\u0026rsquo;s country: let her example stand forth, kindle breasts, raise heroes for the realm, and may Neustria give its own. Thou seest the shield; Victory sculptured it; the Maid\u0026rsquo;s deeds are there duly written with triumphal hand: the royal crown is defended by a virgin sword; the lilies shine, safe beneath a virgin sword.]\nLX. Inscriptions of the Monument of the Maid at Orléans After Its Second Restoration # The monument, removed in 1745 from the bridge which threatened ruin, was carried into a cellar of the common house, where it remained buried sixteen years. After that lapse of time, the solicitations of M. Desfriches, a distinguished amateur of the fine arts and town counsellor, caused it to be brought again to light. It was placed at the corner of the Rue Royale and the Rue de la Vieille-Poterie, on a pedestal of which M. Soyer, engineer of the turcies et levées, had furnished the design. Millin gave an engraving of it in vol. II, article IX of his Antiquités nationales. Two tables of black marble, inlaid on the principal faces of the monument, bore the following inscriptions, composed by M. Colas de Guyenne, canon of Saint-Aignan.\nSide of the Rue Royale.\nIN THE REIGN OF LOUIS XV\nTHIS MONUMENT ERECTED ON THE ANCIENT BRIDGE\nBY KING CHARLES VII, IN THE YEAR 1458*,\nIN THANKSGIVING FOR THE DELIVERANCE\nOF THIS TOWN, AND FOR THE VICTORIES WON\nOVER THE ENGLISH BY JOAN OF ARC,\nCALLED THE MAID OF ORLÉANS,\nHAS BEEN RESTORED IN ITS FIRST FORM,\nAT THE WISH OF THE INHABITANTS AND BY THE CARE OF\nM. JACQUES DU COUDRAY, MAYOR,\nISAMBERT DE BAGNAUX\nVANDEBERGUE DE VILLEBOURE\nBOILLÈVE DE DOMCY\nDELOYNES DE GAUTIRAY\nÉchevins.\nMM.\nDESFRICHES\nCHAUBERT\nCOLAS DE MALMUSSE:\nMM. Counsellors.\nARNAULT DE NOBLEVILLE\nBOILLÈVE\nLHUILLIER DE PLANCHEVILLIERS\nIN THE YEAR M. DCC. LXXI.\n* Criticism, more advanced today, would not dare pronounce in so absolute a manner on the origin of the monument. See vol. IV, p. 448.\nSide of the Rue de la Vieille-Poterie.\nD. O. M.\nPIETATIS IN DEUM\nREVERENTIAE IN DEIPARAM\nFIDELITATIS IN REGEM\nAMORIS IN PATRIAM\nGRATI ANIMI IN PUELLAM\nMONUMENTUM\nINSTAURAVERE CIVES AURELIANI\nANNO DOMINI MDCCLXXI.\n[To God, most good, most great. In witness of piety towards God, reverence towards the Mother of God, fidelity towards the king, love towards the fatherland, and a grateful soul towards the Maid, the citizens of Orléans restored this monument in the year of our Lord 1771.]\nLXI. Destruction of the Monument of the Maid at Orléans # August 1792 — July 1793.\nSundry extracts from the registers of the general council of the commune of Orléans and of those of the Administration of the département of the Loiret, printed in M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s Recherches historiques sur Orléans, second part, vol. I, pp. 340, 344 and 417; ibid., vol. II, pp. 62 and 164.\nGeneral council of the commune, sitting of 23 August 1792.\nReading is given of the following petition, submitted to the members of the general council of the commune:\nPetition of the members of the section of Saint-Victor to MM. the Administrators composing the permanent council of the département of the Loiret.\nAdministrators, having justified the confidence of the permanent section of Saint-Victor by the zeal you have brought to do right to the petitions presented by your fellow citizens, it addresses itself to you for an important object which they submit to your discussion.\nThe National Assembly has passed a decree to arm with pikes all the citizens who cannot pay for muskets; these citizens thus armed will be of little defence if they are not supported by an imposing artillery.\nThe town of Orléans, forming seven battalions, possesses only two pieces of field cannon, the other two cannon not belonging to it, and being able to serve only as rampart pieces. It would therefore be essential to find means of increasing our artillery. To attain this, the section of Saint-Victor proposes to you to have demolished the monument of Charles VII, a monument which insults the liberty of the French people, and which is fit only to irritate men who have too long groaned under the servitude of kings. The bronzes that will be drawn from it will give, according to the artists, two or three pieces of four-pound shot. These are now the only monuments which ought to exist in a free nation, to make tyrants tremble.\nThe general council of the commune of Orléans, on the petition of the citizens of the second section of this town, considers that the monument of the Maid, far from being able to be regarded as a sign of feudality insulting the liberty of the French people, announces on the contrary only an act of recognition towards the Supreme Being, and a glorious testimony of the valour of our ancestors who delivered the French nation from the yoke that the English wished to impose on it. Moreover, the general council of the commune, recognising the necessity of an imposing artillery, resolves to withdraw without delay by a deputation before the administrative bodies to procure it for the town.\nDone and enacted in the common house.\nAdministration of the département of the Loiret. Sitting of 28 August 1792.\nA member rendered account to the Committee of reports, of the observations and of the opinion of that Committee on the petition presented to the Administration by the citizens composing the section of Saint-Victor of the town of Orléans, tending to have the bronze monument of Charles VII, placed on the Rue Royale of this town, converted into cannon to increase the artillery of the national guard.\nThe assembly, after having heard the report of its Committee of reports and the procurator-general-syndic,\nConsidering that the monument erected on the Rue Royale of the town of Orléans does not represent the services of the heroine whose memory it is destined to perpetuate;\nConsidering that the citizens of the town can find in this monument no sign, no character which can recall to them the hatred that their forebears bore to the English;\nHas resolved that the monument of Charles VII, erected on the Rue Royale of the town of Orléans, as well as the inscriptions existing on the faces of its pedestal, shall, at the diligence of the procurator of the commune, be forthwith removed and deposited in a safe place to be examined by an artist named by the municipality, on whose report it shall be determined what shall be fitting for the conversion and employment of the metal (1).\n(1) This decree was notified to the commune and executed the same day. That same day the Rue Royale lost its name and was transformed into the Rue de l\u0026rsquo;Égalité.\nGeneral council of the commune. Sitting of the evening of 21 September 1792.\nIt has been represented that the municipality having caused to be removed the different bronze figures whose union formed the monument called of the Maid, and this monument being unable to be replaced but at great cost, it would be proper to employ its material, whose weight amounts to 1,700 livres, for the fabrication of the four projected cannon.\nThe general council of the commune, considering that the law of 14 August 1792 ordains the conversion into mouths of fire of all bronze monuments and inscriptions, has unanimously resolved that the bronze figures forming the monument of the Maid shall be employed in the fabrication of the cannon, and that to preserve the memory of the monument of the Maid, one of the cannon shall bear the name of Joan of Arc, surnamed the Maid of Orléans.\nGeneral council of the commune. Sitting of 6 April 1793.\nA member asks for the suppression of the railings which surround the pedestal where formerly was the monument of the Maid, to be converted into pikes. It was proposed to throw down the pedestal also; but the proposition was combated.\nGeneral council of the commune. Sitting of 26 July 1793.\nThe general council adopts the proposition of the Committee which proposes to cause the remains of the pedestal of the monument of the late Maid of Orléans to disappear.\nLXII. Approval of Napoleon Bonaparte, First Consul, of the Project to Erect a New Monument in Honour of Joan of Arc # 29 pluviôse year XI (18 February 1803).\nAutograph apostille written on the petition which the municipal body of Orléans had addressed to the First Consul under the date of the 26th of the preceding pluviôse (15 February 1803). This note was printed by M. Lottin in his Recherches historiques sur la ville d\u0026rsquo;Orléans (part II, vol. IV, p. 349), when the piece from which it is drawn was still in the archives of the mairie of Orléans. It must have been stolen since, for it has passed at public sale in Paris in these latter times.\nIn virtue of this approval a subscription was opened, the proceeds of which served to defray the cost of the bronze statue placed today on the Place du Martroi. This monument was composed by the sculptor Gois the younger, after a terra-cotta which M. Lenoir had caused to be made for the Musée des Monuments français. It was inaugurated on the 18th floréal year XII (8 May 1804).\nThe deliberation of the municipal council is most agreeable to me. The illustrious Joan of Arc has proved that there is no miracle which the French genius cannot operate when national independence is threatened. United, the French nation has never been vanquished; but our neighbours, abusing the frankness and loyalty of our character, constantly sowed among us those dissensions whence were born the calamities of the epoch in which the French heroine lived, and all the disasters that our history recalls.\nLXIII. Acquisition of Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s House by the Département of the Vosges # Deed of sale of 20 June 1818 and approving Ordinance of the following 5 October, printed in the Histoire abrégée de la vie et des exploits de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, by M. Jollois, p. 181.\nThe house, at the moment of the sale, was engaged in a mass of buildings erected around it, and, it may be said, at its expense, since, to give more appearance to the latter, it had been despoiled of its mouldings and sculptures. As soon as the acquisition was made, not only were its ornaments restored to it, but further the parasitic buildings which obstructed it were demolished, so as to isolate it on all its faces. On the surplus of the ground, a garden has been laid out and two pavilions erected, one occupied by a girls\u0026rsquo; school, the other serving for the reception of visitors. A railing placed between these two pavilions permits the house to be seen on the side of its principal front. It is in stone, ceiled and covered with a roof of a single slope. It is composed of four little rooms below, one of which is furnished with an antique chimney; the upper floor, made under the roof, is properly speaking only a loft. Modest as this little edifice is, it is wrongly regarded as the cottage where Joan of Arc came into the world. The solidity of the building reveals by itself a research which would not have been in the tastes of a simple family of husbandmen. The d\u0026rsquo;Arcs, having become gentlemen, raised this more durable dwelling in the place of the ancestral cabin. The date of this reconstruction is presumably the one read above the entry door. The coping of this door, put back in place since 1818, forms a tympanum arched in ogee, whose field, divided into several compartments by ribs in relief, bears the following inscriptions:\nUnder the angle of the ogee: Vive le labeur + [Long live labour]\nImmediately below this first inscription: de mil cccc — iiijxx + i [in the year one thousand four hundred fourscore and one]\nAt the very bottom of the tympanum: Vive + le + roy + Louis + [Long live King Louis]\nThree escutcheons accompany these devices: one (mutilated in 1830) with the arms of France; another with the arms of the Maid; the third charged with three ploughshares with a star in the abyss. These last arms are found again in the church of Domrémy, engraved on the tomb of Jacob Thiesselin, who died in 1483. The union of the Thiesselin escutcheon with that of the du Lys is explained quite naturally by the fact that the head of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, and consequently the possessor of the house, in 1481, was Claude du Lys, eldest son of Jean, brother of the Maid, married to Nicolle Thiesselin. It is known besides by authentic acts that this Claude du Lys administered the villages of Domrémy and of Greux, as fiscal procurator of several lords who enjoyed in indivision the property of those places (1). All agrees then, as well as can be, to date the little manor of Domrémy from the last years of Louis XI. To judge by the tenor of the inscriptions given above, it would not even be improbable that that monarch contributed to it of his moneys. A precious decoration, and quite worthy of royal munificence, formerly enhanced the frontage of the edifice: the exploits of the Maid had been painted upon it; Michel de Montaigne still saw something of it in 1580 (1); but the last vestiges of colour and even of plaster have long disappeared.\n(1) All these details on the nephew of Joan of Arc are found, with allegation of the pieces in support, in the Traité sommaire tant du nom que des armes de la Pucelle, etc., revised in 1628, p. 20.\n(1) The passage of this illustrious writer deserves to be given entire. It is found in the Journal of his journey in Italy: Domrémy on the Meuse, three leagues from Vaucouleurs, whence was native that famous Maid of Orléans who was called Joan d\u0026rsquo;Ay (see above, p. 150) or d\u0026rsquo;Alis. Her descendants were ennobled by favour of the king; and they showed us the arms that the king gave them, which are azure, a sword upright, crowned and hilted gold, and two fleurs-de-lis of gold beside the said sword; whereof a receiver of Vaucouleurs gave a painted escutcheon to M. de Caselis. The front of the little house where she was born is all painted with her deeds; but age has much corrupted the painting. There is also a tree along a vine which is called the Tree of the Maid, which has nothing else to remark.\n(2) The town of Orléans, to reward him, had a medal struck for him.\nWholly forgotten by the French, Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s house received in 1815, probably because of Schiller\u0026rsquo;s tragedy, the visit of the princes of the house of Austria. The archduke Ferdinand, today emperor, caused parcels of wood and stone to be detached from it, which he carried off as precious relics. Following his example, all the people of his suite wished to have some. A Prussian officer, outbidding the others, even testified a desire to acquire the sculptures of the door, and as he could not obtain them from the proprietor, he offered him six thousand francs for the whole house: a proposition which was likewise repelled. The proprietor was a man named Gérardin, a man of small fortune, but who kept his house as a sacred thing, claiming to hold it by uninterrupted succession from the collaterals of the Maid. His disinterestedness appeared above all in that later, when it was a question of ceding it to the département of the Vosges, he accepted the bargain at the price of two thousand five hundred francs (2).\nM. Jollois, engineer-in-chief at Épinal at the epoch of the acquisition, put the places in the state in which they are seen today. I do not believe however that it was he who caused to be placed above the coping of the door a kneeling stone statue which wrongly passes for an authentic portrait of the Maid. This piece of sculpture is of the epoch of Louis XIII and seems to me to be the copy of another statue which the Hordals, issue of the du Lys, had caused to be erected in the cathedral of Toul in honour of their illustrious kinswoman. This copy was above the door of Gérardin, on the frontispiece demolished in 1818. It is specified in the deed of sale under the denomination of bust, because at that time it was engaged in the wall to above the waist.\nIn the interior of the house there is a reduced copy of the statue due to the chisel of the princess Marie. On the wall of the back of the principal room is sealed a table of white marble bearing the following inscription:\nIN THE YEAR MCCCCXII\nWAS BORN IN THIS PLACE\nJOAN OF ARC\nSURNAMED THE MAID OF ORLÉANS\nDAUGHTER OF JACQUES D\u0026rsquo;ARC AND OF ISABELLE ROMÉE\nTO HONOUR HER MEMORY\nTHE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE DÉPARTEMENT OF THE VOSGES\nHAS ACQUIRED THIS HOUSE\nTHE KING\nHAS ORDAINED ITS RESTORATION\nHAS FOUNDED THEREIN A SCHOOL OF FREE INSTRUCTION\nIN FAVOUR OF THE YOUNG GIRLS\nOF DOMRÉMY, OF GREUX AND OTHER COMMUNES\nAND HAS WILLED THAT A FOUNTAIN ADORNED\nWITH THE BUST OF THE HEROINE\nSHOULD PERPETUATE HER IMAGE\nAND THE EXPRESSION OF PUBLIC\nGRATITUDE.\nTHESE WORKS WERE FINISHED THE XXV AUGUST\nMDCCCXX.\nAs this inscription says, Louis XVIII in fact granted, upon his privy purse, a sum of twenty thousand francs to the commune of Domrémy: to wit, twelve thousand francs to erect a monument to the memory of Joan of Arc, and to build a girls\u0026rsquo; school adjoining the house; and eight thousand francs for the capital of an annuity of four hundred francs destined for the remuneration of a sister of charity, mistress of the school. With so feeble resources, M. Jollois could not raise anything very monumental. His fountain is an aedicule of the Tuscan order, sustained by four pillars between which is set a poor bust of the Maid. The water which escaped from the base of this monument was that of the famous fountain of the Gooseberries. It has ceased to flow because of a leak in the conduits.\nThere will be found in the Histoire abrégée de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc very carefully executed engravings of the fountain, of the house in its ancient state, of the sculptures belonging thereto, and finally the plan of the property as it lay at the terms of the deed of sale, which is this:\nDeed of sale.\nOn the twentieth of June one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, at Domrémy-la-Pucelle, three hours after noon; before Claude Edme, notary, resident at and for the arrondissement of Neufchâteau,\nWas present Nicolas Gérardin, dragoon in the service of France, retired by reason of wounds received in the defence of the French territory, at present vine-dresser, domiciled at the said Domrémy-la-Pucelle, his native country;\nWho, determined by the desire to make to the inhabitants of the département of the Vosges a concession agreeable to them, and still more by the love of his country and of the king, his well-beloved sovereign, has well and voluntarily and of his free will declared to cede and transfer in full property, with promise to warrant as is expressed by the law:\nTo the département of the Vosges, of which the village of Domrémy forms part, acting by M. Boula de Colombiers, master of requests, knight of the royal order of the Legion of Honour, prefect of the said département, and by MM. the members of the General Council, accepting in the present case by M. Florentin Muel, proprietor of forges, domiciled at that of Sionne, one of the members of the said General Council, also appearing in person;\nThe house which he inhabits in this place of Domrémy, coming to him from of old, as only child and sole heir of Albert Gérardin his father deceased, and belonging originally to Jacques d\u0026rsquo;Arc and to Isabelle Romée, to Joan of Arc, their daughter, surnamed the Maid of Orléans, who dwelt in it, and in which she was born, at the latest in the year 1412, moreover as is of all notoriety and certain tradition;\nAs the said house is contained actually from top to bottom and through and through with all its buildings, its kitchen garden at the back, the bust of the said Joan of Arc, placed outside, above the cover of the principal entry, its grounds and surroundings, both exterior and interior, its easements and dependencies, in front, behind and on each side, without reserving anything thereof; the whole situated near the church of the said Domrémy, in the Rue du Moulin, between Toussaint Humblot, on the north; Élophe Liétard, on the south; having its principal lights and entries on the said street to the east; bounded on the west by the daughters Boudin and the said Élophe Liétard;\nThus transferred, free of all quit-rents, charges, servitudes and financial dues, for the département to make and dispose thereof in full property and enjoyment, reckoning from this day, nevertheless under the reservations hereafter:\nThis cession thus made and consented by the said Gérardin, on the condition that, whatever be in future the disposition of the place, its principal object, and whatever be the changes which it may undergo, he shall be the guardian thereof so long as he shall live; moreover, so long as by his conduct he shall deserve to be charged with this guardianship; which guard he asks, moreover, as a special favour, and to maintain him and his family in the remembrance of a habitation to which he was attached, by reason of the virtues and heroism of Joan of Arc.\nFor and in consideration, moreover, of the sum of two thousand five hundred francs in principal, on account whereof he acknowledges having received at this instant, by the hands and of the moneys of my said lord Muel, the sum of six hundred francs, whereof for so much receipt; as for the sum of one thousand nine hundred francs remaining, M. Muel engages to make the payment thereof into the hands of the said Gérardin, at the latest within one year, dated this day, and without interests until then; an obligation which the same Muel has, in case of need, declared to contract personally and directly towards the said Gérardin, whom he authorises moreover to exact of him the execution thereof, without regard to the quality under which he contracts here in the name of the département of the Vosges; a clause which M. Muel caused to be inserted here expressly in testimony of the good will which the same Gérardin showed in making him this concession, recommending moreover the said vendor to the benevolence of the authorities of the département, and to the bounties of His Majesty, of whom he has nothing more at heart than to render himself worthy, in consideration of the numerous family with which he is charged, and of the state of poverty in which he finds himself.\nWhereof deed read to the parties, made and passed in the house sold, in the presence of MM. Jean-Baptiste-Laurent Humblot, mayor of the commune, and Claude-Joseph Boucirot, priest serving the succursal of Maxey-sur-Meuse, domiciled at the said Domrémy-la-Pucelle, known witnesses, required and undersigned with the appearers and the notary, the year and day abovesaid.\nRegistered at Neufchâteau, the 29 June 1818, vol. LXIX, fol. 58, verso 6, pp. 1 and following; provisionally received one franc ten centimes, according to the order of M. Boiteux, director, pursuant to his letter of the twentieth June.\nSigned POIRAULT.\nFor copy in conformity delivered ex officio under this form, at the requisition of M. the Prefect of the département of the Vosges, by the instrumenting notary undersigned EDMÉ.\nRoyal ordinance.\nLouis, by the grace of God, king of France and of Navarre;\nOn the report of our minister secretary of state for the department of the interior;\nOur council of state heard,\nWe have ordained and ordain what follows:\nArt. 1st. The acquisition made of the house of Joan of Arc, commune of Domrémy, département of the Vosges, for the price fixed at two thousand five hundred francs, to be paid on the funds of the département, conformably to the wish of the General Council and to the advice of the prefect, is and remains approved at the clauses and conditions carried in the act passed in this regard, before notary, on 20 June 1818, and for the registration whereof only one franc shall be paid.\nArt. 2. Our minister secretary of state for the department of the interior is charged with the execution of the present ordinance.\nGiven at our castle of the Tuileries, the 5 August of the year of grace 1818, and of our reign the twenty-fourth. Signed LOUIS.\nBy the king, the minister secretary of state for the department of the interior. Signed LAINÉ.\nLXIV. Pieces Pointed Out by Sundry Modern Authors and Which Could Not Be Found Again # 1429.\nNicolas Rommée, called de Vouthon, professed religious in the abbey of Cheminon, Cistercian order, diocese of Châlons, receives dispensation from his abbot, at the request of the Maid and by commandment of the king, to follow the said Maid to the armies to serve her as chaplain and almoner, as being her cousin-german.\nThis piece is thus reported in the Traité sommaire du nom et des armes de la Pucelle, revised in 1628; an opuscule composed by one of the members of the Dulys family.\nSame year.\nLetter of the Maid to the king of Navarre.\nIndication entered in the table of the archives of the Parliament of Le Nain, a voluminous manuscript inventory which the Bibliothèque Royale possesses. Reference is made to register 70, folio 67; but this figure relates to a classification which has no longer existed for a long time, and all researches to find again the piece in question, in the judicial section of the archives of the realm, have been fruitless.\nSame year (?)\nPetition presented by the good Viscountess of Milan, to the Maid, to be re-established in the duchy of Milan.\nBy viscountess, understand Visconti. It is the Orléanais historian Lemaire who thus cites this piece (Histoire et antiquitez de la ville et duché d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, p. 197). He draws from it the proof that Joan was regarded in her lifetime as sent from heaven, because of the superscription, which was thus conceived: To the most honoured and most devout Maid, Joan, sent by the King of heaven for the reparation and extirpation of the English tyrannising France.\n1430.\nPiece stating that there was public mourning at Tours, at the news of the capture of Joan of Arc.\nCarreau, author of an unpublished history of Touraine of which the manuscript is at the Bibliothèque Royale (vol. XXVIII of the D. Housseau collection), summarises in the following terms this document, whose nature he does not indicate: Public prayers were ordered to ask God for her deliverance (of the Maid). A general procession was made on the Wednesday following, at which the canons of the cathedral church, the secular and regular clergy of the town assisted, all marching barefoot.\n1431.\nSermon of Guillaume Erard, pronounced in the cemetery of Saint-Ouen of Rouen on 24 May, the day of the abjuration of the Maid.\nEdmond Richer cites it among the original documents which he consulted to compose his Histoire de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, of which the manuscript entered the Library with the Fontanieu collection (vol. numbered P. 285).\n1473.\nLouis XI withdraws the trial of the Maid from the Chambre des Comptes, where it had been deposited, to cause it to pass into the Trésor des Chartes.\nIndication given by the ancient inventories of the Chambre des Comptes, which refer to folio 91 of the Registre mémorial numbered O. This register perished in the fire of the Palais, in 1723, and the piece does not appear to have been copied anteriorly: at least it is not found in the known collections.\nIt is to be noted that the deposit of the trial in the Trésor des Chartes had been requested by the persons interested in the Maid, in 1455. See the last article of their request, p. 261 of vol. II.\nTestimonies Extracted from Account Books # Arrival of the Maid in France # Extract from the 8th account of Guillaume Charrier, receiver-general of all the finances, folio 194 of the destroyed original register of the Chambre des Comptes of Paris; printed by Godefroy, p. 907 of the Histoire de Charles VII.\nTo Jean de Metz, squire, the sum of one hundred livres for the defraying of him and other people of the company of the Maid lately come to the king our sire, from the country of Barrois, of the costs which they have made in the town of Chinon, and which they must make in the journey they have intention of making to serve the said lord in the army ordained by him for the succour of Orléans; which sum has been granted to the abovesaid by letters of the king of the 21st day of April 1429.\nEquipment of the Maid # Extract from the 13th and last account of master Hémon Raguier, treasurer of the wars, formerly preserved in original in the Chambre des Comptes of Paris; printed by De la Roque, ch. XII of his Traité de la noblesse.\nTo the persons hereafter named, the sum of 450 livres tournois which, in the month of April 1429 after Easter, by the ordinance and commandment of the king our sire, has been paid and given by the said treasurer [M. Hémon Raguier]; to wit: To Jean de Metz, for the expense of the Maid, 200 livres tournois; — To the master armourer, for a complete harness for the said Maid, 100 livres tournois; — To the said Jean de Metz and his companion, to aid him in having harness to arm and clothe themselves, to be in the company of the said Maid, 125 livres tournois; — And to Hauves Poulnoir, painter, dwelling at Tours, for having painted and supplied stuffs for a great standard and a little one for the Maid, 25 livres tournois; — as appears by letters patent of the king our said lord, given at Chinon the 10th day of May in the said year 1429, addressed to master Regnier de Boullegny, general counsellor on the business and government of all the finances, and by him expedited the 15th day of the said month of May in the said year; by which it is commanded that on rendering them and receipts thereon of the abovesaid only, the said sum be allowed in the accounts and abated from the receipt of the said treasurer by my Lords of the accounts, without any difficulty or contradiction, notwithstanding whatsoever ordinances, mandates and prohibitions to the contrary. Therefore, by virtue of the said letters and receipts here rendered, the said sum of four hundred and fifty livres tournois, of which one hundred livres tournois must be deducted for the said armourer, of whom no receipt is here rendered: for this only, three hundred and fifty livres tournois.\nFirst Sojourn of the Maid at Orléans # Extracts from the original schedules, called Comptes de forteresse, in the Orléans Library, bundle I, pieces 4, 5, 14, 16, and bundle II, p. 47.\nTo Jean Vollent, for a half-muid of oats given to Joan the Maid, 108 s. parisis.\nTo Jaquet Leprestre, for seven pints of wine presented to Joan the Maid on the first day of May, at 2 s. the pint, worth 14 s. p.\nTo Raoulet de Recourt, for a shad presented to the Maid on the 3rd of May, 20 s. p. [sic]\nTo Jean Lecamus, for a gift to three companions who had come to find Joan and had nothing to eat, 4 s. p.\nTo Jacquet Compaing, for half an ell of two yards bought to make the nettles of the dresses (1) for the Maid, 35 s. p.\nFor those who carried the torches of the town [of Orléans] at the procession of the 3rd of May last, Joan the Maid and other chiefs of war being present, to implore Our Lord for the deliverance of the said town of Orléans; for this 2 s. p.\nTo Guyot Lebrun, saddler, for the purchase of a sumpter-saddle and for a hutch, lock, straps, girth, and for cloths to line it within, without the cover, given to Joan the Maid; for all, 76 s. p.\nTo Jean Pillas, for expense made in his hostelry by the horses of Joan the Maid, which was ordained to be paid; for this 20 l. p.\nTo Jacques Bouchier, treasurer, for a certain quantity of picks and shovels given in the Chamber of the town, of which he demanded 14 livres tournois which he had paid therefor; and for some expense made by Joan the Maid in his hostelry, and for the amendment of about 20 francs of money which he had given in wood and to the carpenters for the town; for all this, 30 l. p.\nTo Jean Morchoasne, for money given to Thevenon Villedart, for the expense which the brothers of the Maid made in his hostelry, 6 l. 8 s. p.\nTo him, for money given to the said brothers for a gift made to them, three gold crowns which cost each 64 s. p., worth 9 l. 12 s. p.\nTo Jean, brother of the Maid, for a gift made to him by the town to aid him in living and sustaining his state, 40 l. p.\nTo Charlot Lelong, for three pairs of boots and three pairs of shoes, owed to him by the brothers of the Maid, 72 s. p.\n(1) Nettles disposed in borders formed part of the livery of Duke Charles of Orléans. See the Catalogue des Archives de Joursanvault, no. 3541.\nDeliverance of Orléans # Extract from the original register of the journeys made for the town of Tours, from 1 November 1428 to 31 October 1429, in the Archives of the mairie of Tours. Communicated by M. Salmon.\nTo Jean Colez, rider of the stable of the king our sire, the sum of 10 l. tournois which, by ordinance of the churchmen, burgesses and inhabitants of the town [of Tours], have been ordained to be given and granted to him for the good and joyous news by him brought to this town, in the month of June (1) last past, of the capture made by the Maid, Mgr. de Rays and the people of their company, of the bastilles which the English had made before Orléans, where they were lodged and held the siege, and of the battle and discomfiture made by her against the said English. Therefore, paid to the said Jean Colez, by mandate of the said élus, given the 8th day of July 1429 and receipt thereon here rendered: 10 livres.\n(1) Read May.\nExpedition of Jargeau # Extract from the 8th account of Guillaume Charrier, already mentioned above, p. 257; published likewise by Godefroy, p. 897 of the Histoire de Charles VII.\nTo Messire Gilles de Rais, counsellor and chamberlain of the king our sire and marshal of France, the sum of one thousand livres which the king our said lord, by his letters patent given the 21st June 1429, ordained to be given him, to recompense him somewhat for the great costs, outlays and expenses which he had to make, in order lately to have put himself forward, and assembled by the king\u0026rsquo;s ordinance a certain great company of men-at-arms and of shot, and to have maintained them to employ in his service, in the company of Joan the Maid, in order to reduce to the obedience of the said lord the town of Jargeau which the English held.\nExtract from the original schedules (Comptes de forteresse) of the Orléans Library, bundle no. II, pieces 20 and 34.\nTo Jacquet Compaing, to give to Orléans the herald, for having been at Selles, to the Maid, the fourth day of June, to tell news of the English, 6 l. 8 s. par.\nFor two signs and their making, made to mark the picks, mattocks, shovels and other things of war given to Joan to go make the siege of Jargeau; for this, 16 s. p.\nTo him, for money given to Jean Leclerc who was with François Joachim, to the Maid, on behalf of the town, 16 s. p.\nTo Pierre Baratin, to give to Chauvin and to Thomas d\u0026rsquo;Ivoy, who made their six days (1) at Jargeau when the Maid was there; which are twelve days. For each day 6 s. 4 d. p., worth 76 s. p.\n(1) I believe one should read leur sizaine, space of six days, an interpretation sufficiently indicated by the end of the article.\nBattle of Patay # Extract from the register of the Mairie of Tours, cited above, p. 260.\nTo Estienne de La Fontaine, rider of the stable of the king our sire, the sum of 6 livres tournois to him given and paid by the ordinance of the people of the said town [of Tours], for having brought the letters sent by the king our said lord, making mention of the battle of which Mgr. the Duke of Alençon, Mgr. the Count of Vendôme and the Maid were chiefs, against the English, their ancient enemies, in routing them and dislodging them from Mehun; and it was the 18th day of this present month; of which English there were, both slain and taken, two thousand five hundred; and there were taken Talbot, Fastolf, Hungerford, Ramston, Scales and other captains and English who had newly come to the said Mehun. And for these good tidings, there was given to the said rider the sum of 6 livres. Therefore paid, by mandate of the said élus given the 22nd day of June 1429, and receipt thereon here rendered: 6 livres.\nCapture of Beaugency # Extracts from the original schedules (Comptes de forteresse) of the Orléans Library, bundle no. I, pieces 5 and 6; bundle II, p. 25.\nTo Jean Morchoasne, for the sale of a tun of wine which was sent to Joan at Beaugency by Jean Mahy and Jean Boillève, and cost 16 gold crowns; at 64 s. p. each crown, worth 51 l. 4 s. p.\nTo him, for the purchase of 12 dozen loaves sent likewise to the said Joan, 9 l. 12 s. p.\nTo Massot Bariaut, for having drawn clear a tun of wine taken at Jean Morchoasne\u0026rsquo;s, given to the Maid, 6 s. p.\nTo Jean Boillève, for having been on behalf of the town [of Orléans] to Beaugency, to present to Joan a tun of wine and twelve dozen loaves; and for the salary of the boatman, 64 s. p.\nTo Robin le Bocant, serjeant, for the expense of himself and a horse, in having come from Beaugency to Orléans, by the ordinance of Joan, to fetch powders when the siege was there, 16 s. p.\nEmbassy of the Duke of Brittany to the Maid # Dom Morice, vol. I, p. 508 of his Histoire de Bretagne (see also Lobineau, vol. I, p. 580), after the account of the treasurer Mauléon, formerly in the archives of the Chambre des Comptes of Nantes, which is no longer found today.\nThe Duke of Brittany deputed brother Yves Milbeau, his confessor, and Hermine, his herald-at-arms, to the Maid, to compliment her on her victory (1).\nHe afterwards sent her a dagger and several horses of price by the lord of Rostrenen, Auffroy Guinot and a pursuivant-at-arms, who went on his part to the court of France.\n(1) Consult in this regard the testimony of the German chronicler Eberhard de Windecken, given in our fourth volume, p. 498.\nJourney and Sojourn at Reims # Extracts from the register of the Mairie of Tours, cited above, pp. 260 and 262.\nTo Jean Ortie, rider of the stable of Mgr. d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, the sum of one hundred sous tournois to him given and paid by the ordinance of the people of the said town [of Tours], for the good news which he brought to the said town, by the copy of certain closed letters, sent by Mgr. d\u0026rsquo;Alençon to Madame his wife being at Orléans; of which letters he brought the copy to this town, the 20th day of July last past, to Madame d\u0026rsquo;Alençon the elder (2) and to the people of the said town, making mention of the entry and reception made for the king our said lord, my said lord of Alençon, the Maid and all their company, in the towns of Auxerre, of Troyes in Champagne and other towns, in going from Gien to Reims to be there consecrated and crowned; whereupon, after the said letters seen, great solemnity was made in the said town, both in the churches thereof and otherwise. For this, by mandate of the said élus, given the first day of August 1429, and receipt thereon here rendered: 100 sous.\n(2) The dowager duchess of Alençon, Marie de Bretagne.\nTo Thomas Scot, rider of the stable of the king our sire, the sum of 8 l. tournois to him given and paid by the ordinance of the people of the said town, for the good news by him brought the 27th day of July last past, by letters sent to the people of the said town here attached, making mention of the sacrament and crowning made of the king, our said lord, in his town of Reims, and of the entry of him, Monseigneur d\u0026rsquo;Alençon, the Maid and their company; whereof for this great joy and solemnity was made in the said town. For this, by mandate of the said élus given the first day of August 1429, and receipt thereon here rendered: 8 livres.\nAbridged extracts from the 13th account of Hémon Raguier, in the Gaignières manuscript, no. 772 (fol. 559), at the Bibliothèque Royale.\nTo Joan the Maid, for expense, 40 sous.\nTo Mathelin Raoul, clerk of the Maid… which the king gave him for a harness to arm himself.\nExtract from the 3rd account of the patrimonial grants made on the common moneys of the town of Reims in 1428–1429, in ms. 659 of Du Puy at the Bibl. Royale. Printed less complete in the Archives législatives de Reims by M. Varin, vol. II of the Statuts, p. 722, note, and more anciently in the Recueil des Inscriptions en l\u0026rsquo;honneur de la Pucelle, edition of 1628, p. 123.\nTo Alis, widow of the late Raulin Moriau, hostess of the Striped Ass (1), for expenses made in her hostelry by the father of Joan the Maid, who was in the king\u0026rsquo;s company when he was consecrated in this town of Reims, ordained to be paid of the common moneys of the said town, the sum of 24 livres parisis, as appears more fully by the mandate of the said lieutenant, given the 18th day of the month of September 1429, and by the receipt of the said Alis, written on the back of the said mandate, here rendered. For this, 24 l. par.\n(1) This hostelry was situated in the Rue du Parvis, before the cathedral. It has been replaced by that of the Maison-Rouge, on whose facade a marble plaque has been placed with the following inscription:\nIN THE YEAR 1429\nAT THE CORONATION OF CHARLES VII\nIN THIS HOSTELRY THEN CALLED THE STRIPED ASS\nTHE FATHER AND MOTHER OF JOAN OF ARC\nWERE LODGED AND DEFRAYED\nBY THE TOWN COUNCIL.\nReturn from Reims # Extracts from the 13th account of Hémon Raguier, printed by De La Roque, ch. XIII of his Traité de la noblesse.\nTo Joan the Maid, the sum of 243 livres tournois, strong money, and thirty gold ducats, which in the months of August and September 1429, by the ordinance and commandment of the king our sire, has been to her several times given and delivered by the said treasurer, to convert to the business of the expense ordained by her to be made, in the journey made by the said lord to Reims, for the business of his consecration and coronation; as appears by letters patent of the said lord, given at the castle of Gien the 22nd day of the said month of September in the said year 1429, addressed to master Regnier de Boullegny, general counsellor on the business and government of all the finances, and by him expedited the 23rd day of the said month of September that year; by which the said lord commands that, upon rendering them and receipt thereon of Mathelin Raoul, ordained to make the expense of the said Joan, only, the said sum be allowed in the accounts and abated from the receipt of the said treasurer by my Lords of the accounts, without any contradiction or difficulty; notwithstanding that the said receipt precedes in date the said letters, and whatsoever ordinances or mandates to the contrary. For this, by virtue of the said letters and receipt here rendered, the said sum of 243 l. t. and thirty gold ducats, of which must be deducted 151 l. t., strong money…\nTo Joan the Maid, the sum of 236 l. t., strong money, which in the months of August and September 1429, by commandment and ordinance of the king our sire, has been given and paid to her by the said treasurer [Hémon Raguier]; to wit: For a horse which the said lord caused to be given and delivered to her at Soissons, in the said month of August, 38 l. 10 s. tournois; — For another horse which likewise the said lord caused to be given and delivered to her at Senlis, in the said month of September, 137 l. 10 s. tournois; — And at Reims, which the said lord caused to be given and delivered to her, to give to her father, 60 livres tournois; — as appears by letters patent of the said lord given at the castle of Gien, the 22nd day of the said month of September in the said year 1429, addressed to master Regnier de Boullegny, general, etc., and by him expedited the 23rd day of the said month of September that year, etc.: two hundred and thirty-six livres tournois, strong money.\nExtract from the register of the mairie of Tours, which continues that cited above, pp. 260, 262 and 264. Communication made by M. Vallet de Viriville.\nTo Henriet Casse, rider or pursuivant of Mgr. the Count of Vendôme, the sum of 15 l. t. to him due, etc.… for having carried with him where he was to go, to the king our sire and my said lord of Vendôme, being then before the town of Paris with a power of men-at-arms and of shot, in their company Mgr. d\u0026rsquo;Alençon, the Maid and other lords, which town of Paris was and is held and occupied by the English and Burgundians, enemies and adversaries of the king our sire; and because on the way he learned that the king our said lord had departed and was returning to Bourges, he took the said road of Bourges and left the said road of Paris, and went to the said place of Bourges and gave to master Jean le Picart, secretary of the king our said lord, three vidimus made under the contracts of the king our said lord, etc., etc.… For this, by mandate given the last day of September 1429, 15 livres.\nExpenses Made by the Town of Orléans for the Siege of La Charité # Original schedules of the Orléans Library, already cited; bundle II, piece 43.\nTo Jean Voiau, captain of men-at-arms, sent to La Charité, for his salary for having been to the said place of La Charité on behalf of the town; to him ordained 24 l. p.\nTo him, to give and distribute to the companions where he should see it needful in the said journey, because they had small salary: 6 l. 8 s. p.\nTo Jacquet Compaing, to give to Fauveau and Gervaise le Fèvre, players of culverins, to go to the said place, 9 l. 12 s. p.\nTo him, for money given to 89 companions sent to the said place on behalf of the town, to each of them 4 l. For value, for all: 356 l. p.\nTo brother Jacques, cordelier, gone in the said journey, 4 l. 16 s. p.\nTo Colin le Godelier, for his cart and three horses, and two varlets, sent with the abovesaid to lead the habiliments of war, where they were for 16 days; for this, 13 l. 12 s. p.\nTo Jaquet Compaing, for 52 ells of pers (1) bought of him, to make the heuques given to the abovesaid companions sent to the said place of La Charité; 14 s. for the ell, worth 36 l. 8 s. p.\nTo him, for 18 ells of other better pers, bought to perfect the said heuques, at 16 s. p. the ell, worth 14 l. 8 s. p.\nTo him, for five quarters of blanchet (2) to make the crosses on the said heuques, at the price of 16 s. p. the ell, worth 20 s. p.\nTo him, to give to Jean Bourgoiz, tailor, for having made 105 heuques for the said companions, by bargain made with him, 8 l. 8 s. p.\nTo him, to give to Mahiet for having made the fashion of the standard, freshened and dressed the banner of the town and made the nettles on the heuques; for all, 6 l. 8 s. p.\n(1) Coarse blue cloth.\n(2) Light white cloth.\nThe Portrait of the Maid Exhibited in Germany # Extract from an account of expenses (Stadtrechnung) of the town of Ratisbon, published in M. De Hormayr\u0026rsquo;s Taschenbuch. The editor reports that this exhibition coincides with the sojourn of the Emperor Sigismund at Ratisbon, in 1429. The expense is made by the magistrates of the town.\nItem mehr haben wir gebe von dem Gemael zu schaun wie die Junkchfraw zu Frankreich gefochten hat, 24 pfennig (1).\n(1) Item, we gave to see the picture which represents how the Maid fought in France, 24 pfennigs.\nThe Maid at Orléans in the Month of January 1430 # Original schedules of Orléans, already cited; bundle I, pieces 11 and 20.\nTo Jean Morchoasne, for money given for the purchase of six capons, nine partridges, thirteen rabbits and one pheasant, presented to Joan the Maid, master Jean de Velly, master Jean Rabateau and my lord of Mortemar, the 19th day of January: 6 l. 12 s. 4 d. p.\nTo Jaquet Leprestre, for 52 pints of wine presented to the abovesaid at two repasts, the said day, 52 s. p.\nTo Isambert Bocquet, tailor, for a doublet given to the brother of the Maid, 29 s. p.\nLiberality Made to the Painter of the Maid # Extract from the accounts of the common moneys of the town of Tours, published by M. Vallet de Viriville, Biblioth. de l\u0026rsquo;Éc. des chartes, first series, IV, p. 490.\nTo Colas de Montbazon, for him and Heuves Polnoir, painter, given by mandate of the Élus [of the town of Tours], given the 19th day of February in the year 1429, here rendered with receipt thereon, the sum of 4 l. 10 s. t. which was due to them, to wit, to the said Colas 40 sous tournois, for four jalayes of white and claret wine given on behalf of the said town, the 9th day of this month, to Héliote, daughter of the said Heuves, who on that day was married, and to the said Heuves, 50 s. t. to be converted into bread for the nuptials of the said daughter, for the honour of Joan the Maid who had recommended the said daughter to the said town by her closed letters, here rendered; for this, 4 l. 10 s. t. (1).\n(1) See above, p. 154, the deliberations relative to this marriage.\nTrial of Condemnation # Extracts from the accounts of the treasurer of the chapter of the cathedral of Rouen for the year 1431, communicated by M. Chéruel, professor of history, after the original ms. of the departmental archives of Seine-Inférieure.\nTo my lords and masters R. Roussel, N. de Venderés, J. Pinchon, vicars; J. Garin, treasurer, and J. Basset, official, for the half of the king\u0026rsquo;s obit (2), which was the first day of March, who were hindered for the business of the faith (1), by ordinance and commandment of my Lords of the chapter, by receipt here rendered: 33 s. 4 d.\n(2) It was a foundation that Charles V had made in 1367. It consisted in a rent of 458 l. 15 s. which the chapter levied on the halls and mills of Rouen (note of M. Chéruel).\n(1) Processus in causa fidei, say the acts of the condemnation. It is indeed the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial that is in question. Moreover the following articles say it in express terms.\nTo master Nicole Coppequesne, who was with my said lords, for the half of the said obit: 6 s. 8 d.\nTo six of my lords of the church [of Rouen], by commandment of my Lords of the chapter, there was given, the 13th day of August, for the half of the king\u0026rsquo;s obit of the first of April, being at that hour in the council for the business of the Maid, to each 6 s. 5 d., by schedule here rendered: 38 s. 6 d.\nItem, the 13th day of August, by order of my said lords, there was paid to six of my lords, to each 6 s. 8 d. for the mass of the king\u0026rsquo;s obit of the second of April, being at that hour in the council for the business of the Maid.\nCanons of Rouen Imprisoned Because of the Maid # Same source as the articles of the preceding paragraph. — Although the Maid is not named there, the motive of the persecution is evident, above all if one refers to the more than reserved conclusions of Jean Basset, when he was consulted at the end of the month of April. See vol. I, p. 348.\nTo my lords J. Basset, official, and J. Regis, promoter, for part of their expense made in the gaol of the Castle, by commandment of my said lords, the 9th day of May 1431, by schedule here rendered: 20 l.\nTo my said lords J. Basset and J. Regis, for part of their expense made in the said gaol, by commandment of my said lords, the 22nd day of May, by schedule here rendered: 20 l.\nTo Robin Raoulin, Jean Lecauchoiz, Jean Le Prévost, Jean Duquesnoy and master Martin Loyson, counsellors in the lay court, who had laboured for the business of my lords the official and the promoter, by commandment of my said lords, to each one a salut d\u0026rsquo;or, by schedule here rendered, five saluts d\u0026rsquo;or, worth in money 7 l. 4 s. 8 d.\nTo master Jean Pinchon, by order of my said lords, for the writing of a doléance made for the business of my lords the official and the promoter, 4 s. 6 d. — To him, for a supplication for the business aforesaid, 7 s. 6 d. — To master Jean Geoffroy, for the seal of the said doléance, 7 s. 6 d. Thus for all: 19 s. 6 d.\nTo master Nicole Midi, by commandment of my said lords, for two gallons of wine presented to him for a collation by him made for the despatch of my said lords J. Basset and J. Regis, by schedule here rendered: 13 s. 4 d.\nTo master Jean Alespée, by the ordinance of my said lords, for having given to dine two of the chaplains of Mgr. the Cardinal (1), to procure the deliverance of my lords the official and the promoter, by schedule here rendered: 65 s. 10 d.\n(1) The cardinal of England, Winchester.\nAnniversaries of the Death of Joan at Orléans (1) # Extracts from the first four registers of the accounts of receipts and expenses of the Town Hall of Orléans, today in the Orléans library.\n(1) This ceremony must not be confounded with that which was celebrated from that time and is still celebrated at Orléans on 8 May, the anniversary day of the deliverance of the town. I have made a separate section of the documents which concern the festival of 8 May. As for the other service, which took place on the second eve of the Feast of Corpus Christi, no more trace of it is found on the town\u0026rsquo;s registers after 1439.\n— For nine livres of wax employed to make four tapers and a flambeau made for the anniversary at Saint-Samson, for the Maid Joan, 18 s. p.\n— To Jean Moynet, wax-chandler, for nine livres of wax set and employed in four tapers, twelve twists and a flambeau, for the anniversary of the late Joan the Maid, celebrated in the church of Saint-Samson of Orléans, the morrow-eve and eve of the Feast of God, 1435. For all this, 25 s. 6 d. p.\nTo Jaquet Leprestre, to pay eight religious of the four mendicant orders who sang eight masses of the dead in the said church, during the mass of the said anniversary. For this, 16 s. p.\n— To Jaquet Leprestre, to give to the twelve procurators to offer at the mass of the said anniversary, to each 4 d. p., as is accustomed. For this 4 s. p. To Estienne le Paintre, for four escutcheons painted with the arms of the said late Joan the Maid, which were attached to the four tapers, 2 s. p.\n— To Gilet Morchoasne, for nine livres and a half of wax to make four tapers and a flambeau, for the obsequy of the late Joan the Maid, the morrow-eve of the Feast of God. For this, 22 s. 2 d. p. Reception of the Elder Brother of the Maid at Orléans, in 1436 # Same source as the preceding chapter, register of the year 1435–1436.\nTo the said Jacquet Leprestre, the 5th day of August 1436, in the morning, for ten pints and a chopine of wine taken at Jean Hatte\u0026rsquo;s, at the price of 10 d. p. the pint, given and presented to Jean, brother of the Maid (1). For this, 8 s. 9 d. p.\n(1) It will be seen by our section of the Documents on the false Maid, that this journey of Jean du Lys had been prompted by the appearance of his pretended sister.\nTo Berthault Fournier, poulterer, for twelve fowls, twelve pigeons, two goslings and two leverets, given and presented to the said brother of the Maid, bought by Aignan de Saint-Mesmin (2) and Pierre Barratin. For this, 38 s. p.\n(2) Witness at the rehabilitation trial. See vol. III, p. 29.\nLiberalities of the Town of Orléans towards Isabelle d\u0026rsquo;Arc, from 1440 to 1458 # Same provenance as the preceding chapter, year 1440–1441.\nTo Henriet Anquetil and Guillemin Bouchier, for having kept and governed Isabelle, mother of Joan the Maid, both in her illness and since; and she was there from the 7th day of July until the last day of August [1440]; to wit to the said Henriet, 9 l. 12 s. p., and to the said Guillemin Boucher, 57 s. 2 d. p. for bread and wine. For this, 12 l. 9 s. 2 d. p.\nTo the chambermaid who was with the late Messire Bertran, physician, who had kept the said sick woman; for this, 4 s. p.\nTo Henriet Anquetil, for the expense of the said Isabelle, and by bargain made with him, at forty-eight sous parisis per month; for this, half month of September, 24 s. p.\nTo Isabelle, mother of Joan, for her nourishment for the month of December, and by the ordinance of the Chamber; for this, 48 s. p.\nTo Isabelle, mother of Joan the Maid, for her living, and by the ordinance of the procurators of the town for the month of March; for this, 48 s. p. (1).\n(1) It will be remarked that this article concerns the month of March 1440 before Easter, that is to say the month of March 1441. From that time the pension, served every month with the greatest regularity, recurs on the town\u0026rsquo;s accounts until 29 October 1458, when it was paid for the last time.\nYear 1458–1459.\nTo Messire Pierre du Lis, knight, brother of the late Joan the Maid, the sum of 48 s. p. which by the procurators was ordained to be paid him, for the gift that the said town made each month to the late Isabelle, their mother, to aid her in living, and for the month of November last past [1458], in which month she deceased the 28th day; for which cause, the said sum was ordained to be given to the said Messire Pierre, her son, to do good for her soul and accomplish her testament. For this, given to him 48 s. p.\nCommencement of the Proceedings for the Rehabilitation # Extract from the 4th account of Mathieu Beauvarlet, receiver-general of the finances of the Languedoc, year 1452, printed by Godefroy (Histoire de Charles VII, p. 903), after the original formerly in the Chambre des Comptes of Paris.\nTo master Jean Bréhal, doctor in theology, religious of the order of Saint Augustine (1), inquisitor of the Catholic faith, the sum of thirty-seven livres ten sous in twenty gold crowns, to him given by the king our sire, in the month of December 1452, to aid himself in living in labouring at the business of the examination of the trial of the late Joan the Maid.\n(1) Manifest error, since Bréhal was a Dominican.\nThe Sentence of Rehabilitation Executed at Orléans # Extract from the registers of the Accounts of Orléans, already cited. Year 1456–1457.\nTo Bertault Fornier, poulterer, for twelve chickens, two young rabbits, twelve pigeons and a leveret, bought of him on Tuesday the 20th day of July [1457], by Cosme de Comy and Martin de Maubodet, who on the said day were presented on behalf of the said town to my lord the Bishop of Coutances; for this, 22 s. 8 d. p.\nTo Jean Pichon, for ten pints and a chopine of wine by him presented on behalf of the said town, at the dinner, to my said lord the Bishop of Coutances and to the inquisitor of the faith (2), at the said price of ten deniers: 8 s. 9 d. p.\n(2) Richard de Longueil and Jean Bréhal, delegated judges for the rehabilitation.\nTo the said Pichon, to pay six men who, on the 21st July, carried the six torches of the town at a procession which was made the said day in the church of Saint-Samson of Orléans, by the ordinance of my said lords the Bishop of Coutances and the inquisitor of the faith, at the weight of each 8 d. p., and for the business of Joan the Maid; for this, 4 s. p.\nGift for the Marriage of the Nephew of the Maid at Orléans # Same provenance as the preceding chapter, register of 1457–1458.\nTo Simon le Mazier, dwelling at the Enge, on Monday the 16th day of the month of July 1457, for fifty-one pints of wine, both white and claret, taken the said day in his hostelry and presented by the town at the dinner and supper of the nuptials of the son (1) of Messire Pierre du Lis, knight, brother of the late Joan the Maid; because he had come to make his village feast in this town and had no good old wine of provision to be able to feast and give pleasure to my lords of the justice and other notable people of the said town and from without, who had come to the said nuptials, 52 s. p.; to wit for fifteen pints of white wine, 10 s. p., and thirty-six pints of claret wine, at 14 d. the pint, 42 s. For this, paid to the said Simonnet, by the ordinance of the said procurators, 52 s. p.\n(1) This son was Jean, called de la Pucelle. His marriage contract with Macée de Vezines, daughter of Jean de Vezines, squire, lord of Villers, near Orléans, was dated 22 March 1457. Traité sommaire du nom et des armes de la Pucelle, revised in 1628, p. 31.\nTo Michelet Filleul, one of the procurators, the sum of twenty livres tournois which, by the ordinance of the said procurators, was by him presented in the name of the town to the son of the said Messire Pierre du Lis, knight, on Tuesday the 19th day of the said month, in augmentation of his marriage, in consideration of the great goods, good and agreeable services that the late Joan the Maid, sister of the said Messire Pierre du Lis, did during the siege to this city of Orléans. For this, to the said Michelet, the said day, 16 l. p.\nTo the said Michelet, the said day, for a purse by him bought, in which he presented the abovesaid sum in money, 2 s. 4 d.\nLiberalities of Charles VII, of Charles of Orléans and of Louis XI towards the du Lys Family # Extracts from a register of the Chambre des Comptes of Paris, printed by De la Roque, ch. 43 of his Traité de la Noblesse.\nTo Messire Pierre du Lis, knight, brother of the Maid, six score and one livres for his pension of the year 1454 (1).\nTo Jean du Lis, brother of the Maid, squire, bailiff of Vermandois (2) and captain of Chartres, like sum for his pension of the year 1454.\n(1) It is to be believed that this pension was granted him at the moment when the rehabilitation of his sister\u0026rsquo;s memory was being thought of, in 1452.\n(2) Devisme and the other historians of Laon who drew up the list of the bailiffs of Vermandois were ignorant of the possession of this office by the brother of the Maid. They name in 1450 Jamet du Thillay, to whom they give as successor in 1457 the lord of Mouy, governor of Beauvais. Doubtless Jean du Lis had not the talents necessary to administer a government of so great importance. The bailiwick of Vermandois will have soon been taken from him to give him the captaincy of Vaucouleurs, of which it will be seen that he was discharged in 1468.\nExtract from the account of the Graineterie of the grains belonging to the duchy of Orléans, for one year, beginning on Saint-John-the-Baptist\u0026rsquo;s day 1463, rendered in court by M. Hugues Lenois, secretary of the Duke of Orléans; chapter of Gifts and Remissions. Communicated by M. A. Salmon, after the ms. of Christine, no. 733 A (fol. 21) in the Vatican library.\nTo Messire Pierre du Liz, knight, brother of the late Joan the Maid, the sum of ten livres tournois, which my said lord the duke gave him in remembrance of the good and notable services which the said late Joan did to all this realm, in the recovery thereof, and namely during the siege laid by the English before the town of Orléans; the said sum to have and take of the moneys of the sales of wood of his forests, as appears by letters patent of the said lord, given in his castle of Blois, the eleventh day of June 1463, expedited by Messire Pierre de Reffuge, general of the finances of the said lord. For this, by virtue of the said letters of gift, with receipt of the said Messire Pierre du Liz written on the back thereof here rendered, 8 l. p.\nExtract from an account of the year 1468 formerly in the Chambre des Comptes, preserved in ms. 772-2 (f. 417) of Gaignières, at the Bibliothèque Royale.\nTo Jean de Lys, brother of the late Joan the Maid, 25 livres in recompense of the captaincy of Vaucouleurs, which the king has given to my lord of Calabria.\nExtract from an account of Gilles Cornu, changer of the treasury; extract printed by Godefroy, Histoire de Charles VII, p. 899.\nTo Jean de la Pucelle (1), son of the late Pierre du Lis, in his lifetime knight, brother of the late Joan the Maid, the sum of six score and five livres tournois, on the ordinary receipt of Vitry, for his pension, for the year 1472, as the said late Pierre du Lis, his father, had it formerly.\n(1) Godefroy, who gives this extract, says that in the account of the preceding year the same Jean de la Pucelle is called Jean du Lis called de Vaucouleurs. But Godefroy is mistaken. The difference of surname was meant to indicate a difference of person; and nothing was more necessary to establish, since the uncle of Jean de la Pucelle was likewise called Jean. It was this uncle who was called Jean de Vaucouleurs, and that for the simple reason that he had been captain of Vaucouleurs.\nExtract from the original register of the accounts from 1 January to 31 December 1478, in the Archives of the Realm, K. 290.\nTo Jean de la Pucelle, son of the late Pierre du Liz, in his lifetime knight, brother of the late Joan the Maid, the sum of six score and five livres tournois, to him ordained by the king our sire, for his pension of the year ending on the feast of the Magdalene 1478.\nDocuments Relating to the Institution and First Celebrations of the Festival of 8 May, Anniversary Day of the Deliverance of Orléans # I. Chronicle of the Establishment of the Festival # This piece, whose natural place would have been my fourth volume, was discovered only after the printing of that volume. M. Salmon has very recently published it in the Bibliothèque de l\u0026rsquo;École des chartes (vol. III of the second series). It comes from manuscript 891 of the Queen of Sweden, in the Vatican library, where it precedes, by way of explanatory notice, a transcription of the indulgences granted in the fifteenth century for the celebration of the festival of 8 May. The author does not make himself known. What may be said of him is that his narrative is that of an old man who speaks of things of which he was witness in his youth. His testimony completes or rectifies, on the occasion of the deliverance of Orléans, not only the Journal du siège, but several of the depositions entered in the trial.\nIn the year 1428, the English held their council in the country of England, and there it was ordained that the Earl of Salisbury should descend into the country of France, to conquer the lands of my lord of Orléans, whom they held prisoner since the year 1415, and who had been taken by them and made prisoner at a day\u0026rsquo;s fight which was Agincourt, at which day he was taken, and several other lords of France. To the said Earl of Salisbury was given of six to seven thousand English fighting men. And then my said lord of Orléans, informed of these things, considering the damage and destruction which he feared would come to his lands and lordships by reason of the said enterprise and mission of the said Earl of Salisbury, wishing to obviate it to his power, addressed himself to the said Earl of Salisbury, and commended his land to him; which Salisbury promised him that he would spare it, and for this my said lord of Orléans promised him six thousand gold crowns, to wit, to ransom (1) for him a jewel which he had in France. And of all this, the said Earl of Salisbury kept nothing; also it went ill with him for it, as you shall hear, for God punished him for it.\n(1) An unusual form of the old verb remerer [to ransom].\nThe said Earl of Salisbury, to accomplish his evil will, notwithstanding the promise by him made to my said lord of Orléans, descended into the country of Normandy, held his route straight to Chartres, and took Nogent-le-Roi, and drew as far as Janville in Beauce, and there laid the siege, and in fact took the said place of Janville by assault. And seeing this, those of Meung-sur-Loire found means and surrendered without striking a blow. And then he went to lay the siege before Beaugency and before Jargeau, and there they surrendered. And meanwhile the said Earl of Salisbury came to pillage the place and church of Notre-Dame de Cléry, of which he did very ill, for at that time there was no man-at-arms who dared take anything there who was not forthwith punished for it, as everyone knows.\nThe abovesaid year, the thirteenth day of October, the said Earl of Salisbury arrived at the Portereau of Orléans, and the siege was laid; and that night the monastery of the Augustins was burned and thrown down, so that the said English should not lodge therein. And it was not long before he, Salisbury, gave assault to the said Portereau, to wit, to the boulevard at the bridge end, which was made only of faggots; and it lasted from four to five hours; and there were wounded my lord of Saintrailles and Guillaume de La Chapelle, who were captains; and there was such defence that they could do nothing that said day. And then after, they cut the said boulevard underneath, and so it was advised that it was expedient to abandon it. And on the Sunday after, assault was given to the Tourelles towards morning, and at that hour they did nothing. And on the same day, about two hours after noon, Salisbury gave the assault and in fact took the said Tourelles, for there was no man-at-arms who dared hold himself there for the force of the bombards and cannon that the said English cast. And when they had taken them, the said Earl of Salisbury mounted to the highest and set himself at a window which was towards the town, to see the bridge which was very well armed; and at that hour came a cannon shot from the town, which struck through the head the said Earl of Salisbury: which was the advancement of his death. And some say that the said cannon issued from Saint-Antoine, the others say that it issued from the tower of Notre-Dame and that there was a young page who fired the said cannon; and be it so, the cannoneer who had the charge of the said tower found the said page who was fleeing. And also it was reasonable enough, seen and considered that the said Earl of Salisbury had, as is said before, pillaged the said church of Notre-Dame de Cléry, that by it he should be punished for it. The said Earl of Salisbury thus struck and smitten by the said cannon, was carried to Meung-sur-Loire by some of the said English, and there died.\nAnd seeing this, the captains of the said siege raised a part of their siege, and left from five to six thousand fighting men at the said Tourelles, and withdrew to Paris, which at that time was English, and ordained one named Talbot to be their chief. And at the feasts of Christmas they came before Saint-Loup to lay the siege. And meanwhile those of the town threw down all the churches and houses of the suburbs: which was a great consolation for the said town of Orléans against the said English.\nAbout Shrovetide, news came that my lord of Bourbon was coming to succour the said town of Orléans; and the said my lord of Bourbon arrived, with him my lord of Thouars and several other lords; and they held council among themselves, and it was advised that they should go to meet their victuals, to wit of the said English who had set out from Paris. And so our people departed from the said Orléans and found the English about Rouvray-Saint-Denis, which is in Beauce, and our people were against the said English six to one; but fortune was such, and there remained about three hundred of our people; and there was wounded my lord of Dunois and the constable of Scotland was slain. And then my lord of Bourbon and several other lords and chiefs of war departed from the day\u0026rsquo;s fight, and arrived at Orléans about midnight, and entered at that hour, and were there nine days, all affrighted by the day they had lost, insomuch that when they saw the English come to the siege, no man could make them issue out of the town. And seeing this, the burgesses of the town, that their victuals were much diminishing, came before my lord of Bourbon and to my lord of Thouars to require them to send them out; and so they departed.\nIn that time, God of His holy grace and mercy sent a voice to a maiden girl, named Joan, who kept the beasts in the fields in the country about Vaucouleurs, which is near Lorraine, saying that God commanded her to prepare herself to go raise the siege before Orléans, and to lead King Charles to be crowned. So the said Joan addressed herself to the lord of the said Vaucouleurs, and noted these things to him, which was a great marvel to him; and he prepared to lead the said Maid to the king, who was then at Chinon. And she come to the king, she was examined by several bishops and lords in full council; and in all her doings nothing was found but all good. Then they caused to be made for her a complete harness and also a standard, and she had licence to be clothed like a man.\nMeanwhile came news to Orléans of the said Joan, whom then vulgarly they called Joan the Maid, whereat those of the said town of Orléans were well amazed; and at first they thought it was but a mockery, notwithstanding that they had great confidence in God and in the good right of the king and of their lord, who was prisoner, as you have heard before; and their courage fell by half. And about the end of April, there was given to the said Joan, my lord of Rais, marshal of France, and several other captains, and also of the commons of the countries below, and it was ordained her to bring victuals and artillery, and they came by the Sologne, and passed by Olivet or near, and arrived as far as the Île-aux-Bourdons which is before Chécy. And knowing those of Orléans that she was coming, they were most joyous and caused barges to be fitted in power; and then the river was in full current; and also the wind, which was contrary, turned downstream and so that one barge towed two or three barges, which was a marvellous thing, and one must say that it was a miracle of God. And they passed before the bastilles of the English, and arrived at their port, and there charged their victuals, and then the said Maid passed the river. And there were present my lord of Dunois, La Hire and several other lords, and they came before the bastille of Saint-Loup, where the English were.\nThe said Maid arrived at Orléans and was lodged near the Porte Regnart, and from her lodging she could see all the siege. And be it known that those of the town of Orléans were well joyous. And meanwhile my lord of Rais and the other captains who had brought the said Maid returned to Blois to seek other victuals. And she being at the said Orléans, she went by two or three times to summon the English that they should go away into their country and that the King of heaven commanded it them: to whom they said many insults and among the others Glasdale, to whom the said Maid answered that he lied in what he said to her and that he would die of it without bleeding. So it was, as will be declared hereafter. And the said Joan the Maid took in good patience the insults that the said English meant to say and do to her. And after she went to the church of Sainte-Croix, and there spoke to Messire Jean de Mascon (1), doctor, who was a very wise man, who said to her: My daughter, are you come to raise the siege? To which she answered: In God\u0026rsquo;s name, said she, yes. — My daughter, said the wise man, they are strong and well fortified and it will be a great thing to put them out. — The Maid answered: Nothing is impossible to the power of God. And in all the town she did honour to no other.\n(1) This personage, who is named nowhere else, might he not be the author of the present relation?\nAnd on Wednesday, the fourth day of May in the year twenty-nine, the said Maid departed to go to meet the other victuals which the lord of Rais was bringing, and there went with her all the captains (and there was my lord of Dunois, La Hire, Messire Florent d\u0026rsquo;Illiers, the baron of Coulonces) as far as the forest of Orléans, and they had to pass very near the bastille of the said English, named Paris. And when those of the town saw them coming, they sallied out to meet them to receive them with great joy; and they come to the said Orléans, they took their refection and then came to the hostelry of the town to require habiliments of war, such as culverins, crossbows, ladders and other habiliments; and departed to go to Saint-Loup. And on the same day the bastille of the said Saint-Loup was taken by assault; and there were from six to seven score English fighting men. And seeing this, the other English, to wit the said Talbot and the other captains of the English, issued out of their bastilles five or six standards, thinking to raise the siege of the said Saint-Loup as far as near the pavement of Fleury, between the said Saint-Loup and their said bastilles, in fair battle; and at that hour every man issued out of Orléans to go enclose the said English; but they, seeing that, withdrew with great haste into their bastilles. And they had from ten to eleven bastilles, of which the first were the Tourelles; the Augustins, Saint-Jean-le-Blanc, that of the Champ-Saint-Privé, and that of the Île-Charlemagne, Saint-Laurent, and Londres, the Pressoir-Ars, Paris and Saint-Loup.\nItem, the fifth of May which was the feast day of the Ascension of Our Lord, no man made war, for the said Maid did not will it, and each rested in God.\nItem, on Friday, the sixth day of the said May, the said Maid passed the river Loire and all the said lords and men-at-arms, also commons, and came before the Portereau; and the lords seeing that it was not possible to take them, withdrew a part into an isle which is before Saint-Jean-le-Blanc; and the Maid remained behind and also my lord of Dunois, the marshals of France and La Hire. And seeing this, the English issued out with a fair standard displayed, and came to strike upon our people. And when our people saw that, they turned back against them and thrust them back within their bastilles, and took the Augustins by fair assault; and those who were in the isle withdrew, asked for no barges to come to the said assault, for they passed the ford all armed, being up to the armpits in the water, and there remained all night. And seeing this, the said lords, that the said Maid was much wearied (1), led her into the town to refresh herself; and it was cried that each should carry victuals to the said siege, and also that each should tend the pages and horses of the men-at-arms who were out. So was it done through all the town.\n(1) Folée, that is to say, weary, fatigued.\nItem, that night the said English tried to pass the river opposite the bastille of the Champ-Saint-Privé, and were in two or three barges; but they were so affrighted that many of them were drowned; and that it was so, since then their harness has been found in the said river.\nAnd when Saturday came, the seventh of the said May, council was held in the town and it was required on behalf of the burgesses to the said Maid that she would accomplish the charge that she had from God and also from the king, and at that she was moved and departed. She mounted on horseback and said: In God\u0026rsquo;s name, I will do it, and who loves me, let him follow me. The said lords went with her, passed the river, victuals and artillery were led, and they came so near that from the morning the assault was given by her to the said Tourelles. And on the side of those of the town also they made bridges to assail, for there were three arches broken before one could reach the said Tourelles; and it was a marvellous thing to make the bridges, for they had made great boulevards strong and advantageous; but in all this God was working, for when a man came to labour at the said bridges, he was a workman as if he had been accustomed to it all his life. Those of the town charged a great barge full of faggots, horse bones, old shoes, sulphur and all the foulest-smelling things that could be found, and it was led between the Tourelles and the boulevard, and there fire was put to it, which did them great grievance; and to come to join them, the said English had the best cannon of the realm; but a man could as strongly have thrown a ball as the stone could go from the said cannon, which was a fair miracle.\nItem, when it came to about four hours after noon, certain knights saw a white dove fly over the standard of the said Maid, and forthwith she said: Within, children, in God\u0026rsquo;s name, they are ours! And never was seen a brood of little birds alight on a bush as every man mounted against the said boulevard. And seeing this, the said Glasdale, who was chief, with him from twenty to thirty men, fell from off the bridge into the river, for they had cut the said bridge thinking to deceive our people; and there was accomplished the prophecy that had been [made] to the said Glasdale, to wit by the Maid, that he should die without bleeding; so he did, for he was drowned, and several others; and the said Tourelles were taken, and several lords, such as the lord of Poings, the lord of Molins; and there were within from five to six hundred fighting men and chosen men, for they were so obstinate that they feared not for fifteen days all the power of France nor of England. And as the said Maid did her devoir, those of the town did theirs on the town side, both by land and by water. And they were led to the said Orléans two by two all prisoners, those who were not slain.\nItem, when Sunday came, the eighth of the said May, the other bastilles held council and departed at earliest morning; and there was the said Talbot; and they put themselves upon the fields. And seeing this, those of the town issued out in all power with the said Maid to run upon them; but she said that they should be let go, albeit each was in battle array on the one side as on the other; and between the two battles their bombards and artillery were taken; but the said Maid with the lords caused all their people to withdraw, and there a high and great praise was made to God in crying Noel. And in the company there were several priests and churchmen who sang fair hymns; and the said Maid said that each should go hear mass. And doubt not that in the said Orléans every one made great joy, both in the churches and openly, considering the great gift that God had made them.\nItem, it was not long before the said lords led away the said Maid to King Charles, who was at Tours, and consider what reception was made them; and the king thanked God so highly, and also my lord of Dunois and the marshals, and La Hire, and all the other captains who had kept her company. The said Talbot remained at Meung, at Beaugency and at Jargeau and at Janville, and also all his people. And it was not long before the Duke of Alençon came with the said Maid, and the siege was laid before Jargeau, in which was the Earl of Suffolk, with him several English captains; and there were within from six to seven hundred fighting men, and it was but two days before they were taken by fair assault; and God knows if those of Orléans spared themselves to lead artillery and men and also victuals. And then after, they came before Meung-sur-Loire where Talbot was and all his power; but he dared not strike upon our people, for he was all dismayed. Then our people came to lay the siege before Beaugency, and there my lord the constable of France was found, and the English who were within took composition, and went away to the said Talbot. And in the pursuit our people found themselves near Patay against the said Talbot, and there he was taken, and there were slain about four thousand English, who had all withdrawn with the said Talbot. And the same day Janville surrendered and several other fortresses; and whoso would have pursued, the said English would have been chased as far as the sea, seeing the courage that each had, for one Frenchman would have laid low ten English; notwithstanding there was no force of man; but all proceeded from God, to whom the praise belongs, and to no other.\nItem, my lord the Bishop of Orléans seeing this, with all the clergy, and also by the means and ordinance of my lord of Dunois, brother of my lord the Duke of Orléans, with the counsel thereof, and also the burgesses, tenants and inhabitants of the said Orléans, it was ordained that a procession should be made on the eighth of the said May, and that each should bear a light there, and that they should go as far as the Augustins, and everywhere where the fight had been, stations and fitting service should be made in each place, and prayers, and the twelve procurators of the town should each have a taper in his hand on which should be the arms of the town, and of them four should remain at Sainte-Croix, four at Saint-Euverte and four at Saint-Aignan; and also on the said day vigils should be said at the said Saint-Aignan and the morrow mass for the dead, and there bread and wine should be offered, and each procurator eight deniers parisis at the offertory; and the shrines of the churches should be carried, especially that of my lord Saint Aignan, that of my lord Saint Euverte, who were means and protectors of the said city and town of Orléans; for in that time it was recited by some of the English being then at the said siege, to have seen during the said siege two prelates in pontifical habit go and walk, wending their way upon the walls of the said town of Orléans. So also in other times the said saints my lord Saint Euverte and my lord Saint Aignan have been guards or protectors of the said town of Orléans, at the time when the miscreants came before it; for at the prayer and request of the said saints made to God, the said town was preserved from the ills of the said miscreants, and in approaching it, as the story recounts, they were all blinded so that they had no power to do ill to the said town between here and Saint-Loup.\nOne cannot too much praise God and the saints, for all that has been done has been all by the grace of God; so then one should have great devotion to the said procession, namely those of the said town of Orléans, considering that those of Bourges in Berry make solemnity of it, but they take the Sunday after the Ascension, for that year the said Ascension was on the Sunday (1).\n(1) Supply after between the words dimanche and ladite ascension, or some other equivalent which spares the author the fault of having made the Ascension fall on a Sunday. He means that the inhabitants of Bourges made the Orléans festival on the Sunday after the Ascension, because the deliverance had fallen on that day, thus celebrating the anniversary, not on its day of the month, but on its weekday. The fact is found thus reported after the capitular registers of the cathedral of Bourges, in the Histoire du Berry (vol. III, p. 25) recently published by M. Raynal: The procession called of the Maid took place every year at Bourges, on the Sunday nearest to the anniversary of her execution. It went through the town, from the cathedral to the church of the Friars Preachers. Our text furnishes wherewith to correct what is inexact in this passage.\nAnd also several other towns make solemnity of it, for if Orléans had fallen into the hands of the said English, the remainder of the realm would have been much hurt. And therefore, ever recognising the great grace which God willed to do and show in the said town of Orléans, in keeping it from the hands of its enemies, let the said holy and devout procession be continued and not abandoned, without falling into ingratitude, for by it come many ills. Every man is bound to go to the said procession and bear a burning light in his hand. It returns around the town, to wit before the church of Notre-Dame-de-Saint-Pol, and there great praise is made to Our Lady; and thence to Sainte-Croix, and the sermon there, and the mass after, and also, as above, the vigils at the said Saint-Aignan, and the morrow mass for the dead.\nAnd for this, let every one be warned to praise and thank God, for peradventure there are at present young people who could with great pain believe this thing to have so come to pass, but believe that it is a true thing and a very great grace of God; for during the said siege there was never any division between the men-at-arms and those of the town, notwithstanding that before they hated one another like dogs and cats; but when they were with those of the town, they were as brothers, and also those of the town caused them to have no necessity or want to their power, in whatsoever manner it might be. And by the good service that the tenants and inhabitants of the said town of Orléans have done, they are and shall be in the good grace of the king, who has in fact shown and shows them from day to day, as appears by the tenor of the fair privileges which he has given them.\nII. Indulgences Granted by the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville for the Celebration of the Festival # 9 June 1452.\nPiece printed by Lenglet Dufresnoy, Histoire de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc (part III, p. 267), after the original, formerly at the town hall of Orléans, today in the registry of the royal court of the same town. There is also an authentic copy of it in manuscript 891 of the Queen of Sweden, following the chronicle printed above.\nWilliam, by the divine mercy, presbyter cardinal of the holy Roman Church of the title of Saint Martin in Montibus, vulgarly called of Estouteville, in the realm of France and in each of the provinces of the Gauls legate of the apostolic see: to all Christ\u0026rsquo;s faithful who shall inspect these present letters, greeting in the Lord everlasting. Although He from whose gift it comes that He and His faithful are served worthily and laudably, from the abundance of His loving-kindness, which exceeds the merits and the vows of suppliants, repays those who deserve well of Him with far greater things than they can merit: nevertheless, desiring to render the people acceptable to the Lord and followers of good works, we invite the faithful themselves to please Him, as it were by certain gifts, to wit indulgences and remissions, that thereby they may be rendered the fitter for divine grace. Whereas therefore, as we have heard, when the whirlpools of wars, alas!, raged of late in the realm of France, and this renowned city of Orléans was surrounded with siege by the ancient enemies of the realm, wherefore the citizens and inhabitants, more fervently attending to prayers, invoked the divine protection of the blessed Aignan and Euverte, most glorious confessors; after the said renowned city, by the prayers and merits of the same Saints, God willing, was absolved and delivered from those enemies of it and of the realm — desiring the more to exalt the glory of the divine name, and taking care more devoutly to repay thanks to the Most High for so great a victory, with the whole clergy of the same city consenting, they ordained that for all time, on the like day on which the aforesaid city was delivered from the same enemies, the eighth day of May, a solemn feast with mass, and a general procession, and also on the morrow of the same, for the souls of those deceased in the said siege, a service should be piously and unanimously celebrated; which feast indeed with mass and vespers, first and second, and with the morrow itself of the dead, at the single hours of the same days, they have hitherto laudably procured to be celebrated in the cathedral church of Orléans: desiring therefore that so pious and so laudable a purpose of theirs be the more strengthened, and the exaltation of the divine name be published in the same church; that it be frequented moreover with divine and fitting honours, and that Christ\u0026rsquo;s faithful be the more willingly inclined thereto as they shall feel themselves the more abundantly filled with the gift of heavenly grace; confiding in the mercy of almighty God, and of the blessed Peter and Paul, His apostles, and in the apostolic authority which we exercise in this part: to all and singular of either sex, truly penitent and confessed, who on the aforesaid days shall visit the aforesaid cathedral church, and on the seventh of the said month of May yearly in the first vespers; and also on the eighth, in the mass and the second vespers, and on the morrow in the service of the dead, and at the single hours and vigils of the same days, shall be present, and on the said eighth day in the general procession, and shall devoutly hear them; to wit, at each of the vespers, mass and service of the dead, and also the general procession, one year, and at each of the abovesaid hours, one hundred days of the penances enjoined on them, in the Lord we mercifully relax, by these presents, to endure for all time. In faith and testimony of all and singular the premises, we have caused these present letters to be subscribed by our secretary underwritten and to be confirmed by the appending of our seal. Given at Orléans, in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s incarnation 1452, on the 9th day of the month of June, in the sixth year of the pontificate of the most holy father in Christ and our lord, the lord Nicholas, by divine providence pope the fifth.\nSigned: P. PONTANUS (1).\n(1) The Vatican copy bears the following subscription: Gratis de mandato, Guillermus Mesardi Juvenis, for copy and collation made with the original.\nIII. Other Indulgences Granted by Thibaud d\u0026rsquo;Aussigny, Bishop of Orléans # 4 May 1453.\nSame provenance as the preceding piece, and printed in the same work.\nTheobald, by the divine mercy, bishop of Orléans, to all who shall inspect these present letters, greeting in the Lord Jesus, who has deigned to work wonderfully in His faithful, since He graciously delivered the chained and bound from their bonds and afflictions. Forasmuch as, as we know, when the most bitter wars of the realm of the Franks, alas!, raged, and the ancient enemies rose against the king of France, this our most noble city of the Orléanais, notably erected and built roundabout in these latter times, was surrounded by a siege of the English, the realm\u0026rsquo;s ancient enemies, and long held in subjection to the same, and thereupon, the aid of the Most High causing it, and the prayers also and merits of Saints Euverte and Aignan, most glorious confessors, our predecessor bishops, and the prayers expended of the inhabitants, was delivered and absolved from the hands of the same enemies: wherefore the said inhabitants and citizens, taking care to exalt the glory of the divine name and the deeds of the Saints from so great a victory, and to repay thanks in the heavens, the clergy and the rest of the people consenting, on the same day on which this city was delivered, to wit the eighth of the month of May, decreed and ordained that for all time a solemn feast with mass, and a general procession, and also on the morrow of the said feast, for the souls of those deceased in the said siege, a service with vigils should be celebrated in our said church and that of the said Saint Aignan, and hitherto have procured the same feast to be solemnly made: desiring therefore and affecting that the laudable purpose of the said inhabitants and citizens be preserved and maintained for ever, and the divine name exalted, and the said churches visited by Christ\u0026rsquo;s faithful the more fervently as they shall feel themselves filled with the gift of heavenly grace; to all and singular Christ\u0026rsquo;s faithful, truly penitent and confessed, who, to commemorate such a victory, in the said solemn procession, on the same eighth day or another on which the said procession shall be made, and also at the vespers of the preceding seventh and of the eighth of the said days, and at the morrow service of the said dead to be made in the said churches, and at the single other hours of the said eighth day, shall be present: confiding in the mercy of almighty God, and in the authority of the most glorious Virgin Mary His mother, and of the most victorious Holy Cross and of the blessed Peter and Paul, His apostles, and in the merits and intercessions of all the Saints, forty days of the penances enjoined on them we mercifully relax in the Lord, by these presents to endure for ever. In testimony whereof, we have thought good to append to these present letters the seal of our court. Given and done at Orléans, in the year of the Lord 1453, on the 4th day of the month of May.\nSigned: CORNU.\nIV. Other Indulgences Granted by François de Brillac, Bishop of Orléans # 4 May 1474.\nSame provenance, same editor as the preceding pieces.\nFrancis, by the divine mercy, bishop of Orléans, to all and singular the faithful who shall inspect these present letters, greeting in the Lord Jesus Christ, who in His Saints is ever laudable and glorious, and is marvellous in His works. Forasmuch as, as we know, in the realm of France, while the most bitter wars, alas!, raged, and the ancient foes and enemies rose against king and realm, this our most noble city of the Orléanais, built and walled about with notable edifices and houses, was at last, in the midst of the times of our predecessors, demolished to the area by a siege of the English, the said realm\u0026rsquo;s ancient enemies, by reason of the long stay and siege roundabout made and laid by the same enemies; and thereupon, by the prayers and intervention of the most victorious Holy Cross, our patroness, and of the blessed Aignan and Euverte, confessors, our predecessor prelates of Orléans, and the suffrages and prayers of the citizens and inhabitants put up to the Most High, was delivered and freed from the hands of the same enemies, and to their confusion, and to the praise and glory of our Lord Jesus and of the aforesaid most glorious confessors, and the exultation of the people of Orléans: wherefore and in memory of this deed done, by clergy and people, for rendering praises and thanks to the Most High for so great mercy and grace bestowed, it was ordained and by statute decreed that the day of the said deliverance and confusion of the enemies, which was the eighth day of the month of May, should thenceforth for ever be solemnly kept as festival on such day and that on the same day solemn processions should be made, and on the morrow of the said feast, for the souls of the dead deceased in the said siege, a service with vigils should be made, said and celebrated, a solemn service with vigils, in our church of Orléans and that of blessed Aignan of Orléans, as from that time was done and observed: desiring therefore and affecting that the laudable purpose of the said inhabitants and citizens be preserved and maintained for ever, and for long time exalted, and the said churches visited by Christ\u0026rsquo;s faithful the more fervently as they shall feel themselves affected with the gift of heavenly grace: to all and singular Christ\u0026rsquo;s faithful, truly penitent and confessed, who, to commemorate such a victory in the said solemn procession, on the same eighth day or another on which the said procession shall be made, and also at the vespers of the preceding seventh and of the eighth of the said days, and at the morrow service of the said dead to be made in the said churches, and at the single other hours of the whole eighth day, shall be present; confiding in the authority of almighty God our Lord, and of the most glorious Virgin Mary His mother and of the most victorious Holy Cross, and of the most blessed Peter and Paul, His apostles, and in the merits and intercessions of all the Saints: forty days of the penances enjoined on them we mercifully relax in the Lord, by these presents to endure for ever. In testimony whereof, we have thought good to append to these present letters the seal of our Chamber. Given and done at Orléans, in the year of the Lord 1474, on the 4th day of the month of May.\nSigned: CORBILLEAU.\nV. Other Indulgences Granted by Cardinal Jean Rolin, Bishop of Autun # 19 January 1482.\nSame provenance and same editor as the preceding. This piece was transcribed several times at the town\u0026rsquo;s expense, as appears from an article of its accounts for the year 1483–1484 (manuscript register in the Orléans library): To Junian Dalier, notary in the church court at Orléans, for having doubled and written in the red book of the said town, in which book is the service of the town\u0026rsquo;s festival, the bull of one hundred days of pardon given by my lord the cardinal of Autun, at the request of the procurators, to all those who shall be at the procession and service of the said town\u0026rsquo;s festival; 2 sous, 5 deniers obole parisis.\nJean Rolin, by the divine mercy, presbyter cardinal of the holy Roman Church of the title of Saint Stephen in Caelio Monte, and bishop of Autun, to all and singular Christ\u0026rsquo;s faithful who shall inspect these present letters, greeting in the Lord everlasting. The duty of the office taken up by us compels that we attend to those works which regard the salvation of souls. Whereas therefore, as we have heard, the devout processions and congregations, which the procurators of the city of Orléans have hitherto obtained by ecclesiastical men to be made and continued in praise of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, in whom the salvation of all is placed, begin to be deserted by very many followers of the blandishments of the flesh; we, desiring with all our endeavours to obviate the offences and corruptions which cannot be mourned enough, inclining to the devout supplications presented to us on this behalf by our beloved in Christ master Jean Luillier, licentiate in laws, inhabitant and counsellor of the same city: confiding in the mercy of almighty God and the authority of the blessed Peter and Paul, His apostles, and in the merits and intercessions of the holy martyrs Nazarius and Celsus, Lazarus and Leodegar, our patrons; also in the apostolic authority to us specially granted for this: to all and singular Christ\u0026rsquo;s faithful of either sex, well penitent and confessed, who shall be present at the processions, to be made in the said city at the prosecution of the said procurators for the time being, or at the obsequies of masses which shall be celebrated for the prosperity and decent government of the said city and community or otherwise, or in the celebration of such processions and masses shall merit to pour forth pious, devout prayers to the Most High for the salvation, tranquillity and peace of the most serene lord our king and his successors of the said realm and of its inhabitants; or in such processions shall carry shrines, reliquaries and other sacred vessels with due reverence; or shall devoutly hear the sermons to be made to the people on occasion of such processions: as often as they shall fulfil the premises or any of the premises, so often one hundred days of indulgences of the penances enjoined on them we relax in the Lord by these presents, to endure for all time. In faith and testimony of the premises, we have commanded these present letters to be strengthened by the appending of our oblong seal. Given at Paris, in our houses of residence, on the 19th of the month of January, in the year of the Lord 1481, computing in the French manner, in the eleventh year of the pontificate of the most holy father in Christ and our lord, the lord Sixtus, by divine providence pope the fourth.\nVI. Expenses for the Celebration of the Festival in the Fifteenth Century # Extracts from the original registers of the accounts and expenses of the town of Orléans, in the library of that town. Many of the following articles were printed, but in a less correct manner, in M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s Recherches historiques sur la ville d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, vol. I of the first part, passim.\n— To Jaquet Leprestre, varlet of the town of Orléans, for the purchase of 23 l. of new wax, bought to remake the torches of the said town, and mixed with 26 l. of old wax remaining of the said torches, for the solemnity of the procession of the Tourelles made the 8th day of May 1435, at the price of 2 s. 10 d. p. the livre, worth 62 s. 4 d. p. To him for 36 l. of wax, for having made twelve tapers for the twelve procurators of the said town, which they carried at the said procession, at the said price of 2 s. 10 d. p. the livre, worth 102 s. p.\nTo Jean Moynet, wax-chandler, for the making of the said torches and tapers, for the bands and sticks, and for a flambeau offered the morrow of the said procession at a mass sung for the dead in the church of my lord Saint-Aignan. For this, 26 s. p.\nTo Estienne le Paintre, for twelve escutcheons with the arms of the town, which he made to set and hang on the said twelve tapers. For this, 6 s. p.\nTo Jaquet Leprestre, for five pints and a chopine of wine at 8 d. the pint, two loaves of 4 d. and a white loaf of 8 d. p. which were offered at the said mass of the morrow. For this, 4 s. 8 d. p.\nTo Messire Jean Parine, archdeacon of Beaugency in the church of Orléans, for a gift made to those who sang during the said procession of the Tourelles, and for those who rang at Sainte-Croix, 48 s. p.\nTo him to give to those who carried the shrine of Mgr. Saint-Aignan at the said procession, 4 s. p.; — to give to those who carried the shrine of Mgr. Saint-Mamert, likewise 4 s. p.; — to give to those who carried the shrine of Mgr. Saint-Euverte, likewise 4 s. p.; — to give to those who carried the six torches of the town, 4 s. p.\nTo Jaquet Lesbahy, to give to master Robert Baignart for having made and said the sermon at the said procession, 16 s. p.\nTo Guillaume le Charron and Michelet Filleul, for a gift made to them to aid them in paying for their scaffolds and other expenses made by them on the 8th day of May 1435, when they made a certain mystery or boulevard of the bridge, during the procession: three réaux d\u0026rsquo;or. For this, 72 s. p.\n— Besides the articles charged in account the preceding year: To Jaquet le Prestre, for a hand of paper employed to cover the tapers where they are held, and twelve little paper baskets to keep the wax from falling on the persons; for half a hundred pins to attach the escutcheons and a quarter-pound of nails to attach the said baskets. For all this, 2 s. p. To Jagot, for having cleaned the place of the Augustins and the street in front, where the holy bodies were set to rest, 16 d. p.\nTo Colin Galier, for four tumbler-loads of sand laid in the place before the said Augustins, because it was naught but mire: 4 s. p.\n— Besides the expenses of the preceding years: To Mahiet Gauchier, painter, the 23rd day of the month of April, to make the joust-arms and axes, and a fleur-de-lis and two Godons, by bargain made with him in the chamber of the said town to make the feast of the raising of the Tourelles; for this, 12 l. 16 s. p. To Jean Chanteloup, for having laboured nine days at making the scaffolds of the procession of the Tourelles, and for eleven cartloads to carry and bring back the wood needed to make the said scaffolds; for this, 44 s. p.\n— Besides the expenses of the preceding years: To Jean Pichon, varlet of the town, for a leather girdle by him bought to hang the purse which sustains the end of the staff on which the banner of the town is borne, at the procession of the said 8th May; for this, 8 d. p. To him, who was paid for his pains in having carried the banner of the town at the said procession, 8 d. p.\nTo the said Pichon, to give to the little children of the choir of Sainte-Croix to have little pies, 2 s. p.\n— Besides the expenses of the preceding years: To Mahiet Gauchier, painter, for a gift made to the companions who played the mystery of Saint Stephen on the 8th day of May, to aid them in bearing the expense of their scaffolds and other things; for this, 4 l. 16 s. p.\n— Besides the expenses of the preceding years: To Estienne Chartier, varlet of the said town, who paid to sixty-two men who carried the shrines and heads of several holy bodies at the procession of the said town, made the eighth day of May 1483; on which day, as the feast of the Ascension of Our Lord fell, my lords of the church made the procession that they are accustomed to make for reverence of the said Ascension, in their copes, in the church of Bonnes-Nouvelles, early in the morning and before the said procession of the said town; to wit to ten men who carried the shrine and head of Saint Mamert, sixteen men who carried the shrine and head of Saint Euverte, two men who carried the head of Saint Gregory, eight men who carried the shrine of Saint Samson, eight men who carried the heads of Saint Aignan and Saint Victor, four men who carried the shrine of Saint Evroul, six men who carried the shrine of Saint Marceau, four men who carried the shrine of Saint Avy, and four men who carried the head of Saint Flo: which are the said sixty-two men; at 8 d. p. to each, worth 41 l. 4 d. p.\nTo him, for expense made in the hostelry of the said town by the procurators thereof at the dinner of the day of the said procession, at which was master Robert Salmon, doctor in theology and provincial of the Carmelites (1); for the said procurators to entertain themselves together, in order to go thence to the vigils of the dead at Saint-Aignan, as is accustomed; for all, 116 s. ob. p.\n(1) From that time, the preacher who made the sermon at the office was always invited to the town\u0026rsquo;s dinner.\nTo Simonne Gozie, cap-maker of the parish of Saint-Victor of Orléans, for twenty chaplets of violets by her made for the masters and children of the choirs of Sainte-Croix, Saint-Aignan and Saint-Pierre-en-Pont, who wore them at the said procession, 8 s. p.\nTo Estienne Chartier, who paid for a quarter-pound of parted gold and thread, to gold-stitch the said chaplets; for this, 2 s. p.\nTo Messire Eloy d\u0026rsquo;Amerval, master of the children of the choir of Sainte-Croix of Orléans, both for himself and for the other chanters and chaplains of the said church who sang with the chanters and chaplains of the church of Saint-Aignan of Orléans and did the service belonging and accustomed to be done at the said procession of the said town, 28 s. p.\nTo the said Messire Eloy d\u0026rsquo;Amerval, the sum of one hundred and four sous parisis, for the value of four gold crowns to him ordained to be paid and given in recompense and remuneration of having rhymed and noted in Latin and in French a motet, to sing henceforward at the processions which are made each year on the said eighth day of May, and which in the said last procession was sung in rendering thanks to God for the victory which He gave to the said inhabitants the said day that the English raised the siege which they had laid before the said town; of which motet he has made two books containing each eight great leaves of parchment, bound between two boards, covered with red leather, the one to give to the chanters, and the other to the children of the choir of the said church of Sainte-Croix, to sing at the station which is made before the Porte Dunoise. Which two books the said Messire Eloy gave and presented to the said procurators assembled in the hostelry of the said town and for the inhabitants thereof, the said eighth day of May, at the return of the said last procession. For this, 104 s. p.\nVII. Verses Composed for the Festival # These verses have every appearance of being those for which Messire Eloy d\u0026rsquo;Amerval received the sum entered in the preceding article. They are certainly of the time of Louis XI or of the first years of Charles VIII. M. Lottin published them for the first time in his Recherches historiques sur Orléans (first part, vol. I, p. 279). They come from a manuscript which was formerly in the town\u0026rsquo;s treasury, but is no longer there today. The editor does not say where he found the copy.\nHymn sung before the church of Notre-Dame des Miracles de Saint-Paul.\nNoble city of most great renown,\nPuissant town in all places well famed,\nKing\u0026rsquo;s chamber worthy to be named,\nPlace adorned with decrees and laws,\nFrom war to peace, thanks be to God, turned,\nRejoice thee at this day,\nValiant and most loyal French people.\nAt the sweet prayer\nThat the king offered to God,\nCame a shepherdess Maid\nWho warred for us.\nBy divine leading\nThe English she so hard grieved\nThat she put them all to flight\nAnd the siege raised.\nSing, O clergy and you lord burgesses,\nYou, notable merchants, aid us this time.\nCommune of Orléans, raise up your voice\nIn thanking God and the sacred Virgin,\nThat long ago, on such a day, eighth of this month,\nHe looked in pity on the Orléanais people,\nAnd so chased our English enemies\nThat the duchy was delivered in joy.\nO Queen on high, in great devotion\nHere before Saint-Pol we thank you for it.\nTo celebrate the day we are all too joyous;\nEach year we make there a fair procession,\nWe bear our fair jewels by way of adornment,\nSinging songs of peace and gracious motets.\nO blessed Saint Aignan, so worthy and precious,\nO Saint Euverte also, our glorious patrons,\nOf the treasure of Orléans guard and protection!\nMotet sung at the Porte Dunoise.\nGreatly to rejoice thou oughtest,\nDevout Orléanais people,\nAnd, as most loyal Frenchmen,\nTo thank God with high voice,\nWhen five days after the great feast\nOf the worthy and blessed Cross,\nThe eighth day of this month,\nBy a Maid once for all,\nThou chasedst thy English enemies\nWho did thee so much tempest.\nBehold the cross of the Son of God;\nBehold the middle of France,\nThe noble city of Orléans.\nFlee, English, from this fair place,\nAnd remember, after all,\nThat ye gained nothing there.\nJudith and Esther, noble ladies,\nAnd several other valiant women,\nBy the will of the God of gods,\nBattled for the Hebrews\nAnd had fair victories,\nAs we find in the histories.\nWherefore likewise for our quarrel\nBattled Joan the Maid.\nNever sally out of England,\nEnglish, to gain our land.\nBehold how Glasdale\nWas drowned, and others great heaps;\nSalisbury struck by a cannon\nWhereof he died in confusion:\nFor Our Lady and Saint Mamert\nGrieved them on every side;\nSaint Euverte set them also,\nAnd Saint Aignan, in great trouble,\nIn the virtue, as I believe,\nOf God and of His worthy cross.\nNow, then, pray we for the good captain,\nWise and prudent, my lord of Dunois;\nMay God set him in high glory,\nPoton, La Hire and all the good French;\nAnd let us all render thanks to the King of kings\nWho on such a day set us out of great pain,\nAnd let us adore His precious cross,\nThe true salvation of human creatures.\nOn the banner was set:\nTo the Virgin both of us,\nSince it pleased you to turn\nInto gladness our mourning,\nMost humbly also\nWe thank you for it (1).\n(1) These verses, if they be verses, offer no sense. Perhaps it is only a fragment of the inscription set on the banner. I defer to M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s text.\nVIII. Complementary Particulars # The documents which precede show what the festival of 8 May was in the fifteenth century. I must add, to complete this picture, that Jean du Lis, called la Pucelle, son of Pierre d\u0026rsquo;Arc and lord of the Île-aux-Boeufs (see above, p. 280), came every year from his land of Villers where he resided, to Orléans, to figure in the town\u0026rsquo;s procession; that he had precedence there, and that before him was borne a great lighted white taper on which was applied a painted effigy of the Maid. The fact was attested in 1550, forty-eight years after his death, by a very old domestic whom he had had in his service. This domestic then deposed as a witness in an inquiry solicited by certain members of the family and reported, for this matter, in the Traité sommaire du nom et des armes de la Pucelle.\nPersons who wish to follow the progress and vicissitudes of the festival of 8 May beyond 1500 must have recourse to M. Lottin\u0026rsquo;s Recherches historiques sur Orléans. That work, drawn up in the form of ephemerides, is very easy of use. The Histoire de l\u0026rsquo;église et de la ville d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, by Symphorien Guyon, is also to be consulted. It contains a long description of the ceremonial used in 1650.\nFor the convenience of the greater number of readers, I will sum up in a few words the history of the festival, as it results from the one and the other of these works.\nFrom the time of Symphorien Guyon, a wholly profane diversion had taken root beside the ceremonies of the Church. After the procession of the relics, the soldiers of the garrison paraded through the town a puceau [boy-maid] dressed à la Henri IV, who was supposed to represent Joan of Arc. From 1725, the puceau was an official personage whom the town dressed at its expense, and whom the clergy admitted into their ranks at the procession. In 1786, the Duchess of Orléans, mother of the present king, instituted a rosière who shared with the representative of Joan of Arc the honours of the day. Came the revolution, which began by greatly diminishing the religious character of the ceremony, replacing the suppressed congregations by the national guard. The celebration of 1790 coincided with that of the Orléanais federation. It still took place in 91 and 92; but ceased altogether in 93. The restoration of it was thought of only in year XI, when there was question of raising a new monument to the Maid. The celebrated M. Bernier, bishop of Orléans, took the initiative, and asked to that effect, under date of 3 ventôse (22 February 1803), an authorisation which was granted him by Chaptal, then minister of worship (1).\n(1) Here is the text of this authorisation, printed by M. Lottin (part II, vol. IV, p. 349) after the original in the Archives of the Loiret: I presented to the First Consul, Monsieur the Bishop, your project of restoring the religious ceremonies which formerly took place in memory of the deliverance of Orléans by the Maid. He entirely approves this project, and he has found in your proposition a fresh testimony of your eagerness to make religion concur in all that can be honourable to the French nation. I have the honour to salute you. Signed PORTALIS.\nThe service in the cathedral was therefore restored, as well as a procession at which all the authorities of the town assisted. To increase the lustre of the festival, M. de Rocheplatte, mayor of Orléans in 1816, resuscitated the puceau dressed à la Henri IV, and submitted him to a ceremonial until then unaccustomed. An album executed at Orléans in 1829 (1) will give an idea of these innovations, as little conformable to history as reproved by good taste. The revolution of 1830 has done them justice. The festival of 8 May has become again what it was in the time of the Empire.\n(1) Fête de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc à Orléans, le 8 mai 1829, quatre cents ans après la délivrance de cette ville, six drawings lithographed by Charles Pensée. Small folio. — See also the description given by M. Jollois in his Histoire abrégée de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, p. 173, and the notes.\nDocuments on the False Joan of Arc Who Appeared from 1436 to 1440 # I. # Extract from the chronicle of the Dean of Saint-Thibaud of Metz, printed by Père Vignier in the Mercure galant of November 1683, long before the complete edition of the work, indicated in our vol. IV, p. 321. The publication of this piece made much noise. It gave rise to the paradox several times maintained since, that the Maid had escaped the English stake. The public who yielded a moment to this error did not know that as early as 1650 Symphorien Guyon had, in his history of Orléans, reduced to its just value the testimony of the Metz annalist; that the latter had even corrected himself, or had been corrected by one of his contemporaries, since in a manuscript of his chronicle (see the following article) the apparition of 1436 is given for an imposture.\nIn the year 1436, sire Phelepin Marcoulz was master-échevin of Metz. That year, the 20th day of May, came the Maid Joan who had been in France, to the Grange-aux-Ormes, near Saint-Privat; and she was brought there to speak to some of the lords of Metz; and she called herself Claude. And the same day there came to see her her two brothers, of whom one was a knight, called Messire Pierre; and the other, Petit-Jean, squire. And they thought she was burned; and as soon as they saw her, they knew her, and she them likewise. And on Monday, the 21st day of the said month, they led their sister with them to Bacquillon, and the lord Nicole Lowe, knight, gave her a hackney of the price of thirty francs, and a pair of boots, and the lord Aubert Boulay a chaperon, and sire Nicole Groingnat a sword. And the said Maid leapt upon the said horse most skilfully, and said several things to the lord Nicole Lowe, whereby he well understood that it was she who had been in France; and she was recognised by several tokens for the Maid Joan of France, who had led King Charles to be consecrated at Reims; and several would say that she had been burned at Rouen in Normandy; and she spoke most of her words in parables, and said neither fuer nor ans (1) of her intention; and she said that she had no power before Saint-John-Baptist\u0026rsquo;s day. But when her brothers were gone, she returned forthwith in the feasts of Pentecost to the town of Marville, at the house of Jean Quenast; and stayed there until about three weeks; and then departed to go to Notre-Dame-de-Liesse, the third; and when she would depart, several of Metz went to see her at the said Marville, and gave her several jewels, and they recognised that it was properly Joan the Maid of France. And then Joffroy Dex gave her a horse, and then she went to Arlon, a town which is in the duchy of Luxembourg. Item, when she was at Arlon, she was always beside Madame of Luxembourg (2); and was there a great while, until the son of the Count of Warnonbourg led her to Cologne. And the said count loved her very much; insomuch that, when she would come away, he caused a very fine cuirass to be made for her to arm herself. And then she came back to the said Arlon; and there was made the marriage of Messire Robert des Armoises, knight, and of the said Joan the Maid. And then after, the said lord of Armoises came with his wife the Maid to dwell in Metz, in the house of the said sire Robert, which he had before Sainte-Segolène; and they stayed there as long as they pleased.\n(1) Ne fuer ne ans, neither without nor within.\n(2) Not the one in question in the first trial; but the effective mistress and heiress of the duchy, Elisabeth of Görlitz, niece by alliance of the Duke of Burgundy.\nII. # Different redaction of the preceding piece, after another manuscript. This variant was sent from Metz to Pierre du Puy and is found today in volume 630 of his collection, at the Bibliothèque Royale.\nMessire Philippe Marcouls, in the year 1436. In that year came a young girl, who said she was the Maid of France, and played her personage so that several were abused by it, and especially all the greatest. And she was at the Grange-à-l\u0026rsquo;Orme. And there the lords of Metz were, such as the lord Nicole Lowe; and they gave her a horse of the price of thirty francs, and a pair of boots; and the lord Albert Boullay, a chaperon; the lord Nicolle Grongnot, a sword. And she was clothed in man\u0026rsquo;s habit; and two of her brothers led her. And forthwith in those feasts of Pentecost after, she came again to the town of Marville, and stayed there about three weeks at the house of a good man called Jean Cugnot. And several people of Metz went there to see her, and gave her several jewels; and the lord Geoffroy Dex gave her a horse; and she departed and went to Notre-Dame-de-Liesse, and after to Arlon. And she stayed always there beside Madame of Luxembourg, and there she was married to the lord Robert des Armoises, knight, and they came to dwell in Metz at the top of the Porte de Muselle (1).\n(1) Philippe de Vigneulles, a later Metz chronicler, since he wrote only at the beginning of the sixteenth century, expressed himself in the same sense, abridging the present article: In that same year (1436) befell a novelty of one who would counterfeit herself for another; for in that time, on the 22nd day of the month of May, a girl called Claude, being in woman\u0026rsquo;s habit, was manifested for Joan the Maid, etc. And a little further on: But afterwards the truth was known, etc., etc. See Chroniques messines, published by Huguenin, p. 198.\nIII. # Extract from the Formicarium of Jean Nider, passage already cited in vol. IV, p. 502.\nWe have today as a notable professor of sacred theology brother Heinrich Kaltyseren, inquisitor of heretical pravity. When he, in the year last past, was insisting upon the office of inquisition in the city of Cologne, as he himself told me, he learned that around Cologne there was a certain virgin who in man\u0026rsquo;s habit went about all the time. She bore arms and dissolute garments, like one of the stipendiary nobles, led dances with men, and was so given to drink and feasts that she seemed wholly to exceed the bounds of the feminine sex, which she did not deny. And because at the same time (as, alas, today!) the church of Trier, two contenders for the same seat, molested it gravely (1), she boasted that she could and would enthrone one party, as the virgin Joan (of whom it will be spoken presently) had a little before done for Charles king of the Franks, in confirming him in his realm. Nay rather, she affirmed that she was the same Joan raised up by God. When therefore on a certain day she entered Cologne with the younger count of Virtenburg (2), who protected and fostered her, and did there wondrous things in the sight of the nobles, which seemed to be done by magic art, she was at last diligently investigated and publicly cited by the aforesaid inquisitor, that she might be inquired of. For she was said to have torn a certain map and suddenly in the eyes of all restored it whole; and to have repaired in a moment a certain glass cast by her at a wall and broken, and to have displayed many like vain things. But the wretch refused to obey the mandates of the Church; she had the aforesaid count for her protection, lest she be taken, by whom she was secretly led out of Cologne; the inquisitor\u0026rsquo;s hands indeed she escaped, but not the bond of excommunication. Straitsened at last by this, she went out of the bounds of Germany and entered the limits of Gaul, where she took in marriage a certain knight, lest she be vexed by the ecclesiastical interdict and sword. Then a certain priest — rather to be called a pander — soothed this sorceress with amorous words; with whom at last secretly withdrawing, she entered the city of Metz, where dwelling with him as a concubine, by what spirit she was led was patently shown to all.\n(1) This concerns the contest for the archbishopric of Trier, which took place between Raban of Helmstadt and Jacques de Sierck.\n(2) Ulrich of Württemberg, with whom his brother Louis had shared his hereditary fief.\nIV. # Extract from the accounts of the town of Orléans for the year 1436, after the register preserved in the Orléans library.\nTo Pierre Baratin and Jean Bombachelier, to give to Fleur-de-lis (1), on Thursday, the eve of Saint Laurence, 9th day of the month of August, for a gift made to him, because he had brought letters to the town on behalf of Joan the Maid; for this, 48 s. p.\n(1) Name of a pursuivant-at-arms.\nTo Pierre Baratin and Jaquet Lesbahy, to give to Jean du Lis, brother of Joan the Maid, on Tuesday the 21st day of August in the year 1436, for a gift made to him, the sum of 12 livres tournois, because the said brother of the said Maid came to the Chamber of the said town to require of the procurators that they would aid him with some pittance of money to return to his said sister, saying that he came from the king and that the king had ordained him a hundred francs and commanded that they should be given him: whereof nothing was made; and there were given him only 20, of which he had spent the 12 and there remained to him only 8 francs, which was a small thing to return with, seeing that he was the fifth on horseback. And for this it was ordained in the said Chamber of the said town by the said procurators, that there should be given him 12 francs. For this, 9 l. (2).\n(2) See the complement of the feast made to Jean du Lys, above, p. 257.\nTo Regnault Brune, the 25th day of the said month, to give drink to a messenger who was bringing letters of Joan the Maid and was going to Guillaume Belier, bailiff of Troyes (1); for this, 2 s. 8 d. p.\n(1) Residing at Blois. This explains a passage of the deposition of Raoul de Gaucourt (vol. III, p. 17) which I had suspected of being incorrect, though it was so. The embarrassment came from this, that Gaucourt, recounting the Maid\u0026rsquo;s arrival at Chinon in 1429, says she was given in guard to Guillaume Belier, bailiff of Troyes. Now it was impossible that Guillaume Belier should be bailiff of Troyes while Troyes still belonged to the English. The Orléans account proves that Gaucourt attributed to Guillaume Belier, in 1429, the possession of an office with which he was invested only later.\nTo Coeur-de-Lis (2), the 17th day of October 1436, for a journey which he made for the said town to the Maid, who was at Arlon in the duchy of Luxembourg; and for carrying the letters which he brought from the said Joan the Maid, to Loches, to the king who was there; in which journey he laboured 41 days, to wit 34 days in the journey of the Maid, and seven days to go to the king. And the said Coeur-de-Lis departed to go to the said Maid on Tuesday the last day of July, and returned the 2nd day of September following. For all this, 6 l. p.\n(2) Another pursuivant-at-arms, so named in honour of Orléans, whose heraldic emblem was and still is a kind of trefoil called coeur de lis in terms of blazon.\nTo Jaquet Leprestre, the 2nd day of September, for bread, wine, pears and walnuts expended in the Chamber of the said town, at the coming of the said Coeur-de-Lis, who brought the said letters of Joan the Maid, and to give drink to the said Coeur-de-Lis who said he was much athirst; for this, 2 s. 4 d. p.\nV. # Extract from the contract of sale of the quarter of the lordship of Haraucourt, by Robert des Armoises and Jeanne du Lys, called the Maid, his wife; piece published by D. Calmet among the proofs of the Histoire de Lorraine, vol. III, col. cxcv.\nWe, Robert des Harmoises, knight, lord of Thichiemont, and Jeanne du Lys, the Maid of France, lady of the said Thichiemont, my wife, licensed and authorised by me, Robert abovenamed, to make agree and accord all entirely that follows: make known and acknowledge to all who shall see and hear these present letters, that we, jointly together, of a common accord and each of us by himself and for the whole, have sold, ceded and transferred, and by these presents sell, cede and transfer to the honourable person Collard de Failly, squire, dwelling at Marville, and to Poinsette, his wife, buying for themselves, all the fourth part entirely which we have, ought and can have, and which to us ought and can belong, on whatever account, title or reason it be or may be, as much by way of gage as otherwise, in all the town, ban, finage and confinage of Haraucourt, etc., etc.… In testimony of truth, and so that all the things abovesaid be firm and stable, we, Robert des Harmoises and Jeanne du Lys, the Maid of France, our wife abovenamed, have set and appended our own seals to these present letters; and besides we have prayed and required our most dear and great friend Jean de Thoneletil, lord of Villette, and Saubelet de Dun, provost of Marville, that they will set their seals on these presents with ours, by way of testimony. And we, Jean de Thoneletil and Saubelet de Dun, abovenamed, at the prayer of our most dear and great friends the abovesaid Messire Robert and Dame Jeanne, abovenamed, have set and appended our own seals to these present letters with theirs, by way of testimony, which were made and given in the year of grace of Our Lord one thousand four hundred and thirty-six, in the month of November, the seventh day.\nVI. # Extract from the Chronicle of the Constable don Alvaro de Luna, ch. LXXV, entitled: How the Poncela being at La Rochela sent to ask succour of the King, and of what the Constable did for her. (Edition of D. Miguel Josef de Flores, Madrid 1784, 4to, p. 131.)\nThe Poncela of France being at La Rochela (1), a city one of the strongest of the world and of great importance, wrote to the king and sent him her ambassadors — besides those whom the king of France on his side sent — supplicating him much to send her some fleet of armada, as his lordship was bound to do, conformably to the confederation and brotherhood which existed between his lordship and the king of France, his lord. And the ambassadors arrived at Valladolid, where the king was, in this said year 1436, they were made great receptions and many feasts and honours. And the letter being given to the king which they brought from the Poncela, the signature of which the constable showed about the court to the grandees, as if it were a much-reverenced relic (for as he was spirited and valorous in a great manner, he loved those who were so likewise, and for this was much affectionate to the deeds of the Poncela); for which cause the constable, who jointly with the king his lord and by his command governed the realms of Castile, laboured much and brought it about with the king that there should be sent to the Poncela an armada and such that she and the king of France might be well succoured; because that befitted his service. The king then left it to the will and pleasure of the constable, that it should be done as should seem good to him. And then the constable sent to the coast of the sea in Biscay and Lupusca and other places, and caused to be armed twenty-five naves and fifteen caravels, the largest that could be found, victualled with arms and with the best men that could be had. And with this answer, the ambassadors departed from the king\u0026rsquo;s court, very content and joyous. With which succour the Poncela gained the said city, and had other victories and conquests, whereby the armada of Castile gained in those parts much honour, as in the chronicle of the Poncela, when it shall be brought to light (1), may well be seen.\n(1) The Spanish author is perhaps mistaken in the name of the town; for although there exists a great lacuna in the history of La Rochelle, above all from the middle of the year 1436 to 1453, there is no likelihood that in that interval Charles VII lost that port, the only one remaining to him. What is certain is that in the month of June 1436, Margaret of Scotland, brought into France to espouse the Dauphin, landed at the port of La Rochelle, and that the ship which brought her, pursued by an English flotilla, owed its safety only to Spanish auxiliaries, come in time to close the entry of the roadstead to the enemies. This succour will have been confounded by the chronicler with others sent later at the request of the false Maid; for she certainly made war in Poitou. See below, p. 332. Thus one must distrust both the assertion relative to La Rochelle and the date of 1436 stated further on. But as to the substance of the narrative, there is no reason to hold it suspect. The unknown author of the life of Alvaro de Luna wrote in the time of Don Enrique IV or of Isabella the Catholic, after the best information. Perhaps he had had in his hands the letter of the false Joan of Arc which he says further on was shown as a relic by the constable.\n(1) Is this chronicle of the Maid the same that Lenglet Dufresnoy says he sought so long without success, and that I myself have not been able to procure? I defer to what is said thereon in my preface.\nVII. # Extract from the accounts of the town of Orléans for the year 1439.\nTo Jaquet Leprestre, the 18th day of July, for ten pints and a chopine of wine presented to Dame Jehanne des Armoises; for this, 14 s. p. — To him, the 29th day of July, for ten pints and a chopine of wine presented to my said Dame Jehanne; for this, 14 s. p. — To him the penultimate day of July, for meat bought of Perrin Basin, Pierre Sevin present, to present to Madame Jehanne des Armoises; for this, 40 s. p. — To him for 21 pints of wine at dinner and at supper, presented to the said Jehanne des Armoises, that day; for this, 28 s. p. — To him, the first day of August, for ten pints and a chopine of wine presented to her at dinner, when she departed from this town; for this, 14 s. p.\nTo Jehanne d\u0026rsquo;Armoises, for a gift made to her the first day of August by deliberation made with the council of the town and for the good that she did to the said town during the siege; for this, 210 l. p.\nTo the said Jaquet, for eight pints of wine expended at a supper where were Jean Luilier and Thevanon de Bourges, because it was meant to be presented to the said Jehanne, who departed sooner than the said wine had come. For the said wine, 10 s. 8 d. p.\nTo Jean Pichon, the 4th day of September, for six pints and a chopine of wine at 8 d. the pint, presented to Dame Jehanne des Armoises; for this, 4 s. 4 d. p.\nVIII. # Article of the register of the Accounts of the town of Tours, for the year 1438–1439; in the archives of the mairie of Tours.\nTo the Receiver, by mandate given the 27th day of September, in the year abovesaid, here rendered, the sum of 4 l. t. which by our commandment and ordinance you have paid and given: to wit, to Jean Drouart, the sum of 60 s. t. for a journey which he made, in this present month, having gone to Orléans to carry closed letters which Mgr. the bailiff [of Touraine] was writing back to the king, our sire, touching the business of Dame Jehanne des Armoises, and certain letters that the said Dame Jehanne was writing back to the said lord.\nIX. # Testimony of Pierre Sala on the interview of Charles VII and the false Maid, where the latter\u0026rsquo;s imposture was at last discovered.\nThis piece, which could not have been conveniently detached from the narrative to which it belongs, is found in vol. IV of the present work, p. 281.\nX. # Extract from a remission of the Trésor des Chartes (Archives of the Realm, J. 176 A, piece 84), granted to the captain who took the conduct of the men-at-arms previously commanded by the false Joan of Arc, in Poitou.\nCharles, by the grace of God king of France, make known to all present and to come, that we have received the humble supplication of Jean de Siquemville, squire of the country of Gascony, containing that, two years ago or thereabouts, the late sire de Rais, in his lifetime our counsellor chamberlain and marshal of France, under whom the said suppliant was, said to the said suppliant that he wished to go to Le Mans and that he wished him to take the charge and government of the men of war that one then had called Joan, who said she was the Maid, promising that if he took the said Mans, he should be captain of it; which suppliant, to obey and please the said late sire de Rais, his master, whose man he was by reason of his wife, granted him and took the said charge and held himself for a certain time about the countries of Poitou and of Anjou; and to have victuals and pay to sustain and maintain them until the return of his said late master, and until he should have news of him how he had to work, the said suppliant sent certain schedules to several villages being in the said countries of Poitou and of Anjou, and commanded the inhabitants being in them that they should come and compound with him, or else he and his said company would go lodge in the said villages; during which time that he thus held the fields, our most dear and most beloved son the Dauphin of Viennois, whom we sent into our country of Poitou to remove the pillagings and cause the men of war who were in it to withdraw, after it had come to his knowledge that the said suppliant thus held the fields and made our said countries compound, sent to take the said suppliant; and he was led prisoner to the castle of Montaigu where our said son and his council then were; and because the men of the said council of our said son, before whom he was led, wished to question and examine him on the things abovesaid, and fearing that they would proceed rigorously by justice against him, and to eschew the perils and dangers which might befall his person, he broke the prison where he was and escaped, etc., etc.… and fears that, on occasion of the things abovesaid, he has been summoned to the rights of justice and that proceedings have been or will be taken against his person and goods by ban or otherwise, whereby he would not dare return or dwell in the country nor go see his wife and household, unless our grace and mercy were imparted to him thereon, etc.… Therefore it is that we, these things considered and the good and agreeable services which the said suppliant has done us in time past in our wars, etc.… to the said suppliant have acquitted, remitted and pardoned the deeds and things abovesaid and each of them, and their circumstances and dependencies, and by these presents of special grace, full power and royal authority, do acquit, remit and pardon, etc., etc.… Given at Saint-Denis in France, in the month of June, in the year of grace 1441 and of our reign the nineteenth. Thus signed, By the king, the lord of Saintrailles and others present. D. BUDE. Visé.\nXI. # Extract from the Journal de Paris under Charles VI and Charles VII, at the month of August 1440.\nIn this time there was very great talk of the Maid, of whom mention has been made before, who was burned at Rouen for her demerits; and there were therefore many persons who were much abused about her, who firmly believed that by her holiness she had escaped from the fire and that another had been burned, thinking it was she.\nItem, in this time the men-at-arms brought in one who was most honourably received at Orléans. And when she was near Paris, the great error began of firmly believing that it was the Maid; and for this cause the University and the Parliament caused her to come to Paris willy-nilly; and she was shown to the people at the Palais, on the marble stone, in the great court; and there she was preached and her life and all her estate treated; and she said that she was not a maid, and that she had been married to a knight of whom she had had two sons; and besides she said that she had done a certain thing, wherefore she had to go to the Holy Father, as of having laid hand on her father or mother, priest or clerk, violently; and that to guard her honour, as she said, she had struck her mother by misadventure, meaning to strike another, and for that she would well have eschewed her mother, had it not been for the great wrath in which she was (for her mother held her because she would beat a gossip of hers); for this cause she had to go to Rome. And for this she went there clothed as a man, and was as a soldier in the war of the Holy Father Eugene; and did homicide in the said war twice. And when she was at Paris, she returned again to the war, and was in garrison, and then went away (1).\n(1) This text is that of De La Barre\u0026rsquo;s edition. Another redaction, of which Marcel gives a fragment in his Histoire de l\u0026rsquo;origine et des progrès de la monarchie françoise (vol. III, p. 423), is conceived in Latin from the words Et avec ce disoit, of which it does not contain the equivalent; but the phrase continues as if it were governed by et fut dit, which precedes the allegation that she was not a maid and that she had had two sons: Et Romam ivisse expiandi criminis fortuiti causa in percussa matre, et ibi in veste militari pro Eugenio papa decertasse et in praelio duos viros occidisse; similiter in Francia. Et sub convictu hybernali abcessit. [And that she had gone to Rome to expiate an accidental crime in striking her mother, and there in military garb had fought for Pope Eugene and in battle had slain two men; likewise in France. And she departed under winter quarters.]\nXII. # Extract from the book of Celebrated Women, by Antoine Dufaur (1); after the manuscript belonging today to M. le marquis de Coislin; article 91 and last, entitled Jehanne de Vaucouleurs.\nThere has well been since one falsely surnamed the Maid, of Le Mans, hypocrite, idolatress, invoker, sorceress, enchantress, wanton, dissolute, an evil mirror of abuse, who, according to her miserable estate, essayed to do as many ills as Joan the Maid had done goods. After her chimerical, feigned and lying devotion, abandoned of God and of men, like a true arch-strumpet, she kept public places. Of whom, for the honour of the good and virtuous, I will no longer write.\n(1) This author was, at the same time as provincial of the Dominicans of France, confessor of Louis XII and of Anne of Brittany, at whose request he composed, in 1504, the work cited here. He died bishop of Marseille in 1509. A native of Orléans and charged by his fellow citizens to pronounce the sermon for the festival of 8 May 1501, he seems to have united all the conditions for being well informed on Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s account. Nevertheless, the notice he devoted to her swarms with errors, though it has not three pages. Philip of Bergamo appears to have been his principal guide. He would not deserve to be alleged, were it not for his testimony on the false Maid.\nSupplement to the Pieces and Extracts Concerning the Maid # I. Fragment of the Religious of Dunfermline # I have nothing to add to what I have already said of this author in my fourth volume (p. 482). As for the promise I then made to give the very text of his testimony after the Oxford manuscript, I keep it without keeping it; for, by an unequalled fatality, the transcription of that manuscript is interrupted at the very place where the history of Joan of Arc begins. The little that has been copied of it is fitted to give regrets for what is wanting. I give this short fragment as it was sent to one of my friends by Dr Bandinel, chief keeper of the Bodleian Library.\nThe manuscript of the religious of Dunfermline, wrongly attributed to William Elphinstone, as I have explained in its place, bears the number 3888 of the Bodleian. It is no. 8 of the Fairfax collection.\nFrom book v, chapter xxxi. — The king of France, affrighted with excessive fear, disposed himself to prepare with all his forces to go to the king of Scotland, James the first of this name. For on every side he had mortal enemies: to wit, the Duke of Brittany on the west, the Duke of Burgundy with the English on the north, the Duke also of Bourbon and the Duke of Savoy on the east, and the Prince of Orange on the south. And as he was young and had little money (without which nothing is strong, nothing good done in war), and, hopeless of aid, destitute of all help, counsel and favour, stripped of money, denuded of his warlike servants, mourning in heart, left alone, set amid straits, desiring rather to die than to live, he spoke lamentably, saying with tearful voice: I have lifted up mine eyes unto thee who dwellest in the heavens, and I lifted up mine eyes unto the hills whence cometh my help; and also: I cried unto the Lord when I was in tribulation. For his confessor was devout, to wit the Bishop of Castres, to whom he confessed daily, every day; and on feasts he took the sacrament of the body of Christ; three masses he devoutly heard on bended knees; he did not omit to say the canonical matins with commemorations of souls, and this he celebrated every day of the world with other prayers. And so drawing near to La Rochelle, where he purposed to go aboard ship, in the strongest city of all France, changing his place he shut himself up in the one called Poitiers, where for the time were the lords of the Parliament of Paris, driven out of the said town of Paris, who counselled him altogether to hold to the purpose he had begun.\nBut the merciful and pitiful God, patient, longsuffering and much merciful, who has His eyes upon the just, and His ears ever to their prayers, having also His face upon them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth, heard his prayers and sent him help from the holy place, transmitting to him a handmaid, a virgin girl, before this the puniest of all creatures and poorest in spirit, in body also small and little, yet taught and instructed from heaven, and animated, counselled and directed by the Holy Spirit, by whom, as her acts prove, she was inspired; who delivered her from all the ambushes of all the enemies, and shut [them] up in the hands of the enemy, and they had dominion over them that hated them. Of whose coming and of whose marvellous works declaration shall be made at length in what follows. Moreover, a noble and high heart should not let fall into oblivion the nobility, worth and valour of the said city of Orléans: for they, considering with unanimous consent their lord, the Duke of Orléans, being in their enemies\u0026rsquo; hands, imprisoned and captive since the time of the war of Agincourt, caused to be publicly proclaimed that they had gold and silver in greatest abundance, and victuals and arms enough in reserve to the full for two years to come, for two thousand men-at-arms; and that whatsoever nobles and worthy leaders-at-arms, if they would take part with them in defending their city, should defend the said city to the death. And forthwith, in the sight of all, the city\u0026rsquo;s treasures, granaries and taverns being publicly opened, the casks overset and the bottoms drawn out, wines, grain, flesh and fish, and all other victuals besides, were open to the men-at-arms without price. Which heard, there came to them so great a store of the noblest men-at-arms that they chose the good into their vessels and cast the bad out. Who, sallying every day upon their enemies, made so cruel a slaughter, put them to flight, slew them and led captives into the town, that the king, hearing these things, received so great consolation and comfort in himself that from that hour every day, from day to day, he magnificently recovered in heart, and granted them, ennobling the same, perpetual freedom. And so in those days the aforesaid Maid, stirred up by the Holy Spirit, received the commandment to come to the king.\nCh. xxx. — There follows concerning the beginnings of the wondrous Maid, sent by divine provision to the succour of France, and of her acts.\nIn those days the Lord raised up the spirit of a certain wondrous girl, born in the marches of France, in the duchy of Lorraine, near the royal castle of Vaucouleurs, in the bishopric of Toul, towards the Empire. Which girl her father and mother kept to the keeping of the flock of sheep daily. With her fingers grasping the distaff, wholly lacking the marriage bed, and innocent, as was asserted, of every crime, having the testimony of innocence from her neighbours……\nII. Ennoblement of Gui de Cailly, Companion of the Maid # End of June 1429.\nPiece communicated by M. Lambert, librarian of Carpentras, after manuscript no. X of Peiresc, in the library of the same town. This manuscript appears to contain part of the materials with which M. Charles du Lys composed his Traité sommaire du nom et des armes de la Pucelle, as well as the Recueil des inscriptions composed for the monument of the bridge of Orléans.\nThe ennoblement of Gui de Cailly, transcribed at fol. 400 of that volume, after an original on parchment whose provenance is not indicated, departs in its form from the usages of the old chancery. The services of the recipient, specified at length; those of the Maid, who recommended him to the king, related in a still more pompous manner; the tone of gladness and enthusiasm which reigns from one end of the piece to the other, are so many exceptions to the ordinary style of ennoblements. There is further to be remarked in this act the circumstance alleged therein of a revelation common to the Maid and to Gui de Cailly, a circumstance whence was taken the idea of the arms blazoned at the end of the ennoblement.\nCharles, by the grace of God king of the Franks, to the perpetual memory of the thing. Placing before our eyes the celestial immensity of the divine benefits towards us in our warlike expeditions against our mortal enemies; and principally how great was the moment, when our affairs were inclining downward, of the most happy repulse of the siege of Orléans, which was most chiefly accomplished under the auspices and the happy coming and conduct of the illustrious Maid, and of Joan d\u0026rsquo;Arc of Domrémy, deserving of us infinitely, so that it may rightly be said that the approach and entry of the said Maid into that city to defend it and drive thence the said English enemies promised and foretold us an easier access to recover our other cities and towns: therefore pursuing with singular favour not only the said Joan, to whose remuneration we cannot sufficiently contribute, but also the warlike men, conspicuous by the ancient profession of arms, who stood by the said Joan in raising so celebrated a siege, and whose work and study she used most greatly in the battles and various conflicts around the said city and continually made since unto this day; among whom, by the same our well-beloved Joan of Domrémy, one especially was commended to us, for his utmost diligence and assiduous fighting with her, Guy de Cailly, a man laudable above all for the honesty of his manners, and among the citizens of the said city of Orléans notable and industrious, in fine given to all the exercises of noble men: desiring to decorate him with fitting insignia, which may be to him and to his posterity a perpetual increase of honour;\nWe make known to all present and to come that we, made the surer of the excellent services of the said Guy de Cailly, and how greatly he seconded with all his power the good will of the aforesaid Joan towards us, in receiving her in the fortress of Rully near Chécy, when first she was to be led into the city of Orléans, invited by a divine apparition of angels, of which by the same celestial favour the said Guy de Cailly was partaker, as we were informed more fully by her; in consideration whereof and of many other services which for long times he has manifoldly expended upon us and promises continually to expend in future;\nWe ennoble the said abovenamed Guy de Cailly, long since going among the nobles and bearing himself as a noble, and his family masculine and feminine born and to be born in lawful matrimony, and by God\u0026rsquo;s grace special and of our certain knowledge, and of the plenitude of our power, we pronounce them nobles and, in so far as need were, make and create them anew; expressly granting that he and his posterity born and to be born, in their acts, in judgment and out, be held for nobles; and we render them able peacefully to enjoy and use the privileges, liberties and other prerogatives and rights which the other nobles of our realm, begotten of noble race, have been accustomed to use and do use; and we aggregate the said Guy de Cailly and his aforesaid posterity to the company of the other nobles of the said realm begotten of noble stock: willing also that he and his masculine posterity, when and as often as it shall please them, may obtain the girdle of knighthood from whatsoever knight, and be decorated with whatsoever other more sublime titles; further granting to the same, in so far as need were, and to his aforesaid posterity, that they may acquire fiefs and retro-fiefs and noble things from nobles and whatsoever other persons, and retain, hold and possess perpetually those already acquired, without that they be compelled now or in time to come to put them out of their hands in any wise, and without that they be bound to pay any finance to us or our officers; which finance indeed to the said Guy de Cailly, in favour of the premises, we have given and quitted, and give and quit of ampler grace by these presents. And to himself finally and to the said posterity, in favour likewise of the said apparition, three heads of higher angels, of fiery colour and splendour, winged and bearded, in a shield azure heightened with silver (1), as he believed he saw them in the said apparition, to bear for perpetual insignia of nobility and to set and cause to be set wheresoever he will, we have conceded, and by these presents, as they are depicted in the same, do concede, in hope of the continuance of his services to us.\n(1) These arms are blazoned thus in French: Azure heightened with silver, three heads of cherubim winged and bearded of a flaming colour which is gold shaded with gules. This translation is found in a draft of letters patent drawn up by Charles du Lys and tending to obtain for one of his sons, who had married a demoiselle de Cailly, the right to bear the arms of Cailly in an inescutcheon over the quartered arms of Arc and du Lys. (Same MS., fol. 404.) I have not thought it right to reproduce these letters, whose text, less the clause in question, is identically that of piece no. LVII of the present volume, p. 225.\nWherefore to our beloved and faithful officers of our accounts, and to our general counsellors upon the fact and government of all our finances, to our bailiff of Orléans and our other justices and officers or their lieutenants, present and to come, and to each of them, so far as it shall appertain to him, by the tenor of these we give in commandment that they cause and permit the said Guy de Cailly and his aforesaid posterity, born and to be born, peacefully and perpetually to use and enjoy our present grace, ennoblement, donation, quittance and concession, and that they nowise hinder or molest them against the tenor of these presents, nor suffer them to be molested or hindered by anyone. Which, that they may obtain the strength of perpetual firmness, we have thought good to append to the present letters our seal ordained in the absence of the great seal, our own right being saved in others and in all things whatsoever another\u0026rsquo;s.\nGiven at Sully, in the month of June, in the year of the Lord 1429, and of our reign the seventh.\nAnd on the fold is written: By the King, the Bishop of Sées present. And signed: Lepicart. And they are sealed with the great seal of green wax on laces of red and green silk, with double tail.\nIII. Letter Written by the Agents of a Town or of a Prince of Germany # End of June.\nPiece recently published at Leipzig in the Serapeum (no. 23 of the year 1847). The discovery of it is owing to M. Pfeiffer, librarian of the king of Württemberg, who found it transcribed in a fifteenth-century manuscript (no. 1, medica) of the Stuttgart library. Destitute of address as of the ordinary formulas of greeting and farewell, clothed with the signatures of wholly unknown personages, conceived in bad German, this letter emanates without any doubt from agents sent into France by some power of high Germany. It was written in the last days of June, at the moment when Charles VII was taking the field to go to be consecrated at Reims.\nThe dates of the events are there established after a calendar several days behind ours. M. H. Michelant, author of the translation which will be read below, assures me that the acts relative to the Swabian League, in the fifteenth century, often present the same irregularity.\n[The German original is printed in parallel with M. Michelant\u0026rsquo;s French translation, which is here rendered into English.]\nFirst came the Maid, the twenty-fifth day before May, before Orléans, and she undertook to assail the boulevards and to obtain that the English should be beaten before Orléans; and with her were the Bastard of Orléans, the lord de Boussac, marshal of France, the Baron de Coulonces, the lord de Rais. These lords all had a fair following of men-at-arms and of archers, and besides much common people; and as soon as they arrived before [the town], one of the boulevards which was called Saint-Loup, where there were many English, they carried it by a vigorous assault and put them all to death so that not one escaped. When they had carried that boulevard, then the English who were in two other boulevards took to flight, of which one was called Saint-Jean-le-Blanc, the other was near a bridge between two waters. They rushed out, burned the boulevards, and withdrew into another great boulevard, well fortified, which was called Portereau. Then, on the 27th of the same month, that same fortress of Portereau was assailed on both sides, and the assault was then vigorous and dreadful, and it lasted from the morning until six hours after noon, and the Maid held her banner all the time. Many English were slain there, and few of them escaped; they were slain or taken. Then, on the 28th of the same month, the other English who were in the other boulevards set themselves in motion and abandoned their bastilles and their boulevards. One was called Paris, the other Rouen, the third Saint-Pouair (1), and they fled away by night. After, the Maid marched towards the king, who received her joyfully in the town of Tours. The Maid set out again, and with her the Duke of Alençon, the lord of Vendôme, the Bastard of Orléans, the marshal of France, the admiral and many another captain, with a strong company of knights and squires, and with much people on foot of the commons. And they came before a town called Jargeau, the sixth day of June, and camped that night and the morning before it until two hours after noon; then they began to assail the said town vigorously and valiantly. And a boulevard was situated near a bridge before the town, and the assault lasted until four or five hours before night, and the boulevard was carried, and there were slain a hundred and sixteen English, knights and squires, gentlemen born in England. And there was taken the Earl of Suffolk, the Pole, and his brother. And the Maid stood all the time with her banner, knightly and bravely, without drawing back and without taking rest. Thus it was a terrible and dreadful assault, such that one cannot bear the like. Stones were cast upon the Maid, but she received no hurt, by the grace of God who preserved her. And there were well five hundred fighting men in the boulevard of the English; and they were all slain so that none of them escaped, save the three lords named above, who were made prisoners. And the king is now in the fields with the Maid, and many English are driven from the land; for the Maid has assured them that before Saint-John-Baptist\u0026rsquo;s day of the year twenty-nine come, there shall be no Englishman, so strong and so valiant be he, who shall let himself be seen in France, whether in field or in battle. Then, on the eighteenth day of the abovesaid month, the Maid came with the king and his company before Beaugency. There came the English, and they demanded battle of the Maid, which she desired also with all her heart. The fight was made before the town, and the Maid won the battle with the aid of God. There were slain of the English four to five thousand. There were taken three great captains; the one is called Talbot, [the second] the lord de Scales, the third the Falstolf. Given in 1429, the … day of the month of June.\n(1) The French translator supplies lacuna; M. Pfeiffer proposes stadt.\nLe Conte Vaste.\nJean Rotrensor.\nIV. Letter of Jean Desch, Secretary of the Town of Metz # 16 July 1429.\nSame provenance as the piece which precedes, and doubtless the same destination; it likewise lacks an address. It is of great importance, in that it makes known all the rumours which circulated in the east of France at the moment of the journey to Reims. Some of these rumours are proved false by subsequent facts; others, though having their confirmation nowhere else, would hardly be called in doubt, as for example the refusal of the Picards and the Flemings to come in arms against the king and the Maid. I will say as much of the submission of Vitry, Sainte-Menehould and Épernay, of which no chronicler speaks.\nThe manner in which this letter is dated calls for some explanation. All rests upon the day of Saint Margaret, which is the 20th July, as everyone knows. But in computing after that term, we should make the author of the letter commit too grave an error, since he would place on the 18th July the capitulation of Troyes, which took place on the 10th, and on the other hand we should make him ignorant, eight days after its accomplishment, of Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s entry into Reims, of which he speaks only as of a future thing. These difficulties disappear if it be admitted that Saint Margaret\u0026rsquo;s was celebrated at Metz, not on the 20th but on the 13th July, as was done at Verdun, according to the Bollandists.\n[The German original is printed in parallel with the French translation, here rendered into English.]\nI write you also of France, concerning the Dauphin and the Maid. She has well thirty-three thousand fighting men on horseback and forty thousand on foot; and they came the Monday before Saint Margaret\u0026rsquo;s day towards Troyes into the town, and they took those within who had assembled; and those of Châlons came to Troyes and brought the keys of their town, and they presented them to the Dauphin and surrendered to him. Those of Reims have also prepared and disposed themselves to receive honourably and worthily the Dauphin and to crown him. He is to be there between Saint Margaret\u0026rsquo;s day and Saint James\u0026rsquo;s day. Also he [sent] the lord of … (1), who is his principal captain, before two towns for Saint Margaret\u0026rsquo;s day: the one is called Sainte-Menehould, the other Vitry; they are occupied, but it is thought they will surrender. The Duke of Anjou, the Count of Richemont, the Count of Harcourt are to be at Reims with the Queen on the Thursday after Saint Margaret\u0026rsquo;s day; they are at present at Épernay, which has surrendered to the King this week (2). And assuredly what is said is true: that all that the Maid and the Dauphin undertake succeeds for them in all things without any resistance. The Duke of Burgundy (3) has great hopes (4), and he would well have wished to have the Flemings and the Picards to succour the regent of England, who is his brother-in-law; but they would by no means aid him out of their country, and thus he is too weak to enter France. Also, eight weeks ago, more than ten thousand English were beaten and made prisoners, and also some great lords. I have seen and read many letters sent from France to the Duke of Lorraine and to other princes who are at present before Metz (5); in these letters the things are written clearly and in detail. Much chivalry sets out from these German lands; they wish to go find the Dauphin at Reims. Given at Metz, the Saturday after Saint Margaret\u0026rsquo;s day, in the year of the Lord 1429.\n(1) Lacuna of a proper name which the copyist, author of the manuscript, could not read. I would propose to supply Boussac, then marshal of France, and consequently principal captain.\n(2) Des König in the German text: M. Pfeiffer, in giving this reading of the manuscript, proposes dem in its place.\n(3) Borbonien in the German text: read Borgonien [Burgundian].\n(4) The sense of what follows seems to call for a negation here: heit nit grosse, etc.\n(5) The town of Metz was then besieged by the Duke of Lorraine. It was even from that siege that René of Anjou departed to join Charles VII.\nJean Desch (6), secretary of the town of Metz.\n(6) This name, which is that of one of the most powerful families of the old republic of Metz, is always written Dex in the titles as in the chronicles of the city. It was pronounced Déché, because x, in the old Lorraine orthography, equals ch. More recently it has been written Desch.\nV. Contribution of the Town of Bourges for the Siege of La Charité # 24 November 1429.\nPiece printed by La Thaumassière in his Histoire de Berry, p. 161, after a copy communicated to him by M. Gassot de Priou.\nTo all who shall see these present letters, Guillaume Bastard, licentiate in canon and civil law, lieutenant of my lord the Bailiff of Berry, greeting. We make known that today, we being seated in judgment, several of the most notable burgesses and men of council of the said town there assisting, there came before us Pierre de Beaumont, procurator of the said burgesses and inhabitants of the said town of Bourges, saying that promptly and without delay it was needful to send by the said burgesses and inhabitants to the high and puissant lord my lord of Albret, Count of Dreux and of Gavre, the king\u0026rsquo;s lieutenant in his country of Berry for the fact of the war, and Joan the Maid, being at the siege before the town of La Charité-sur-Loire, by the ordinance and commandment of the king our said lord, the sum of thirteen hundred gold crowns current at present, to maintain their men, or otherwise they and their said men must depart from before the said town and raise the said siege, which would be the greater damage for the said town and all the country of Berry if the said siege were raised for default of payment of the said sum; and that there would be found certain private burgesses of the said town who would lend the said sum, on putting to auction price the farm of the thirteenth penny of the wine sold at retail in the said town of Bourges for one year beginning the eleventh of the present month of November, etc., requiring of us that we cause the said farm to be cried at auction, etc. After the said requests made to us as aforesaid, we demanded the opinion of the said burgesses and men of council also assisting, as is said above, one after another, whether we could do the things abovesaid, etc. Who answered us that we lawfully could and might do it, to obviate a greater damage, and gave their consent thereto. Wherefore we, having heard the request, opinion and consent abovesaid, to the four commissioners and chosen men of the government of this town, gave leave, licence and authority on behalf of the king, to put or cause to be put up the said farm, etc. And forthwith we caused the said farm to be cried at auction, etc., which after several cries remained at auction, as to the highest bidder and last offerer, in our said presence, to Jean de la Loe, burgess of Bourges, at the price and sum of two thousand livres tournois; which Jean promised to give and furnish forthwith the said thirteen hundred crowns, etc. And this to all whom it shall appertain, we certify by these present letters, as done at the days held at Bourges by us, lieutenant abovesaid, and given under the seal of the causes of the said bailiwick, the 24th day of November in the year 1429.\nSigned, CHASTEAUFORT.\nVI. Joan\u0026rsquo;s Capture Announced to the Duke of Brittany # End of May 1430.\nThe mention of the fact is entered, as follows, in a collection of extracts taken in the last century from the registers, today destroyed, of the Chamber of Accounts of Brittany. The collection in question forms part of the manuscripts of the Bibliothèque nationale (Suppl. fr. no. 2542, fol. 8).\nTo a rider of the Duke of Burgundy, named Lorraine, come to the duke to bring letters and news of the taking of the Maid.\nVII. Stay of the Maid at the Castle of Drugy # November 1430.\nWhen Joan was conducted from the castle of Beaurevoir to Rouen, she passed a night at the castle of Drugy, situated beside the town of Saint-Riquier. The tradition of this fact still subsists in the country, and it has given occasion to believe that a commemorative statue of the Maid was sculptured in the southern portal of the church of Saint-Riquier, built in 1511. This attribution, assuredly false, is found entered in one of the volumes of the Recueil de dom Grenier on Picardy (at the Bibliothèque nationale, paquet 4, art. 3). The statue is there described thus: She is represented in woman\u0026rsquo;s habit with a hat on her head. She holds in her right hand a lance broken in part. The left arm is broken. She is tall and well made. She is fair of face and appears with eyes cast down and announcing a certain sadness. Be that as it may, a monument more worthy of faith attests the Maid\u0026rsquo;s stay at Drugy. It is a chronicle compiled in 1492 by order of Eustache Lequeux, abbot of Saint-Riquier, whose author is a certain Jean de la Chapelle, curate of a church of the country and apostolic notary.\nMost inexact as to the rest of the facts, since he places the Maid\u0026rsquo;s apparition in 1428 and supposes that she was beheaded before being burned, Jean de la Chapelle has value only for the circumstance which concerns his locality. The manuscript of his work is at the Bibliothèque nationale, in the volume of dom Grenier mentioned above. We extract from it the following passage:\nIn that same year, the English would have subjugated the city of Orléans; whereupon befell a thing marvellous and true; for while King Charles, young and newly ordained king, wishing to cast off and repudiate the said English, there came a certain young girl otherwise named Joan, born of Lorraine as was said, armed and with great power, who said to the said king: Fear not. I am a woman warrior, a maid sent of God to thee in thy parts and in aid of thy town of Orléans, to free it from its enemies; whom, the Most High favouring, I will put to flight. I will conduct thee to Reims, that there thou mayest be anointed king and crowned in the town of Saint-Denis: which I will do. And doubt not of these things, for I am sent of the Lord. Which she did; for she, armed with her army, vanquished the English and their bastilles before the town of Orléans, and subjugated them, and they took flight. She made prisoner the Earl of Talbot and many other English, coming to Reims that the king might there be anointed. She subjugated and united to the realm Auxerre, Sens, Troyes, Châlons, Provins, Reims, Soissons, Laon, Noyon, Compiègne, Senlis, Crépy, Beauvais and many other towns, cities, castles and walled places then being in obedience to the English. Yet, all things being accomplished, before the town of Compiègne the said Joan the Maid was taken captive and detained, and at length delivered into the hands of the English. And as they led her to the city of Rouen that she might there be beheaded and burned with fire, she slept and passed the night in the castle of Drugy; and in the same castle there saw her Dom Nicolas Bourdon, provost, Dom Jean Capellani, almoner, and many other religious of this church. And of her there shall be memory hereafter, for the said English hated her with unrighteous hatred.\nVIII. Itinerary Followed by the Maid from Drugy to Rouen # November 1430.\nWhat follows is extracted from the Histoire généalogique des comtes de Ponthieu et Maieurs d\u0026rsquo;Abbeville, a work which appeared in 1657. Père Ignace de Jésus Maria (Jacques Samson), author of that history, appears to have had at his disposal divers documents on Joan of Arc which are wanting to us today. I cite him for that reason, though the good half of his narrative is made up of the chronicle of Jean Le Chapelain and the two trials. He is the only author who speaks of a visit of the ladies of Abbeville to the Maid, and who traces the itinerary that she was made to follow when she was transferred from the Crotoy to Rouen. Perhaps it will be well to distrust his testimony until the originals confirming it be recovered.\nAs soon as she was between the hands of her enemies, she was led to the castle of Beaulieu, and thence to Beaurevoir, whereof Jean du Luxembourg, knight, was lord; then she was conducted to the castle of Drugy near Saint-Riquier, where the ancient religious of the abbey visited her for honour, to wit Dom Nicolas Bourdon, provost, and Dom Jean Chappelin, grand almoner, with the principals of the town; and all had compassion to see her persecuted, being wholly innocent.\nFrom the castle of Drugy (which then belonged to the abbey of Saint-Riquier and is now ruined), she was led to the castle of the Crotoy, where, by the providence of God, she often heard the holy sacrifice of the mass celebrated there, in the chapel of the castle, by the chancellor of the cathedral church of Notre-Dame of Amiens, named Master Nicolas de Guenville, doctor of laws, a most notable man, who was then detained prisoner there, and who administered to her the sacrament of confession and of the most holy eucharist, and spoke much good of this virtuous and most chaste girl.\nSome ladies of quality, damoiselles and burgesses\u0026rsquo; wives of Abbeville, went to see her as a marvel of their sex and as a generous soul inspired of God for the good of France. They congratulated her on having had the good hap of seeing her so constant and so resigned to the will of Our Lord, wishing her all manner of favours of Heaven. The Maid thanked them cordially for their charitable visit, commended herself to their prayers, and kissing them amicably said to them: À Dieu [farewell]. These venerable persons shed tears of tenderness in taking leave of her, and returned in company by boat upon the river Somme as they had come; for there are five leagues from Abbeville to the Crotoy.\nAfter these honest ladies had departed, the Maid, admiring their frankness, their candour and their simplicity, said: Ah, what a good people is here! Would to God that I might be so happy, when I shall end my days, as to be buried in this country (1).\n(1) This circumstance has every appearance of an embroidery of which the Reverend Father Ignace took the material from the rehabilitation trial. Vol. III, p. 14.\nAt the beginning of the year 1430, the 13th of January, the Englishman sent a mandate whereby he ordained that the Maid should be transferred from the Crotoy to Rouen and that she should be put into the hands of Brother Jean Magistri, of the order of the Friars Preachers, inquisitor of the faith, to cause her to be examined by Master Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, in whose spiritual jurisdiction she had been taken, in order to make her trial (2).\n(2) This paragraph, from one end to the other, is a tissue of errors. Joan was at Rouen at least from the 28th December 1430; and she was not delivered to Jean Magistri, who was adjoined as judge only in the month of March.\nShe said then adieu to those of the castle of the Crotoy, who regretted her departure, for she had greatly consoled them. The chamber where she lay is still to be seen, which retained since that time some respect when one enters it (3). On issuing from the walls of the town of Crotoy, she was put into a barque accompanied by several guards, to make her pass the passage of the river Somme, which is very broad in that place, because it is the mouth of the ocean sea, which contains about half a league when the tide is risen, and she came down to Saint-Valery, which she saluted with heart and eyes, it being the patron of the country of Vimeu into which she entered, as she had saluted the church of Saint-Riquier, patron of the country of Ponthieu whence she issued.\n(3) No vestiges remain of the old castle of the Crotoy, nor of the tower where the Maid was a prisoner; the sands have covered what might remain of the foundations, and that for a very long time. Le Brun des Charmettes, Histoire de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, vol. II, p. 163.\nShe did not stop in the town of Saint-Valery; for her guards conducted her to the town of Eu (1), and thence to Dieppe, then at last to Rouen, which was the town chosen to be the last theatre of honour where the virtue of our holy Maid was to appear.\n(1) There is ground to believe that the unfortunate Joan of Arc, who was conducted from the castle of the Crotoy to Rouen, must have passed through Eu and sojourned in the castle prison, which was situated at the north corner of the present building, still named the Lions\u0026rsquo; Pit. Estancelin, Histoire des comtes d\u0026rsquo;Eu.\nIX. Ennoblement of Jean de Novelonpont, Companion of the Maid # March 1440–41.\nTo bring out the better the unusual form of the ennoblement of Gui de Cailly (p. 343), I give here that of Jean de Novelonpont, which is drawn up in the ordinary style. Though Jean de Novelonpont rendered much greater services than Gui de Cailly, since he was one of those who brought the Maid into France (2), yet none of his actions is recorded in the king\u0026rsquo;s letters. He is designated therein only as a man of free condition who distinguished himself in the wars. He is moreover given the surname of Jean de Metz, which he bears equally in the acts of the trial. He owed this surname to the place of his origin, because Novelonpont (today Nouillonpont) formed part of the Metz country.\n(2) See vol. II, p. 435.\nThe piece is taken from the Trésor des Chartes at the National Archives, register 224, piece 126.\nCharles, etc., to the perpetual memory of the thing. They have merited to be raised to the summit of nobility who are approved to excel by the excellence of their virtues, the culture of their manners, the glory of honour, the splendour of fame and the celebrity of life; so that, if they have not drawn a clear origin, they may yet rejoice in their own excellent acts. We make known therefore to all present and to come that, having regard to the praiseworthy life, honesty of manners and splendour of fame wherewith our beloved Jean de Novyllompont, otherwise called de Metz, is said to be distinguished; having further considered the laudable and most gratuitous services expended by him upon us in our wars and otherwise, and which we hope will be yet more expended in future: We, for these causes, wishing to honour his person so that it may redound to him and to all his posterity and progeny for ever to honour and increase, have by these presents ennobled the said Jean de Novyllompont, who is said to be of free condition, with his posterity and progeny of either sex begotten and to be begotten in lawful matrimony, and each of them, of the plenitude of our royal power, royal authority and special grace, and make them nobles, and render them able to all and singular the things which the other nobles of our realm use and may use or have been accustomed to use; so that the said Jean and his progeny and masculine posterity, begotten and to be begotten in lawful matrimony, may, whenever and by whatsoever knight they will, be decorated with the girdle of knighthood. Granting to the said Jean and to all his posterity and progeny born and to be born in lawful matrimony, that in all and singular acts, places and things, in judgment and out, they be henceforth held, had and reckoned not as un-noble or plebeian, but as nobles, and also that they peacefully use and in perpetuity enjoy all and singular the privileges, prerogatives, franchises, honours, liberties and rights which the other nobles of our realm may use and do use; and that the said Jean and his progeny and posterity begotten and to be begotten of lawful matrimony may freely hold and possess fiefs, retro-fiefs and other noble possessions, whatsoever they be and with whatsoever nobility they shine, acquired and already had by the said Jean and his posterity born, as is aforesaid, and to be born, hitherto and also to be acquired and had in future, and perpetually retain and lawfully have them, as if they had been of old originally nobles begotten on both sides; without that they be constrained to sell them in whole or in part or put them out of their hands: paying to us on this occasion a moderate finance to be composed by our beloved and faithful officers of our Accounts and our treasurers. Wherefore to the said officers of our Accounts and treasurers, and to the bailiffs of Sens, Chaumont and Vitry, and our other justices, officers and subjects and their lieutenants, present and to come, and to each of them, so far as it shall appertain to him, by the tenor of these presents we give in commandment that they cause and permit the aforesaid Jean and his posterity and progeny born and to be born in lawful matrimony, as is aforesaid, to use and enjoy our present ennoblement and grace, nor hinder or disquiet them or any of them, or suffer them to be hindered or troubled, now or in future, in any wise against the tenor of these presents. Which that it may remain firm and stable for ever, we have thought good to append our seal to these presents, our own right being saved in others and in all things whatsoever another\u0026rsquo;s. Given at Montils-lès-Tours, in the month of March, in the year of the Lord 1448, and of our reign the twenty-seventh. Thus signed: By the King, You, the lords de Fayette, de Precigné, and divers others present. E. Chevarier. Visé. Contentor. E. Froment.\nX. Letter of the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville to Charles VII # 22 May 1452.\nPiece relative to the despatch of the inquiry which was made at Rouen by order of the cardinal himself and terminated on 10 May 1452. The persons charged with carrying this piece to Charles VII are the two great instigators of the rehabilitation, Jean Bréhal and Guillaume Bouillé. We give the letter after the original on paper preserved in the collection of dom Grenier (paquet 27, no. 2), at the Bibliothèque nationale.\nMy sovereign lord, I commend myself most humbly to your good grace. And may it please you to know that there are coming towards you presently the Inquisitor of the faith and master Guillaume Bouyllé, dean of Noyon, who will report to you full well all that has been done in the trial of Joan the Maid. And because I know that the thing greatly touches your honour and estate, I have employed myself therein with all my power and shall ever employ myself, as a good and loyal servant ought to do for his lord, as you will be more amply informed by the abovesaid. Nothing else for the present, my sovereign lord, save that you send me always your good pleasures to accomplish them. To the pleasure of God, who have you in His holy keeping and give you good life and long. Written at Paris, the 22nd day of May.\nYour most humble and most obedient servant, The Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville.\nXI. Inscription of the Monument of the Maid Restored by the Orléanais in 1571 # This inscription is found in the notes to the Notitia regni Franciae of Jean Limnaeus (4to, Strasbourg, 1655; lib. VI, c. 6, note q). It was engraved on a marble tablet. It contains the verse of Psalm 117, A Domino factum est istud, etc., which accompanies as a legend the representation of the monument figured on the reverse of all the tokens that the town of Orléans caused to be struck at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century.\nThe death of Christ on the cross healed us of the contagion of the stain of eternal sicknesses: King Clovis in this sign routed his enemies, and the Virgin Joan delivered Orléans from the siege and all Gaul from British servitude: This was done of the Lord, and it is marvellous in our eyes: In memory of whom these insignia of our faith, not long since thrown down by the impious, are restored in this year 1571 (1).\n(1) The date as given by the annotator of Limnaeus implies the omission of at least one sign which recalled the month of the dedication of the monument.\nXII. Sequel of the Memoir to Consult on Guillaume de Flavy # This is the complement of the piece printed above, p. 173. The Maid is no longer in question in it, but it may serve to refute those who argue the treason of Guillaume de Flavy towards Joan from the prosecutions afterwards exercised against him.\nAfter the people of Compiègne had been four months without selling bread publicly, receiving few refreshments, the enemies had by trenches, forts and bastilles surrounded the town, occupied and blocked all the avenues, so that they had trouble to make their necessity known to the Count of Vendôme; who, having been able to assemble only eight score lances, had advanced on the 24th October 1430 with the Marshal de Boussac, to put some refreshment into the town, having no thought or presumption of making the siege be raised; but the enemies, presuming the succouring troops to be stronger (who were journeying between the forest of Cuise and the river Oise, because the other roads were trenched and blocked), had ranged and set their army in battle. On the opposite side, those of the town, disposed by their captain, taking thereupon the occasion to attack a great and strong bastille which was on the great road of Pierrefonds at the maladrerie of Saint-Lazare, a bow-shot and a half from the town, in which several gentlemen, captains and three hundred men of war had been left, after having been rebuffed and repulsed two several times, carried it by main force at the third assault, at which the men and women of the town were employed; and by this taking made opening to a troop of the succour which was bringing some victuals, and gave so many alarms to the others that the Duke of Vendôme, the Marshal de Boussac and the company had means to enter the town without any combat and without losing a single man. Whereat the courage of the besiegers was so abated that from the morrow morning they scattered on one side and the other, without defending or warning those whom they had put in garrison in the other forts and bastilles around the town: which were attacked, taken and surrendered, in which was found so much munitions and victuals that the town was refreshed thereby, the bridge remade whereby de Flavy caused his troops to pass and to overrun all the country as far as the river Somme, where they had routed the army that the Duke of Burgundy, who was at Péronne, was causing to be assembled and set on foot again.\nAnd afterwards, the duke having advanced as far as Roye, they presented him battle: which had rendered Flavy so rich and redoubtable that his condition would have remained envied by the greatest of the realm. Messire Arthur, Count of Richemont, constable of France, afterwards Duke of Brittany, being of this number, had made his way to Compiègne in December 1436, accompanied by several lords, notably Messire Pierre de Rieux, Count of Rochefort, marshal of France, the king\u0026rsquo;s lieutenant in Normandy, and [had] put under arrest the said de Flavy, under pretext of some complaint, then discharged him of the captaincy; desiring to accommodate himself thereto, he had procured to be elected and named thereto. And the inhabitants having caused assembly to be made on the tenth of December, their suffrages had remained upon the constable; to whom, the act of the election having been carried, he had willingly accepted the said charge, prayed the attorneys and governors to go or send to the King to obtain the confirmation, which was brought on the 13th of the said month by Pierre Le Vacher, rider. Thereupon the said lord constable, as captain, had received the oath of the said inhabitants and left in the town, to command it, Messire Jean de Villeblanche and the lord de Rostrenan. Who, being Bretons, had neither the tongue nor the favour of the country: which had been cause that the neighbourhood had been much harassed by courses and pillagings of men of war, procured by the said de Flavy, who had withdrawn to the castle of Offémont, at the house of Messire Gui de Nesle, his cousin, keeping up the acquaintances and practices that he had had in the town; whereupon the English and those of that country had taken occasion to contrive enterprises which put the inhabitants in trouble, for the little credence they had in the Bretons. The said de Flavy, having taken his time when two pursuivants, of whom one was Madame de Guienne\u0026rsquo;s, had come to give notice of an enterprise by the English, had presented himself and offered to keep the inhabitants all assured and the country in peace, and had [been] received and brought into the town by the ejection of those whom the constable had left there. Who had made great prosecutions and solicitude to re-enter it; even sent letters of abolition and pardon (of 4 November 1437) for the introduction of the said de Flavy, on condition of ejecting him. To avoid which, Flavy had been constrained to treat with the constable and give him four thousand crowns, whereof, holding himself aggrieved, he had sought the means of resenting it; and having word that the Marshal de Rieux had departed from Paris and was making his way to pass the river Oise at Pont-Sainte-Maxence, five leagues from Compiègne, to go to Paris to the King, he had caused his company, conducted by Messire Robinet Lhermitte, his lieutenant, to go before the said marshal, who was arrested and led into the great tower of Compiègne, where the said de Flavy detained him long. And seeing himself pressed by the inhabitants, who had mandate and commandment of the King to cause him to be set at liberty, he had caused him to be transported from place to place, to lose trace of him; so that after a long and miserable prison, the said marshal had deceased in the castle of Nesle-en-Tardenois, belonging to the said de Flavy by reason of Blanche d\u0026rsquo;Aurebruche, his wife. For reason whereof, after long prosecution made as much against the said de Flavy as against his heirs (1), a decree of Parliament had intervened, of 9 September 1509, sixty-one years after the decease of the said de Flavy, against Jeanne de Flavy, his great-niece, wife of Jean sire de Moranviller, of which summary an abstract had been written on a cross placed in the rue du Pont, opposite the great tower of Compiègne, by order of Master Lecoq, counsellor, executor of the said decree.\n(1) These prosecutions could only have taken place because the family of Flavy had lost the amplification of the letters of grace obtained by Guillaume by reason of the same facts. With good will, these letters would be found confirmed at the Parliament of Paris. Here is the text of them, which we take from the register marked X, no. 20202, at the National Archives: Charles, by the grace of God king of France, make known to all present and to come that, as about the month of December in the year 1436 our most dear and beloved cousin the Count of Richemont, constable of France, had taken and arrested in our town of Compiègne our well-beloved esquire of the stable Guillaume de Flavy, and had taken from him the captaincy and put him out of the said our town of Compiègne, to which he had before been and was committed and ordained by us; and about the month of March then next ensuing, the said Guillaume de Flavy, with the aid of some of his brothers, of some captains or men of war inhabiting or resorting to the said town and of others of several estates, had in fact retaken the said town, which was then in the hands of the lord de Rostrenan, commissioned by our said constable in our name; in making which taking, and since, some of the men appointed by the said de Rostrenan or others for the guard thereof, as Jean Villebranche and others, had been held prisoners, put out of our said town, and had lost some horses, armours and other their goods, and one of them, in making the said taking, wounded by a shaft so that death ensued therefrom; and our said town the said Guillaume had ever since held, as he still holds, for and in our name; and because the late Pierre de Rochefort, in his lifetime knight, marshal of France, was in the company of our said cousin the Count of Richemont when he took and put out of the said Compiègne the said Guillaume, the said Guillaume for this cause, thinking thereby to have accord and peace with our said cousin, of his will, a certain time after held in arrest and in close prison in fact at the said Compiègne and elsewhere, the said Marshal de Rochefort, namely in his castle of Nesle-en-Tardenois, in which place there supervened meanwhile a pestilence of epidemic whereof died several persons, as well of the guards of the said de Rochefort as others of the said castle; and of it the said de Rochefort was stricken and smitten, so that he passed from life to decease, whereof the said Guillaume was most wroth and displeased. For occasion of which things the said Guillaume, who all his time has greatly and loyally served us in body and power in arms, in the fact of our wars against our enemies and adversaries, without varying, fears to have incurred our indignation and to be able for the causes abovesaid to be prosecuted by justice, and for this cannot and dare not well expose himself in our service as he had done heretofore, and yet desires to do it: We, duly informed and ascertained of the things abovesaid, and for consideration of the good and great services which the said Guillaume, his said brothers, etc., have done to us and to our predecessors in several manners, and hope that they will yet do hereafter, and other causes moving us thereto: to the said Guillaume de Flavy, his brothers, inhabitants, dwellers and resorters of our said town of Compiègne, and who were and have been aiding and consenting to the retaking of the said our town, to the taking or arrest, death or decease of the said marshal, of our special grace, full power and royal authority, have quitted, remitted, pardoned and abolished, and by these presents do quit, remit, pardon and abolish the deeds and cases abovesaid. Given at Laon, the year of grace 1441 after Easter.\nAnd as for Guillaume de Flavy, he had maintained himself until his decease in the captaincy of Compiègne, having greatly enriched himself, acquired several lands and lordships, even possessed himself of the persons, houses and goods of Messire Robert d\u0026rsquo;Aurebruche and Agnes de Francières, and of Blanche, their daughter, whom he had espoused; and of the said marriage had proceeded Charles de Flavy, who had survived the father; which [Guillaume], for having borne himself too severely with the said Blanche, she had brought to contrive his death, which befell at the castle of Nesle-en-Tardenois, by means of the barber who shaved him; who, with the razor that he had in his hand, had cut his throat, encouraged by the wife, who had secret intelligence and plot with Messire Pierre de Louvain, knight, viscount of Berzy, lord of Rongnat and Coullonges, near the said Nesle; wherefore the said d\u0026rsquo;Aurebruche having obtained in July 1449 letters of remission, the said remission had been confirmed only by decree of the Parliament of 5 June 1500, fifty-one years after the fact; at the instance whereof the said de Louvain was slain by the hand of Messire Raoul de Flavy, brother of Guillaume, on 15 June 1464, there having been several attempts before, the said Louvain left for dead in June 1451, in the king\u0026rsquo;s army besieging the town of Bordeaux.\nThe bodies of the said de Flavy and Louvain were interred at Compiègne: Flavy in the choir of the church of the Jacobins, and Louvain in that of the Cordeliers.\nXIII. Spanish Chronicle of the Maid # This work, the search for which a hundred years ago was the despair of Lenglet-Dufresnoy, has also caused me until these latter times the most lively regrets by the impossibility I was under of procuring it. It is a book printed at Burgos in 1562, under the following title: La Historia de la Ponzella Dorleans y de sus grandes hechos, sacados de la chronica real, por un cavallero discreto embiado por embaxador de Castilla a Francia por los reyes don Fernando y Isabel [The History of the Maid of Orléans and of her great deeds, taken from the royal chronicle, by a discreet knight sent as ambassador of Castile to France by the sovereigns Don Fernando and Isabel]; 4to. It is very probable that this history is none other than that which is announced as shortly to appear in the chronicle of Alvaro de Luna (above, p. 331). The quality of ambassador in France given to the author had made me conjecture that this author might be the celebrated Spanish biographer Hernando del Pulgar, who was in fact ambassador in France under the reign of Louis XI. The history of Joan of Arc written by such a man, after official documents (which I was led to infer from the words sacados de la chronica real), seemed to me bound to be something capital. But M. Ferdinand Denis has brought down my conjectures and altogether calmed my regrets by communicating to me notes taken by him on a copy of this rarest of books, which was a few years ago in the possession of an amateur in Paris. The Historia de la Ponzella is but a tissue of fables in which not only is it impossible to recognise the manner of Hernando del Pulgar, but it is not even permitted to consider it an echo of the popular tradition as it ran in France at the end of the fifteenth century. It is a pure romance in the Spanish taste, whose heroine dreams but stratagems and executes but massacres: a ferocious personage, despoiled of the religious inspiration of the true Joan, about whom have been accumulated countless incidents in which chronology and geography are violated in the most ridiculous manner. Such a book could only have been written for the amusement of the gendarmes of the Great Captain.\nItinerary of the Maid # M. Berriat Saint-Prix is the first who had the idea of drawing up, after the testimony of the documents, a chronological table of the marches executed by the Maid. This work, which he gave as an appendix to his Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc (1), has been translated into English and introduced into an anonymous collection which appeared in London in 1824 under the title of Memoirs of Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc surnamed la Pucelle d\u0026rsquo;Orleans with the history of her times (2). I give a new edition of it, corrected and augmented, joining to each place-name the indication of the volume and page where will be found the most certain authority after which the Maid\u0026rsquo;s presence in that place could be established. I dispense with introducing into my table, as M. Berriat Saint-Prix did in his, the mention of two journeys independent of Joan\u0026rsquo;s mission, which the trial attests without its being possible to fix their year. I mean her stay at Neufchâteau and her appearance before the ecclesiastical court of Toul. All that can be said of these two journeys is that they coincide; for the act of accusation states that she went to Toul while she dwelt at Neufchâteau (3).\n(1) Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, ou coup d\u0026rsquo;œil sur les révolutions de France au temps de Charles VI et de Charles VII, etc., 1 vol. 8vo. Paris 1817.\n(2) Two volumes 8vo, published by Robert Triphook. This work is only a translation of divers opuscules of our authors, among others of the Journal du siège d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, of several parts of the Memoir of M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy, of the Appendices of M. Berriat Saint-Prix, etc.\n(3) Vol. I, p. 123.\nDate Movements and places 1428 May 13 From Domrémy to Burey-le-Petit (II, 443); Vaucouleurs (II, 456); return to Domrémy. 1429 January From Domrémy to Vaucouleurs (II, 456). February 13 Toul (II, 437); Nancy (II, 457; IV, 331); Saint-Nicolas-du-Port (II, 456); return to Vaucouleurs (II, 437). February 25 Saint-Urbain (approximate date founded on the arrival at Chinon, the journey from Vaucouleurs having been of eleven days, I, 54; II, 437); Auxerre (I, 54); Gien (III, 3); Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois (I, 56, 75). March 6 Chinon (IV, 313). Le Coudray-en-Touraine (III, 66); Poitiers (I, 75). April Chinon (III, 102); Tours (III, 66); Saint-Florent-lès-Saumur (IV, 10). April 25 Blois (III, 104); Rully near Chécy (V, 344). April 29 Orléans (IV, 151); reconnaissance around Orléans (IV, 156). May 4 Sorties on the Blois road and against Saint-Loup (IV, 157). May 6 Sortie on Saint-Jean-le-Blanc (IV, 159). May 7 Day of the Tourelles (IV, 160). May 8 Sortie to observe the English retreat (IV, 164). May 10 Departure from Orléans for Blois (III, 80; IV, 234); Tours (III, 80); Loches (III, 80). June 4 Selles-en-Berry (V, 262); sortie to meet the king in the direction of Saint-Aignan (V, 107). June 6 Departure from Selles for Romorantin (V, 107); Orléans (IV, 169). June 10 Jargeau (III, 94; IV, 12); Orléans (IV, 13, 235). June 12 Meung-sur-Loire (IV, 13). June 15 Beaugency (IV, 14); position taken between Beaugency and Meung (IV, 416). June 18 Patay and Janville (IV, 242, 244); departure from Patay for Orléans (IV, 16). June 20 Sully (IV, 245); Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire (III, 116). June 25 Châteauneuf (IV, 245); departure from Orléans for Gien (IV, 17). June 28 Departure from Gien in the direction of Montargis (IV, 18, 247, 286); environs of Auxerre (IV, 286). July 1 Before Auxerre (IV, 247). July 3 Saint-Florentin (IV, 72). July 5 Brinon-l\u0026rsquo;Archevêque (IV, 288). July 6 Saint-Phal (IV, 288). July 7 Before Troyes (IV, 289). July 10 Entry into Troyes (IV, 295). July 11 Bussy-Lettré (IV, 298). July 14 Châlons-sur-Marne (IV, 19). July 16 Septsaulx (IV, 184). July 17 At Reims the same day (IV, 19). July 21 Saint-Marcoul-de-Corbeny (IV, 20). July 22 Vailly (IV, 78). July 23 Soissons (IV, 20). July 29 Château-Thierry (IV, 20). July 30 Montmirail-en-Brie (IV, 20). July 31 Provins (IV, 21). August 3 Sortie as far as Lamotte-de-Nangis (IV, 79); Bray-sur-Seine (IV, 79). August 5 Return towards Paris (V, 140) by Provins (IV, 21). August 7 Coulommiers (IV, 21). August 9 Château-Thierry (IV, 80). August 11 La Ferté-Milon (IV, 21). August 12 Crépy-en-Valois (IV, 21). August 14 Lagny-le-Sec (IV, 21). August 15 Dammartin (IV, 21) and Thieux (IV, 46). August 16 Baron (IV, 47), then Montépilloy (IV, 21). August 18 Montépilloy and Crépy (IV, 23). August 19 Compiègne (IV, 23). August 20 Senlis (IV, 23). August 26 Departure from Compiègne (IV, 24). August 28 Saint-Denis (IV, 25). August 29 La Chapelle near Paris (IV, 26). September 8 Attack of the Porte Saint-Honoré (IV, 26). September 9 Retreat from La Chapelle to Saint-Denis (IV, 28). September 13 Departure from Saint-Denis (IV, 29); Lagny-sur-Marne (IV, 89); Provins (IV, 201); Bray-sur-Seine (IV, 48); passage of the Yonne at a ford near Sens (IV, 89). September 21 Courtenay (IV, 48); Châteaurenard (IV, 48); Montargis (IV, 89); Gien (III, 295; V, 145). October 5 Selles-en-Berry (III, 86); Bourges (III, 86); Meung-sur-Yèvre (III, 217); Bourges (III, 217). November 4 Saint-Pierre-le-Moutier (IV, 91). November 9 Moulins (V, 148). November 24 La Charité-sur-Loire (IV, 31; V, 356). December 25 Meung-sur-Yèvre (V, 153); Jargeau (IV, 474). 1430 January 18 Bourges (V, 154). January 19 Orléans (V, 270); Sully (V, 158, 160, 162); departure from Sully (IV, 32). March 3–28 Before Melun (I, 115); Lagny (IV, 32). April 15 Sortie against Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras (IV, 399); Senlis (IV, 32); Borenglise (V, 165). May 6 Compiègne (IV, 398); expedition on Pont-l\u0026rsquo;Évêque (IV, 243). May 14 Compiègne (IV, 49). May 18 Soissons (IV, 50). May 19 Compiègne (IV, 50). May 22 Lagny (IV, 92). May 23 Crépy (IV, 32); Compiègne (I, 114); sortie from Compiègne upon Margny and Clairoix (IV, 445). June–November Beaulieu-en-Vermandois (IV, 34); Beaurevoir (August to November, II, 293). November Arras (I, 95); Drugy near Saint-Riquier (V, 356). November 21 Le Crotoy (III, 121; approximate date). December Saint-Valery-sur-Somme (V, 361); Eu (V, 361); Dieppe (V, 361); Rouen (I, 21). Literary Notice of the Trial of Condemnation # Notice. — This notice and the one which follows it had their marked place at the beginning of the work. The council of the Society of the History of France decided that they should be relegated hither, in consideration that many persons, not having been warned to keep their copy in reserve, had already had the first volumes bound. Readers will therefore be pleased not to seek elsewhere than here for the references to the Preface which were put in the notes of the preceding volumes.\nOf the First Writings of the Registry # Three church notaries, Manchon, Boisguillaume and Taquel, were employed as registrars in the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial; but Manchon did almost everything alone. His notes, reviewed in common at the end of each session (1), served as the base of the definitive redaction (2).\n(1) Vol. III, p. 160.\n(2) Vol. I, p. 156.\nThis first work of Manchon\u0026rsquo;s was produced at the rehabilitation trial (3). He recognised his handwriting in it, save for the first interrogatory session, which was in the hand of Jean Monnet, clerk of one of the counsellors (4). The whole formed a paper quire designated under the name of notula or minuta processus in gallico (5), which we translate as the French minute of the trial: French, though the things of record in it are in Latin; but in French are the interrogatories which form by much the most considerable part of it.\n(3) Vol. II, p. 156, and vol. III, p. 135.\n(4) Vol. III, p. 63.\n(5) Vol. II, p. 156; vol. III, p. 185 and 376.\nFrom the moment it was produced before the rehabilitation judges, the French minute ought to have been transcribed in all the copies of their trial. It was so however only in one, that of d\u0026rsquo;Urfé. We shall speak more amply of that celebrated manuscript in the preliminary notice of the rehabilitation pieces. Let it suffice to know here that it presents several lacunae, and that one of these lacunae falls precisely upon the transcription of the French minute. The absence of about two quires causes that capital text to begin only in the middle of the interrogatory session of 3 March 1431, the twelfth session of the trial.\nM. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy having pointed out the first, though with a little hesitation, the existence of the minute in the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript (1), M. Lebrun de Charmettes and the other modern historians made use of it, but without making it known otherwise than by citations.\n(1) Notices et extraits des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 238.\nThe first complete text of it will be found spread through my first volume, from page 95 onward. It seemed to me indispensable to bring it together with the definitive redaction, because, having furnished the material of that redaction, the reader will only have to compare them together to judge the degree of good faith which presided over the last work.\nTo the French minute, when it was produced, was joined a leaf of the corrections proposed for the twelve articles summing up Joan\u0026rsquo;s doctrine; corrections which, because they were not all carried out, furnished a terrible argument against the Rouen judges. As this leaf was written also in Manchon\u0026rsquo;s hand, and as persons who know that it exists might seek its tenor among the printed fragments of the minute, I must warn that it is not there it will be found. It was transcribed by the rehabilitation registrars into the sixth chapter of the trial, and I have left it there (2).\n(2) See vol. III, p. 238.\nOf the Instrument of the Trial # A certain lapse of time after Joan\u0026rsquo;s execution (1), Thomas de Courcelles, one of the counsellors of the tribunal, assisted by Manchon, gave the trial its authentic form. The interrogatories entered in the minute were translated into Latin, the minutes of proceedings completed, and the whole drawn up in the form of letters patent emanating from Pierre Cauchon and the inquisitor. Thus the instrument of the trial presents itself as a long narrative put in the mouth of the two judges.\n(1) Vol. III, p. 196.\nThe narration begins on the first day of the cause and is prolonged beyond the last, as much by the account of an inquiry which was made the morrow of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s death as by the insertion of other acts later by more than two months. Nevertheless, the final attestations of the registrars, as well as the judges\u0026rsquo; seals, are placed immediately after the definitive sentence. This singular disposition appears to be due to Cauchon\u0026rsquo;s wishing the posthumous inquiry to enter into the trial; but Manchon having for his part refused to attest it (2), it was relegated beyond the signatures; and it is perhaps to dissemble its isolation in that place that it was made to be followed by divers pieces which are bound to the cause only by indirect links.\n(2) Vol. I, p. 14.\nThe registrars delivered five expeditions of the trial (3), of which Manchon alone wrote three with his hand (4). All five were attested by Manchon, Boisguillaume and Taquel, and furnished with the judges\u0026rsquo; seal. Independently of this formality, Boisguillaume initialled all the leaves from the first to the end of the authentic writings (1).\n(3) Vol. III, p. 166.\n(4) Vol. III, p. 135.\n(1) Vol. I, p. 3, note 4.\nIndications scattered here and there make it possible to follow through the centuries the fate of these five manuscripts. Of the three which Manchon executed, one was for the king of England, another for the Bishop of Beauvais, and the third for the inquisitor (2). Martial d\u0026rsquo;Auvergne says that there was one sent to Rome, when the authorisation to revise the judgment was solicited of the pontifical court (3). Finally it is attested that on 15 December 1455, Manchon himself delivered to the rehabilitation judges, at the same time as the French minute, a copy of the Latin trial, which copy was destroyed six months after, inasmuch as the tribunal caused the twelve articles to be torn out of it to be publicly lacerated at the dictum of the sentence (4). There remain four, of which one, astray today, was at Orléans in 1475 (5). Another was in the possession of Pierre Grégoire, professor of law at Pont-à-Mousson, at the end of the sixteenth century (6), while Étienne Pasquier was studying at leisure the one after which he wrote his fifth chapter of book V of the Recherches sur la France, without indicating its provenance (7). Today there exist three at\n(2) Vol. III, p. 135.\n(3) Above, p. 77.\n(4) Vol. III, p. 160.\n(5) Vol. IV, p. 315.\n(6) And I have by me the judicial process made by the English against her, and the sentence authentically written. De republica, lib. VII, c. xi, 18vo.\n(7) I saw formerly the copy of her trial in the library of Saint-Victor, then in that of the great King Francis at Fontainebleau; and since then I have had in my possession for the space of four whole years the original trial, in which all the acts, King Henry\u0026rsquo;s letters patent, the opinions of the University, the interrogatories made to the Maid, were copied at full length, and at the bottom of each leaf was written Affirmo ut supra, Bosquille (that was the registrar), and at the end of the register were the signs and seals of the Bishop of Beauvais and of the inquisitor of the faith, together with that of the registrar. Recherches sur la France, col. 536.\nParis, which have not passed without many hands before entering the repositories where they are placed. They shall be described presently, at the same time as the numerous copies which have been taken from them.\nOf the Edition of the Trial # The knowledge of the condemnation trial transpired only very late in the public; for though Étienne Pasquier and other authors of his century gave summaries of it (1), the books containing those summaries were of those which had for readers only professional erudites. In vain Edmond Richer offered gratuitously his time and his pains to whomsoever would take upon himself the expense of an edition (2); nobody answered this generous appeal, and the capital monument of Joan\u0026rsquo;s history continued to defray only the lucubrations of some obscure compilers. The first notice which penetrated into the world is that which accompanies the Histoire de Jeanne Darc, vierge, héroïne et martyre d\u0026rsquo;État, by the abbé Lenglet Dufresnoy (3). Encouraged by the success of his book, the author proposed to give a second edition of it in a larger format, in which he would have joined to his summary the text of the principal pieces of the judgment (4); death prevented him from following up his design. The excellent analysis of M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy, which the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres caused to be printed in 1790 in its collection of notices and extracts of manuscripts, caused Lenglet Dufresnoy to be forgotten at the same time as it taught historians to make use of the originals. Only a complete edition could be preferred to that conscientious work, and the edition has been kept waiting until the moment when the Society of the History of France was pleased to cover its costs.\n(1) For example, the editor of the Description du pays et duché de Normandie, 8vo, printed at Rouen in 1581, by Martin le Mégissier, a work followed by an appendix entitled: Here follows the book of the Maid, native of Lorraine, who restored France into the hands of the king, together with the judgment and how she was burned at the Old Market at Rouen. This appendix gives only the first three sessions of the trial. — Jean Hordal, in his book entitled: Heroinae nobilissimae Joannae Darc Lotharingae, vulgo Aurelianensis puellae, historia, 4to, Pont-à-Mousson, 1612. — The editions of the Journal du siège d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, since the second, printed at Orléans in 1606 by Olivier Boynard, 8vo. — Jean Masson, author of the Histoire mémorable de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, appelée la Pucelle, extraite du procès de sa condamnation et des dépositions des témoins ouïs pour sa justification en 1445. Paris, 1612, 8vo. — Symphorien Guyon, in his Histoire de l\u0026rsquo;église et de la ville d\u0026rsquo;Orléans. What concerns Joan of Arc was printed separately at Orléans in 1654, under the title of La Parthénie orléanoise. — Père Ignace (Jacques Samson) in his Histoire généalogique des comtes de Ponthieu et maieurs d\u0026rsquo;Abbeville, fol. 1657, etc., etc.\n(2) Truly, it is to be desired that, to preserve these original pieces, I mean the trial and the revision thereof, someone would cause a hundred or six score copies to be printed in a fair character, to put them in divers libraries, in order to preserve and transmit them faithfully to posterity; for otherwise they will be lost by injury of time. As for me, I would willingly offer my pains and my labour to review and confer the copies and impressions upon the originals. Histoire de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc, Advertissement au lecteur, manuscript Fontanieu, p. 285, at the Bibl. Nat.\n(3) Three vols. 8vo. Orléans and Paris, 1753 and 1754.\n(4) The prospectus of that new edition, which was to appear with Guillyn and Pissot, was issued in 1754. It forms a half-sheet 4to.\nA few words on the disposition of our text.\nCare has been taken that the edition should reproduce the manuscripts faithfully, not servilely. These manuscripts, like all old public acts, present to the eye neither divisions nor paragraphs. The text runs therein without interruption from the protocol to the signatures at the end. A book so made would have rebuffed readers. There have been disengaged from the narrative, to set them in smaller type, the titles which precede the insertions. Moreover, as marginal headlines were written from the origin by the registrars themselves, to mark out further the successive periods of the procedure, which mere items separate in the instrument, we have made of these headlines so many paragraph-heads, printed in the same character as the titles above.\nEvery time it has been necessary, for greater clearness or for greater method, either to amplify the manuscripts\u0026rsquo; headlines or to introduce new ones, these additions have been put between brackets, so that it may be seen at once that they belong to the editor. Independently of the secondary divisions, which have been multiplied as much as possible, the four great periods of the cause have been separated under four different heads.\nThe first, which we call exposition and preliminaries (causa expositio et praeparatoria), contains the protocol of the act and all the formalities which would today constitute the preliminary inquiry.\nThe second, which we entitle primum judicium, after the authority of the rehabilitation trial, presents the whole deduction of the cause from the moment when the promoter takes charge of the prosecutions, to that when the Maid abjures. It is indeed in effect the first judgment, the heresy trial properly so called, after which comes the relapse trial, causa relapsus; consequently secundum judicium. This second judgment forms the object of the third part.\nIn the fourth part are placed the extrajudicial acts accomplished after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, quaedam acta posterius.\nThe text of the authentic expeditions having been carefully collated by the registrars is found conformable in all the manuscripts. I have had no other pains than to modify therein the barbarous orthography of the Latin. I have religiously respected that of the texts in French.\nGenerally I do not believe I have been mistaken in the reading of proper names. Nevertheless, that of the vice-inquisitor of France, read Martinus Billormi (1), might just as well be Martinus Billorini; and that of a counsellor called Nicolaus de Venderes, which I have spelt Vendéres, must have the accent on the last syllable: Venderés, or Venderez (2). The denomination of seigneur de l\u0026rsquo;Ours applied in French to a maître d\u0026rsquo;hôtel of Paris (3), and which I had signalled as an error of the registry, has since justified itself to me by several analogous examples proving that in the fifteenth century the usage was to call seigneurs the masters of the great hostelries of Paris (4).\n(1) Vol. II, p. 88.\n(2) I owe this rectification to M. Chéruel, professor of history at Rouen.\n(3) Vol. I, p. 158.\n(4) Colin, seigneur du Boisseau at the Porte du Temple, in the Histoire de Charles VI by Jouvenel des Ursins, at the year 1415. The seigneur de l\u0026rsquo;Ours himself is named in the Journal de Paris at the year 1412; in Monstrelet, in 1417, vol. I, ch. 162; in the romance of Petit Jehan de Saintré.\nI have explained above (5) for what reason, instead of giving the French minute all at a stretch, I have disseminated its paragraphs under the corresponding parts of the definitive redaction. The distinction of the two texts is sufficiently established by the difference of the type assigned to the one and the other. Each fragment of the minute moreover bears with it the indication of the place it occupies in the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript.\n(5) See p. 386.\nDescription of the Manuscripts of the Trial # 1. Library of the Assemblée nationale. — Register on vellum, small square folio of 32 centimetres by 265 millimetres, composed of 120 leaves, covered in stout parchment, marked B 105 g, tome 570. Copy issued from the registry, the only one on vellum that is known. At the top of the first page, in Gothic capitals: In nomine Domini amen. Incipit processus in causa fidei contra quondam quamdam mulierem Johannam vulgariter dictam la Pucelle [In the name of the Lord, amen. Here begins the trial in the cause of the faith against a certain woman formerly called Joan, vulgarly named the Maid]; then the text on the line: Universis presentes, etc. At the bottom of the same page: Ego vero Guillermus Colles alias Boscguillaume, etc., etc., affirmo collacionem presentis processus centum et undecim folia continentis debite fuisse factam cum registro originali presentis cause, idcirco, etc. (1). The attestation records only one hundred and eleven leaves because it is at the 111th that the cause ends, the nine other leaves being occupied by the appendices of which enough has been said above. It is again Boisguillaume who initialled the bottom of all the leaves legalised by the formula affirmo ut supra. Finally, on the verso of leaf 111 are the autograph attestations of Boisguillaume, Manchon and Taquel, with the vestiges of two red-wax seals applied below. The imprints are of elongated form; that of Cauchon\u0026rsquo;s seal, much larger than the other, has preserved of its legend the word belva(censis) [of Beauvais].\n(1) See the rest of the formula, vol. I, p. 4.\nThis manuscript must be one of the three that Manchon says he executed, probably the one destined for the king of England. From 1450 it was employed for the preliminaries of the rehabilitation. This is seen by the justificatory memoir of Guillaume Bouillé, where one reads at the beginning of the discussion on article 1: mulier ipsa erat… aetatis decem novem annorum vel eocirca, ut ipsa asseruit in prima sessione, folio processus pergamenei xij [the woman herself was… of the age of nineteen years or thereabouts, as she asserted in the first session, leaf xii of the parchment trial] (2). Now this answer of Joan\u0026rsquo;s is in fact found at fol. 12 of the manuscript of the Assemblée nationale, which is indeed a processus pergameneus [parchment trial].\n(2) Bibl. Nat., manuscript 5970, fol. 162 recto.\nI suppose that the same volume was deposited from the origin at the Parliament of Paris. I have been able to ascertain that it formed part of the registers of that court in the middle of the sixteenth century; for Lenain\u0026rsquo;s table of the Parliament\u0026rsquo;s archives offers this indication: Trial of the Maid in 1430 and 1431… in tome 251 entire; and on the inside of the parchment which forms the cover of our manuscript, one reads in a registry hand with a flourish at the end: Criminal trial, two hundred and fifty-one.\nIn 1753, the Parliament\u0026rsquo;s manuscript had become the property of one of the presidents of that court, M. de Cotte, who permitted Lenglet Dufresnoy to collate its text with that of the king\u0026rsquo;s manuscripts (1). It entered with the other manuscripts of M. de Cotte into the Library of the present Chamber of Representatives, formerly of the Deputies.\n(1) Histoire de Jeanne Darc, preface, p. xxv.\nSignalised in the Bibliothèque historique de la France revised by Fontette, vol. II, no. 17204.\n2. Bibliothèque Nationale, no. 5965 Latin. — Volume on paper, small folio (0.29 cent. by 0.213) of 169 leaves, bound in brown calf with bands, and the label struck in gold on the back: PROCESS. JANAE PUELLAE.\nAuthentic expedition, attested at the bottom of the first page by Boisguillaume, initialled by the same at the recto of each leaf, signed Boisguillaume, Manchon and Taquel at fol. 158, which makes the attestation formula bear only upon 158 leaves (septies viginti et octodecim, seven-score and eighteen). On the same leaf 158 verso, under the registrars\u0026rsquo; signatures, are perceived the traces of two seals formerly applied in red wax.\nAt the top of the first page, without the invocation of the protocol: Universis presentes litteras, etc.\nFormerly marked Codex Colbertinus 1642, regius 9675.\nDescribed by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy.\nNumerous scratchings prove that this copy was carefully collated. It is of it that principal use has been made to establish the text of the edition.\n3. Same repository, no. 5966 Latin. — Volume on paper, small folio (0.285 millim. by 0.215), of 220 leaves, in boards covered with a green skin.\nAuthentic expedition, attested, initialled and signed like the preceding. The legalisation is at the 206th leaf, consequently the trial indicated in the formulas as containing 206 leaves.\nAt the top of the first page, in moulded Gothic, the invocation: In nomine Domini, amen. Incipit processus, etc. Then the text in cursive.\nFormerly marked Cl. Puteani 9675. It comes then from Du Puy, and from that time it is the same that Edmond Richer used, who speaks of it in his Histoire de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arc as of a sealed original (1). For original it is; as for the seals, they have fallen, but their place is still visible.\n(1) In his Advertissement au lecteur, p. 285, Fontanieu.\nDescribed by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy.\n4. Same repository, no. 5967 Latin. — Volume on paper, small folio of 267 numbered leaves; in boards and covered in parchment with the title on the back: Procez de la Pucelle d\u0026rsquo;Orléans. Informal copy in cursive of the time of Charles VII. On the flyleaf preceding the first numbered leaf, there is traced in moulded Gothic, after the manner of a half-title, the inscription: Processus cujusdam mulieris que Johanna la Pucelle fuit nuncupata [Trial of a certain woman who was named Joan the Maid]; and at the top of the following leaf: Universis presentes, etc.\nThe final attestations of the registrars have not been transcribed. On three unnumbered leaves which follow the writings of the trial is an index in the same hand, thus entitled: Tabula ad inveniendum omnes et singulas annotationes in hujus libri marginibus contentas [Table for finding all and singular the annotations contained in the margins of this book].\nFormerly marked Baluz. 265, then Regius 9675.\nDescribed by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy.\n5. Same repository, no. 5968 Latin. — Volume on paper, small folio, modern half-binding, back in red morocco with the cipher of Louis-Philippe; Gothic cursive writing of the beginning of the sixteenth century; informal copy executed after the original containing septies viginti et octodecim folia, which is manuscript no. 2, described above.\nBegan on the first leaf without the invocation; Baluze added it in his hand: In nomine Domini, amen. Incipit processus, etc.\nFormerly marked at the bottom of the first page e musaeo… the rest erased; signed at the end Jac. Aug. Thuanus; lastly Cod. Colbert. 1316.\nDescribed by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy.\n6. Same repository, no. 5969 Latin. — Volume on paper, small folio. Modern half-binding like that of no. 5968. Flowing Gothic writing of the end of the fifteenth century; copy executed upon the original of one hundred and eleven leaves, which is that of the Assemblée nationale.\nBegins on the first page: In nomine Domini, etc., complete protocol. The initial U of Universis presentes litteras, etc., is a large ornamental letter in which is executed a little subject in miniature. It was meant to represent a scene of the trial. Joan in woman\u0026rsquo;s costume is standing before a doctor seated in a chair.\nAt the end of the transcription: Finis omnium rerum optimus. Labor improbus omnia vincit [The end of all things is best. Persistent labour conquers all things].\nFormerly marked on the first flyleaf: Codex D. Antonii Faure, 56. And since, Regius 9675.\nDescribed by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy.\n7. Same repository, d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript. — The description of this manuscript will be given with that of the rehabilitation texts. Let it suffice here to indicate what it contains on the condemnation.\nFrom the fol. marked 1 to the bottom of the verso fol. 16 is a transcription of the trial, in flowing Gothic, of the time of Louis XII, which transcription ends in the interrogatory of 3 March with the words respondit quod ego non deponerem sine licencia Dei [she answered that she would not lay it down without God\u0026rsquo;s leave], then in headline: item dit; and these two words begin at the top of the following page (fol. 17 recto) the continuation of the interrogatories in French, with all the copy of the minute to the end of the cause. This copy is in a very fine Gothic hand of the time of Charles VII; it goes as far as the recto of fol. 34. On the verso of that leaf and in the same writing: In nomine Domini amen incipit processus, etc. It is the invocation which precedes the protocol in the instrument of the trial. After this invocation, the following attestation of Manchon, which exists in none of the known originals:\nI, Guillaume Manchon, priest, of the diocese of Rouen, public notary sworn by apostolic and imperial authority and of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, and scribe in the present cause with the notaries signed at the end of the present trial, affirm the collation of this trial with the original register of the said cause to have been duly made. Wherefore I have signed each leaf with my own hand and have subscribed myself at the end with the said notaries.\nAnd immediately after this formula, a new and complete copy of the trial, executed always in the same hand contemporary with Charles VII. Finally, from fol. 96 verso to fol. 100 verso, the transcription of the instrument of the sentence announced by this title: Deinde sequitur tenor sentencie seu sentenciarum contra eamdem Johannam late seu latarum [Then follows the tenor of the sentence or sentences pronounced against the same Joan] (1).\n(1) See below, p. 410.\nHave recourse for ampler information, and notably for what concerns the French minute, to the preliminary Notice of the rehabilitation pieces.\nSignalised by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy.\n8. Same repository, Saint-Victor manuscript, no. 285. — Bulky volume, large 4to of paper intermixed with parchment, 572 leaves, tawny calf binding, flowing cursive writing of the time of Charles VII.\nBesides the copy of the condemnation trial executed after the original of 111 leaves (manuscript of the Assemblée nationale), this volume contains the text of the Journal du siège d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, which we reproduce in our fourth volume, as well as a copy of the rehabilitation trial. These divers matters are indicated at length in a table written at the head of the volume in a contemporary hand. Here is how this table explains itself with regard to the two first articles:\nWhat follows is here contained: A compendium of certain deeds done in the realm of France in the times of Charles the Seventh, king of the Franks; and first, in French, the siege of the city of Orléans made by the English in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred and twenty-eight, in the month of October, the Earl of Salisbury acting in this, lieutenant of Henry king of the English in the realm of France, duke and first mover of his whole army. Item, the coming of Joan the Maid and the cause of her coming into France. Item, the marvellous victory of the said Joan, how, to wit, dissolving the siege of the Orléanais, the enemies being slain, she freed the town from the English, and potently led Charles the Seventh, king of the Franks, to Reims to be anointed with the sacred unction after the manner of his predecessors, and restored to the power of the Franks many towns and places invaded and seized by the English, by wondrous valour of arms, or rather, as is worthy to believe, divine providence and special grace concurring. From fol. 3 to 70.\nItem, the trial in the cause of the faith… in the city of Rouen under Lord Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, Brother Jean Magistri, sub-inquisitor of the faith, assisting him in the said trial, against the abovesaid Joan the Maid, lately taken by Jean de Luxembourg at Compiègne and sold to the English. Which Maid the English, in hatred of the French name, not only put to death as an enemy, but, as a sorceress and heretic, caused to be suffocated in a cruel and horrid fire at Rouen, in the year of the Lord 1431, in the month of May; which it is known the English did to the ignominy of the Franks, chiefly, to wit, to show that the king of the Franks, whom all call by the special title of most Christian, had strayed from the Catholic faith, and therefore to acclaim him unworthy of the realm, forasmuch as the said king had received the Maid, whom they judged a sorceress, and had given credence to her words. From fol. 72 to 342.\nSee the rest among the notices of the rehabilitation manuscripts.\nAfter the table, on the verso of the first leaf:\nThis book belongs to Saint-Victor of Paris, which brother Nicaise de l\u0026rsquo;Orme, abbot of this church, caused to be made. Whosoever shall steal it, or conceal it, or efface this title, let him be anathema.\nThus the Saint-Victor manuscript was executed by the care of Nicaise de l\u0026rsquo;Orme, who was abbot of the said house of Saint-Victor from 1488 to 1516. The note above, ill interpreted, made it believed that Nicaise de l\u0026rsquo;Orme had executed the manuscript with his hand. Père Thoulouze, chamberlain of Saint-Victor, reported it so to Edmond Richer (1), and made the facts precise, to the point of explaining to him how Nicasiùs de Ulmo had undertaken this work in 1472, while he was prior of a house of their order called Bussy, six leagues from Orléans. But fecit fieri [caused to be made] is not fecit [made], and neither is there any likelihood that the originals of the trials, on which the Saint-Victor manuscript was made, ever quitted Paris.\n(1) Manuscript history of the Maid at the Bibl. Nat., ms. Fontanieu, p. 285.\nIn spite of the absence of all character of authenticity, this book enjoyed from the origin an extreme celebrity. It had the advantage of being more than the others within reach of men of letters. In Nicaise de l\u0026rsquo;Orme\u0026rsquo;s own lifetime, it was lent to the author of a Latin poem on the Maid, Valeran de Varanis, who thanked the abbot of Saint-Victor in verses which will be found reported above (2). Many copies were taken of it in the sixteenth century. It served under Louis XII to complete the text of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript. Étienne Pasquier cites it again as having begun there his instruction on Joan of Arc (3). Finally, not to speak of all those who made use of it in times nearer to ours (4), it has been described by Lenglet-Dufresnoy (5) and De l\u0026rsquo;Averdy (6).\n(2) Page 89.\n(3) See above, p. 388, note 7.\n(4) Below, pp. 405, 417, and in the preliminary Notice of the rehabilitation pieces.\n(5) Hist. de Jeanne Darc, part II, p. 193.\n(6) Notices des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 176 and 184.\nThe Saint-Victor manuscript was originally marked LLCI; it bore no. 29 in the seventeenth century, no. 417 in the sixteenth. Since its entry into the Bibliothèque Nationale, it is the 285th of the fund to which it belongs.\n9. Same repository, Brienne manuscript, no. 180. — One vol. folio, middling, on paper, gilt on the edges, bound in red calf with the arms of Loménie de Brienne on the boards, and entitled on the back: Criminal trial of the Maid Joan.\nRegistry copy after the original of seven-score eighteen leaves (ms. no. 5965 of the Bibliothèque nationale), in bastard writing of the seventeenth century, thus attested on the first flyleaf: Initialled by us, counsellors of the king in his court of Parliament, commissioners in this part, according to our procès-verbal of the fifteenth of January one thousand six hundred and fifty-two. Signed, P. Petiau and Pithou.\nAfter five blank leaves, one reads in half-title: Criminal trial made of Joan of Arc of Vaucouleurs, vulgarly called the Maid, in the years 1430 and 1431.\nThree other blank leaves lead to the instrument, which begins at a recto numbered 1: In nomine Domini, amen. Incipit, etc. It ends at the bottom of the verso of fol. numbered 445, which is in reality only the 325th, inasmuch as by a double error of pagination the scribe skipped from 209 to 230, then from 232 to 333.\nSignalised by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy.\n10. Same repository, Sérilly manuscript, no. 180. — One vol. folio on paper, bound in marbled calf, fillets, bands, and on the back the title: Criminal trial of the Maid of Orléans.\nTextual copy of the Brienne manuscript which precedes.\n11. Same repository, Saint-Germain Harlay fund, no. 51. — Volume folio on paper, bound in sheepskin with the arms of Harlay on the boards; formerly marked 333. Registry writing of the seventeenth century.\nInformal copy, after the original of 111 leaves (manuscript of the Assemblée nationale). It begins with the invocation In nomine Domini, etc.\n12. Same repository, Supplément français, no. 350a. — Volume on paper, middling folio format, modern Bradel boards, 196 leaves in divers hands. The first 127, in flattened Gothic of the end of the fifteenth century, contain the copy of the condemnation trial after an original which would appear to have lacked the annexes ordinarily transcribed after the notaries\u0026rsquo; attestations. The attestations themselves were omitted by the author of the manuscript. A later note, of at least twenty years after, has supplied them in these terms: Post hoc inseruntur affirmationes notariorum, nempe Guillermi Colles, etc., etc., qui predictam collationem cum originali registro debite factam asserunt [After this are inserted the affirmations of the notaries, namely of Guillaume Colles, etc., etc., who assert the aforesaid collation with the original register to have been duly made].\nThere is at fol. 1 a half-title: Processus in causa fidei contra, etc., and beneath, in the same hand to which the annotation relative to the registrars is due: Le Procès de la Pucelle de France, 1501; finally these words in a very old German writing: mein gnadygsten herren und gut.\nSigned on the two first leaves by divers possessors, in this chronological order: 1° Hic liber est Egidii Perrini offic. de… Gerrici; 2° J. Favier; 3° Claudius du Han.\nGilles Perrin and Claude du Han will be spoken of again in the notice of the rehabilitation texts, where the manuscript 350a of the Supplément français will again figure.\n13. Same repository, Suppl. fr. no. 350b. — Volume on paper, middling folio, modern half-binding, back in red morocco with the cipher of Louis-Philippe. 314 leaves, in a round and fine cursive writing, of about the year 1600.\nThe copy of the condemnation trial occupies the first 174 leaves. It has been corrected and augmented, as much after the preceding manuscript as after the original of 111 leaves (ms. of the Assemblée nationale). What proves it is a transcription of the final attestations set on the first flyleaf of the manuscript, in another hand than the text, and with this headline: What follows must be added at the end of the leaf numbered hereafter 170, as having been since found in other copies of the said trial. And moreover at fol. 170 one reads this other addition: In the original signed du Han, which I have, is written what follows: Post hoc inseruntur affirmationes, etc.\nFrom fol. 170 to 174 are the annexes of the trial, terminated by this explicit: Hactenus quae ad Johannae processum attinent [So far what pertains to Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial].\nReturn will be made to the same manuscript apropos of the rehabilitation texts.\n14. Same repository, Supplément latin, no. 952. — Two volumes on paper, large folio, brown calf binding. Writing of the end of the seventeenth century.\nThe copy of the condemnation trial occupies the second tome, composed of 337 leaves. It was made upon the original of seven-score eighteen leaves (no. 5965 of the Bibliothèque nationale).\nHalf-title: Criminal trial made of Joan of Arc called the Maid of Orléans, in the year 1456. Second volume.\nOn fol. 1: In nomine Domini, amen. Incipit processus, etc.\nSee, for the first volume, the description of the rehabilitation texts.\n15. Same repository, Suppl. fr., no. 350c. — Volume on paper, folio, bound in marbled calf, entitled on the back: Proces de Jeanne d\u0026rsquo;Arcq vulgairement (sic) dite la Pucelle. Chancery writing of the seventeenth century.\nThis is not a copy, but a French translation of the condemnation trial. It swarms with mistranslations. It was made after the original containing septies viginti et octodecim folia (ms. 5965 of the Bibliothèque nationale), which has been rendered by twenty-seven to twenty-eight leaves.\nOn the first page: In the name of the Lord, amen. Commencement of the trial undertaken for reason of faith against a woman named Joan, vulgarly called the Maid.\n16. Library of the town of Paris, manuscript 183. — Volume on paper, folio; sheepskin binding; 454 leaves. Registry writing of the seventeenth century.\nInformal copy after the original of seven-score eighteen leaves (ms. 5965 of the Bibliothèque nationale). In half-title: Criminal trial made of the Maid of Orléans in 1430. The text begins at the recto of fol. 2: Incipit processus, etc.\nFirst marked 3 255 and mentioned under that number by Haenel. It comes from the old Châtelet.\n17. Vatican library, Christine fund, no. 948. — Volume on paper, small folio, 179 leaves, of which the first 24 are damaged by damp. Writing of the end of the fifteenth century.\nInformal copy, designated in the catalogue by the title: Johannae (Aurelianensis) examen fidei acta in ejus causa exhibens gallice [Joan of Orléans\u0026rsquo;s examination of faith, acts exhibited in her cause in French]. It begins with a slight modification in the protocol: In nomine Domini, amen. Examen fidei contra quamdam mulierem vulgariter dictam la Pucelle. Nos, Petrus, etc.\nAt the end of the transcription, on the last leaf, is seen an escutcheon surmounted by a crosier, quartered with a lion and another simple quartering of metal and enamel. Ignore the colours.\nMarked Alex. Petavius anno 1647.\n18. Library of Geneva, French manuscript no. 86. — Volume folio on paper, covered with parchment; 176 leaves in two columns of 37 lines; flattened Gothic writing of the time of Louis XII. The first letters of each paragraph are coarsely coloured in red or yellow; a large illuminated initial serves to distinguish each of the parts of the manuscript, which are three in number, to wit: 1° the Journal du siège d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, of which Senebier gave the title at length in his Catalogue des manuscrits de Genève (p. 360); 2° the copy of the condemnation trial after the original of 111 leaves (ms. of the Assemblée nationale); 3° the incomplete copy of the rehabilitation trial, ended by a reference to the Saint-Victor manuscript: Require residuum in bibliotheca Sancti Victoris Parisiensis [Seek the remainder in the library of Saint-Victor of Paris]. The Geneva manuscript is in effect a copy of that which the abbot Nicaise de l\u0026rsquo;Orme caused to be executed (above, no. 8). Perhaps it is the same as that of which Fontette meant to speak in a manuscript note found in the thirty-seventh portfolio (no. 16 ter) of his papers at the Bibliothèque nationale. Here is that note: M. de Peiresc said he had seen among the manuscripts of the library of Henri du Bouchet, counsellor in the Parliament of Paris, a collection of all that had been done for and against the Maid of Orléans, when her trial was made, and that this collection had been made by order of the abbot of Saint-Victor of that time.\nBe that as it may, the manuscript in question comes from France, and it was still there in the last century, since it is J.-J. Rousseau who gave it to the Republic of Geneva. There is still to be read on the flyleaf of the volume the autograph ex dono of that illustrious writer: For the Library of Geneva on behalf of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, citizen.\nThe condemnation trial begins at fol. 27: In nomine Domini, amen. Incipit processus, etc. It is complete, occupies 101 leaves, and ends with the initialled signature of the copyist, named Roussel.\nThis description will be completed in the notice of the rehabilitation texts.\n19. Manuscript of M. Laurent. — Volume 4to, of 115 leaves of paper and parchment intermixed, originally bound in wood with a covering of red leather.\nAuthentic expedition delivered in 1475 by Jean Patarin and Hector Touchet, church notaries at Orléans, after a parchment original which was initialled by Boisguillaume on each leaf, and signed at the end by the three registrars.\nIn 1787, M. Laurent, director of the Twentieth tax at Orléans, possessed this manuscript, of which he sent the notice to M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy (1). He died shortly after, at the very beginning of the Revolution, and his library was sold; but at the moment of the sale, the manuscript in question had already been abstracted, and all the researches made in this century have not been able to recover its trace.\n(1) Notices des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 220.\nHere are the terms of the attestation by which it ended:\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. By the tenor of this present public instrument, let it be patent and known to all, that in the year of the same Lord 1475, in the ninth indiction, on the … day of the month of November, in the fifth year of the pontificate of the most holy father in Christ and our lord, the lord Sixtus, by divine providence pope the fourth, in my presence, the notary underwritten… we read and read over the present codex containing one hundred and fifteen little leaves of paper and parchment, bound within two boards, covered with red leather, together with a certain other parchment codex, which is written at length in this one, containing the holy trial made by the lord Pierre, formerly Bishop of Beauvais, and the holy inquisitor of the faith, against Joan, formerly called the Maid, signed on every leaf with the manual sign of the lord Guillaume Boisguillaume, and on the last leaf with the signs and subscriptions of the aforesaid same Boisguillaume, of the lords Guillaume Manchon and Nicolas Taquel, public notaries of the court of Rouen, and furnished with two seals affixed to the same aforesaid last leaf in red wax; for many days, and finally on the day aforesaid we collated it, finishing the work; and because we found them to agree in all things and through all things, wherefore we thought good to set our manual signs on each of the said leaves and on the last our authentic and public signs, in testimony of truth. These things were done at Orléans, in Villeneuve, by us and under the year, indiction, month, day and pontificate aforesaid.\nAnd because I, Jean Patarin, clerk of the diocese of Poitiers, master in arts and bachelor in decrees, public notary sworn by apostolic and imperial authority and of the episcopal courts of Orléans and Poitiers, have duly collated this present book or codex, together with the notary underwritten, with another authentic volume signed with the public signs of three public notaries, more amply described in the present instrument, word for word, and found them to agree mutually; wherefore each leaf, with the underwritten notary, I signed with my manual sign, and for the greater strength of truth I have set my public and accustomed seal on this present instrument, written with my hand, together with the aforesaid notary, subscribing myself here with the same hand, required and requested.\nAnd because I, Hector Touchet, clerk of the diocese of Chartres, licensed bachelor in laws, public notary sworn by apostolic and imperial authority and of the court of Orléans, have duly collated this present book or codex, together with the notary above-written, with another authentic volume signed with the public signs of three public notaries, more amply described in the present instrument, word for word, with the notary above-written, and found them to agree mutually; wherefore each leaf, with the above-written notary, I signed with my manual sign, and for the greater strength of truth, I have set my public and accustomed sign on this present public instrument, faithfully written by the hand of the notary above-written, together with him, subscribing myself here with my own hand, required and requested.\nIt is to be noted that M. Laurent\u0026rsquo;s manuscript did not contain the pieces posterior to the condemnation. M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy concluded from this that they were wanting in the original copied by the Orléans notaries. Nothing proves this; it was enough that those notaries should see the absence of legalisation to abstain from copying the annexes of the trial.\n20. Former library of Rosny, manuscript no. 2363. — Volume on paper, folio, composed of 158 leaves, bound in skin.\nBegins: Processus in causa fidei contra quondam quamdam mulierem Johannam dictam la Pucelle; ends with the French verses that Martial d\u0026rsquo;Auvergne consecrated to Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s history in the Vigiles de Charles VII.\nMarked at the beginning and at the end with Pithou\u0026rsquo;s signature.\nAll this information is taken from the Catalogue which was published in 1837, when the collection formed at Rosny at the expense of the Duchess of Berry was sold. I do not know who was the purchaser of no. 2363.\n21. Meerman manuscripts at The Hague. — A manuscript of the condemnation trial, which existed in the library of the Jesuits\u0026rsquo; College of Paris (Louis-le-Grand), was signalised by Père Lelong. At the suppression of the order, the celebrated Gerard Meerman, who was at Paris, acquired the College\u0026rsquo;s manuscripts and carried them into Holland. Count Jean Meerman, his son, bequeathed them by testament to the town of The Hague. They have been public property since 1815. That of the trial must still form part of them, and it is certainly with its aid that were composed the memoirs on the Maid found among Jean Meerman\u0026rsquo;s papers (1).\n(1) Biographie universelle, art. Meerman.\n22. Library of Bennet\u0026rsquo;s College, Cambridge. — Lenglet Dufresnoy signalised, in his history of Joan of Arc (1), a manuscript of this library entitled: Processus contra Joannam dictam la Puzil. The mere form of this last word indicates a copy executed in the fifteenth or sixteenth century by an Englishman.\n(1) Third part, p. 294.\n23. Divers manuscripts signalised by authors. — I have spoken of the one that Étienne Pasquier says he saw in the library of the great King Francis at Fontainebleau (2).\n(2) Above, p. 388.\nM. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy cites moreover two modern copies which existed in his time, one in the possession of M. de Flandres de Brunville, the king\u0026rsquo;s procurator; the other in the library of M. de Saint-Genis, auditor of accounts. They were both of folio format. The first came from the collection of President Duret de Meinières; the second formed part of the books formerly collected by Charles du Lys, advocate-general of the Cour des Aides, descendant of the youngest brother of the Maid. Perhaps these two volumes are among those we have described as classed in the Supplements of the Bibliothèque nationale.\nWe shall say as much of another copy of which Lenglet Dufresnoy speaks in these terms: Processus condemnationis Johannae darc dictae la Pucelle, large volume folio, of the fifteenth century, in bibliotheca regia; among the new acquisitions and which must one day be inserted in the supplement of the printed Catalogue of that immense library (3).\n(3) Histoire de Jeanne Darc, part II, p. 188.\nFinally, President Bouhier possessed a copy of the condemnation trial, marked A. 22, and signalised by Fontette\u0026rsquo;s extract as a recent copy after the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript (1). Though Haenel collected at Dijon that this manuscript had been transported to Paris with part of Bouhier\u0026rsquo;s books, it never entered the Bibliothèque nationale.\n(1) Bibliothèque historique de la France, vol. II, no. 17208.\nOf the Instrument of the Sentence # This piece, of which no author has yet spoken, must have its mention in the present notice, though it does not form part of our first volume. It was left in the rehabilitation trial, where it is found as having been produced at that trial (2). One of Manchon\u0026rsquo;s interrogatories (3) elucidates the manner in which it was executed. There and everywhere it is mentioned, it is called instrumentum sententiae. It consists of a summary notice of the trial, delivered in the form of letters patent, with integral reproduction of the twelve articles, of the formula of abjuration and of the two sentences. At the end are the attestations of the three registrars and the announcement of the judges\u0026rsquo; seal. Thus the instrument of the sentence was clothed with all the characters of authenticity, and destined to be worth as much as the complete expeditions of the trial. On account of the advantage found in it, a certain number of copies must have been expedited. It is singular that the existence of none has been signalised until now.\n(2) See vol. III, p. 377.\n(3) Ibid., p. 145.\nOf the Abridgement or Summary of the Trial # This is the Latin instrument transformed into a historical narrative, from which the acts of the tribunal and other inserted pieces have been suppressed. This work was made at the moment of the rehabilitation for the convenience of the persons consulted. Its author is Theodore de Leliis, judge at the tribunal of the Rota. I say what there is to be said of it in the Notice of the rehabilitation pieces, ch. I, art. 2.\nOf an Old Translation of the Trial # Louis XII, at the suggestion of Admiral Louis de Graville, willed that the Maid\u0026rsquo;s two trials should be put into French. The execution of this thought gave birth to a work which has come down to us. It is less a translation than an abridged compilation. It is spoken of here because the manner in which Joan\u0026rsquo;s interrogatories are rendered in it has been able, in these latter times, to make it believed that there was in it a complete text of the French minute, a text having over that of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript the advantage of presenting no lacuna. This opinion has been vulgarised by a memoir of M. Dubois, canon of Orléans, published first in M. Buchon\u0026rsquo;s Collection des chroniques nationales (1), reprinted in the Panthéon littéraire (2), adopted as to its conclusions in the new Collection of memoirs of MM. Michaud and Poujoulat (3). It is important to reduce it to its just value.\n(1) Vol. IX of Monstrelet, p. 191.\n(2) Volume of Matthieu de Coussy and of the Maid, Preliminaries, p. xxvij.\n(3) Vol. III, first series.\nLet it be known first that this work of Louis XII\u0026rsquo;s time exists in manuscript at the Orléans library (4); that it is also found melted into very old redactions of the chronicle of Normandy (5), whence it passed, not without undergoing great cuttings, into the edition published at Rouen in 1581 (6); that the Orléans manuscript itself, brought into contribution as early as 1606 to augment the second edition of the Journal du siège (7), has been printed (less what concerns the rehabilitation) in the two volumes of M. Buchon previously indicated.\n(4) No. 411, coming from the old chapter of the cathedral.\n(5) One, among others, compiled at the beginning of the reign of Francis I, no. 1488 of the Saint-Germain manuscripts, at the Bibl. Nat.\n(6) See above, p. 389, note 1, and our vol. IV, p. 254.\n(7) Printed by Boynard and Nyon.\nAs for maintaining that this work contains the minute of the condemnation trial, the idea is not new. It came, sixty years ago, to M. Dauteroche de Talsy, dean of the chapter of Orléans, who gave himself to a very minute examination of the manuscript in question, and was struck by the natural style of the interrogatories. Nevertheless, having conferred his French text with a copy of the Latin redaction, he ended by seeing in it no more than a sort of historical version arranged at the author\u0026rsquo;s fancy (1).\n(1) De l\u0026rsquo;Averdy, Notice des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 227.\nM. Dubois took up again, as an imprudent dialectician, the conjecture abandoned by M. Dauteroche. When he had at most the right to suspect that the Orléans manuscript contained something of the French minute, he pretended that the complete and correct text of that minute was only there; immolating, for the triumph of his opinion, the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, which he knew no more than any of the other originals of the trial.\nIn two words, here is what must be thought of this literary question.\nThe author employed by Louis XII himself gives to the first part of his work the title of Deduction of the trial, translated from Latin into French (2). A few lines before, he mentions two books in which is contained the trial of the condemnation of Joan, in which there are several diversities, especially in the interrogatories and in her answers. He therefore had in his hands two manuscripts of the condemnation trial, manuscripts offering between them differences, and of which one at least was in Latin, since he who speaks had to do the work of a translator.\n(2) See our vol. IV, p. 226.\nThat one of these two manuscripts contained the French minute can hardly be the object of a doubt; for in comparing the text of the Orléans manuscript printed by M. Buchon with the text of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, one remarks between the two an almost constant conformity. But must it thence be concluded that the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, which presents a great lacuna, is supplied by the Orléans manuscript which presents none? No; for the translator visibly lacked the original text of the interrogatories for all that precedes the audience of 3 March, so that the probabilities tend to establish that he did his work upon the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript itself, which was mutilated from the time of Louis XII as it is today (1).\n(1) See below, description of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, p. 449.\nThe fact I have just advanced calls for some demonstration.\nAs long as the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript\u0026rsquo;s lacuna lasts, the French translator does not put into the Maid\u0026rsquo;s answers that naturalness which M. Dauteroche had remarked, which seduced M. Dubois. He only makes the Latin phrase heavier, or even corrupts its sense.\nExample taken from the audience of 21 February (first interrogatory):\nThen we said (it is Pierre Cauchon who speaks) that we would willingly assign her one or two notable men of the French tongue, before whom she might say the Pater noster. To which the same Joan answered that she would not say it to them unless they heard her in confession.\nThis passage of the Latin redaction is thus rendered by the translator:\nAnd then the said bishop said: I will ordain you one or two notable personages of this company, to whom you shall say Pater noster and Ave Maria. To which she answered: I shall not say it unless they hear me in confession.\nOne or two notable personages of this company is a mistranslation, since de lingua gallicana means of the tongue of France, that is to say of the obedience of Charles VII.\nExample taken from the audience of 22 February (second interrogatory):\nAsked whether in her youth she learned any art: she said yes, to sew linen cloth and to spin, nor did she fear a Rouen woman in spinning and sewing.\nAsked if she had learned any art or trade: said yes, and that her mother had taught her to sew; and that she did not think there was a woman within Rouen who could teach her anything of it.\nArt or trade, hesitation of the translator; to sew does not render ad suendum pannos lineos [to sew linen cloths]; she did not think there was a woman, etc., a heavy paraphrase of non timebat mulierem Rothomagensem: she feared no woman of Rouen at spinning or sewing.\nSame audience:\nFurther she confessed that, for fear of the Burgundians, she withdrew from her father\u0026rsquo;s house and went to the town of Neufchâteau in Lorraine, to a certain woman surnamed La Rousse, where she stayed about fifteen days: adding further that while she was in her father\u0026rsquo;s house, she was occupied about the household business of the house, nor did she go to the fields with the sheep and other animals.\nSaid further that she had left her father\u0026rsquo;s house in part for fear of the Burgundians, and that she had gone to Neufchâteau with a woman named La Rousse, where she stayed for fifteen days; in which house she did the business of the said house, and went not to the fields to keep the sheep nor other beasts.\nHere are accumulated all the faults of a bad translation: mistranslation, omission, flatness; all so salient that it would be superfluous to demonstrate it.\nAfter these citations, the question would be emptied, were there not remaining a specious enough passage which M. Dubois cited as an irrefragable proof of the use of the French minute for the part wanting in the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript.\nThis passage is found again in the session of 22 February. Here it is as printed by M. Buchon:\nAsked who counselled her to take man\u0026rsquo;s habit. To which interrogation I have found in one book that her voices had commanded her to take man\u0026rsquo;s habit; and in the other I have found that, albeit she was several times interrogated on it, each time she made no answer save: I charge no man. And I have found in the said book that she several times varied in this interrogation.\nOf the two testimonies set in contradiction in this paragraph, the last is nothing else than the translation of the instrument of the trial:\nItem, required to say by whose counsel she took the manly habit: she several times refused to answer this. Finally she said that of this she laid the charge upon no man; and she varied several times.\nAs for the other answer, by which Joan would have acknowledged having taken the man\u0026rsquo;s habit to obey her voices, of what text should it be supposed drawn, if not of the French minute?\nSo reasons M. Dubois; but with more haste than rigour. The sequel of the trial, as it results at once from the Latin instrument and from the uncontested fragments of the French minute, proves a fact: it is that, harassed until the eve of her death to be reduced to owning that her change of costume had been imposed on her by her voices, Joan never ceased to keep herself covered under evasive answers. Would they have pressed her so long if, from the second day, she had made the avowal entered by the translator? From the moment the question returns and is always eluded, there is proof that there never was a positive answer. The consultors of the rehabilitation understood it so, and one of them gave himself to a luminous discussion to turn aside from Joan the suspicions that such a reserve might have raised against her good faith (1).\n(1) See the memoir of Theodore de Leliis, vol. II, p. 30.\nThus it is not the minute that the author of Louis XII\u0026rsquo;s time cited in opposition to the Latin instrument. It is another text of the trial, and we may add, an inexact text; and it remains finally established that the beginning of the Orléans manuscript does not supply what is wanting today, what was wanting from the time of Louis XII, to the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript.\nBut after the translator\u0026rsquo;s avowal reported above, that he made use only of two books, how arrive, for last conclusion, at pronouncing that he knew three texts, to wit: the truncated text of the minute, that of the Latin instrument, and that of another faulty manuscript? That is no difficulty. I have said that the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript contains at the same time as the truncated copy of the minute, that of the entire Latin instrument (2). Let us return to the supposition already made, that our author had that manuscript in his hands; let us join thereto another non-authentic copy of the instrument: behold the three texts forming but two books.\n(2) Above, p. 397.\nI go further still, and I affirm that the faulty copy which caused the translator\u0026rsquo;s perplexity on Joan\u0026rsquo;s taking of the habit, is the Saint-Victor manuscript (1).\n(1) Described above, no. 8.\nLet the procès-verbal of the session of 22 February be taken (2). Following the interrogation reported above, Item requisita ut diceret, etc., Joan is seen throwing herself into a long digression, then coming back to her costume, saying that she had had to change it, and that she well believed the counsel she had received of it. Dixit praeterea quod oportuerat eam mutare habitum suum in habitum virilem. Item etiam credit quod consilium bene sibi dixit [She said besides that she had had to change her habit into a man\u0026rsquo;s habit. Item, she also believes that the counsel spoke well to her].\n(2) Vol. I, p. 54.\nSo is conceived the authentic text. But the Saint-Victor manuscript (3), by an error of copying, presents the interpolation of suum between quod and consilium; now Joan often called her voices her counsel; the addition of the personal pronoun consequently restricts to that particular acceptation the sense of consilium, which in the answer as the originals attest it, is taken on the contrary in a general manner, to signify the counsel, whatsoever it was, which had suggested to the Maid to dress as a man.\n(3) Fol. 98 verso.\nOur author\u0026rsquo;s assertion can have no other source; for to suppose, as he gives to be understood, that he had under his eyes texts very different one from the other, his own work would have to present more facts in opposition with the facts known by the originals: now, his mistranslations apart, he showed disagreement between his two books only on the point just discussed. Which is to say that he stated the fact of the dissemblance of the texts not after his own criticism, but after the opinion common to his century, that the writings of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial had undergone numerous alterations.\nI have insisted on the Orléans manuscript so that persons who expect to find here all the documents of the trial may know why I have not admitted that one, and so that they may agree that it should not figure in an edition where it has been willed to gather only the sources. On this system, the same manuscript beginning with an historical preface which offers some original traits, I introduced fragments of that preface into my fourth volume (p. 256).\nNotice of the Pieces of the Rehabilitation # Chapter I. Preliminaries Not Inserted in the Trial # This class is that of the documents printed at the head of the second volume. There was put in it what remains of the works anterior to the apostolic rescript of 11 June 1455, whereby the revision of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s judgment was authorised, save however certain consultative memoirs composed at Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s request, and two inquiries made in 1452 by the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, which it was not possible to detach from the definitive redaction of the trial, where those pieces found their place.\nI. Informatio previa super iniquitate prioris processus [Preliminary inquiry upon the iniquity of the former trial] # I gave this title, for the uniformity of the publication, to the first piece which presents itself in chronological order. It is an inquiry ordained by Charles VII while the conquest of Normandy was being effected, at the beginning of the year 1450. Among many things re-said by most of the same witnesses in 1452 and in 1456, it offers some facts which were not afterwards set forth. It happens moreover that three persons, then examined, no longer figure in the later informations. The order to inform, as well as the witnesses\u0026rsquo; depositions, are in French, and in a French which is indeed that of the epoch to which the operation relates.\nThere existed in the last century two manuscripts of this precious document, both astray today. There remains to us only a truncated and faulty copy of one of them, preserved at the Arsenal library, whose condition is such that we should be reduced to considering the information of 1450 as lost, had not M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy had the happy idea of printing it integrally in his memoir (1). Account must nevertheless be taken of three depositions published before by Lenglet-Dufresnoy (2). Moreover, Edmond Richer had inserted in his manuscript history of Joan of Arc a copy of Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s mandate, which he had seen in the original, probably at the Trésor des Chartes (3).\n(1) Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 492.\n(2) Histoire de Jeanne Darc, part II, p. 61.\n(3) See our vol. II, p. 2, note 3.\nI have reproduced M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy\u0026rsquo;s edition; and as for the manuscripts, here are the notions I have been able to gather.\nSoubise manuscript. — The one used by Lenglet-Dufresnoy and M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy belonged to the library of the Cardinal de Rohan. It was a small, very wide folio volume, on vellum, bound in calf with gilt fillets. One of the boards of the binding no longer held in 1788; the parchment was worm-eaten. The only indication of ownership to be read in it were the words Bibliothecae Subisianae, written on the first and last leaves; but the first initial of the manuscript disclosed to a certain point its origin, by an escutcheon wherewith it was adorned, to wit: a lion azure lampassé gules on a field or, summounted by a chief gules. These arms would appear to have been a differencing of those of Grancey in Champagne.\nThe first twenty-one leaves were occupied by a summary of the condemnation trial, beginning, without any title, by a little historical introduction of which M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy preserved to us only two phrases in praise of Pierre de Brézé and of the Maid. He might, as will be seen further on, have cited other passages more instructive for establishing the age of the manuscript.\nThe abridgement of the trial had been made upon the Latin instrument, for the narrative was there put in the judges\u0026rsquo; mouth.\nThere came next (fol. 21 verso) a consultation visibly translated from the Latin; then at fol. 39 the letters patent of Charles VII for the information of 1450, and finally the depositions of the witnesses, which filled twenty leaves. What followed to the end of the manuscript was the copy of divers translations of Latin pieces which will be spoken of in their place (1).\n(1) Notices des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 189.\nM. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy attributed the Soubise manuscript to the reign of Charles VII, and Lenglet-Dufresnoy to the last years of the fifteenth century. It is proved in the following article that it could only have been executed at a fairly advanced epoch of the sixteenth century: which does not prevent the informations being a document of incontestable authenticity.\nArsenal manuscript. — This volume, which belonged to the Marquis de Paulmy, was signalised for the first time by Fevret de Fontette, who says he had a copy taken of it (2). It is marked: Jurisprudence française no. 144. It is a 4to on paper in a bad eighteenth-century hand, with this indication: ex musaeo du Tillet, anno 1716. The title is thus conceived: Trial of Joan of Arc, Maid of Orléans, taken from a manuscript given to M. the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Armagnac, the 25th of March 1569. After the conformity of the Paulmy manuscript, of which he had knowledge, with that of Soubise, M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy had conjectured that the latter and the volume given to the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Armagnac were but one; but that is not possible; for, by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy\u0026rsquo;s own avowal, leaves 119 and 120, left blank in the Soubise manuscript, rendered incomplete a piece which presents itself without lacuna in the Paulmy manuscript: proof that the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Armagnac\u0026rsquo;s manuscript lacked nothing where the other was defective.\n(2) Bibliothèque hist. de la France, vol. II, no. 17210.\nThe historical introduction signalised by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy begins thus in the Arsenal manuscript: All men desire and naturally covet to know and to learn, as says the philosopher; and Tully says that we are induced and drawn to knowledge by the power and virtue of our nature, etc. That is certainly not the style of Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s time; but what proves still better that the redaction of the work belongs to the sixteenth century, is that the author cites Gaguin and the Mer des Histoires, books of which use was made only under Louis XII or Francis I.\nAfter the abridged narrative of the trial, conceived as it was in the Soubise manuscript, one arrives at the information of 1450 by this heading, which M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy does not say existed in the Soubise manuscript: Here follow the names, surnames and disposition of witnesses, by me, Guillaume Bouillé, doctor in theology, in virtue and vigour of the commission that the king of France gave me on this affair, the year and day dated heretofore, of those who were sworn and examined at this trial; and I invited the discreet and notable person Du Soucy, priest sworn in the court of Rome and sworn notary in the court of M. the Archbishop of Rouen, on certain articles declared in the commission, on the trial of Joan the Maid who lately since was burned in the city of Rouen, when she was detained by the English.\nThe interrogatories which come next are copied with much negligence and much mutilated.\nThe same memoirs as those of the Soubise manuscript terminate the work, but not the manuscript, to which has been given as an appendix an historical memoir on Gilbert de La Curée, by Gui de La Tour, sieur d\u0026rsquo;Hermay.\nII. Consultatio D. Theodorici auditoris Rotae in curia romana [Consultation of Lord Theodore, auditor of the Rota in the Roman court] # It will be seen in its place that the author\u0026rsquo;s name was Theodorus de Leliis; Theodoricus is a fault of the manuscripts.\nThe work is a refutation of the twelve articles which served to ruin Joan in public opinion. It may be considered as one of the memoirs ordered by the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, according to the rehabilitation sentence (1). The informations made by that prelate\u0026rsquo;s order in 1452 are mentioned in it in one place (2). Theodore de Leliis made use, to compose it, of a copy of the trial, to the leaves of which he refers for each of his citations. The discussion finished, as it concerns only dogma, he indicates the points of law on which the jurists will have to pronounce.\n(1) Vol. III, p. 357.\n(2) Ibid., p. 381.\nFollowing the researches which M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy caused to be made at Rome while he was preparing his great work on the sources of Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s history, the embassy of France sent for the King\u0026rsquo;s Library a register of copies containing all that had been found of pieces in the Vatican manuscripts. This register was described by M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy himself, when it had just been placed among the king\u0026rsquo;s manuscripts under no. 5970 bis (3). It is today in the Supplément latin (no. 1033) of the Bibliothèque nationale. It contains two copies of the consultation; one taken from Vatican manuscript 3878 and the other from manuscript 2284.\n(3) Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 201.\nThe first of these texts, according to him who made the transcription, is the very draft of the author. It is full of erasures, destitute of title and subscription. The inventory of the Vatican manuscripts designates it thus: Consultatio ad favorem Joannae vulgo dictae la Pucelle ejusque defensio super capita contenta in processu contra ipsam efformato [Consultation in favour of Joan, vulgarly called the Maid, and her defence upon the heads contained in the trial framed against her].\nThe manuscript whence the other copy is taken, entered the Vatican with the Ottobonian library, consists of a 4to volume of parchment and paper, of German execution. One reads there on several leaves: Iste liber est conventus Viennensis ord. Fratrum Praedicatorum in Austria [This book belongs to the convent of Vienna of the order of Friars Preachers in Austria]. The memoir for Joan begins at the first leaf, after the title: Tractatus justificationis Johannae Darc per Theodricum auditorem curiae romanae [Treatise of the justification of Joan of Arc by Theodore, auditor of the Roman court]. It is subscribed at the end: Theodoricus auditor rotae curiae romanae. Finally a note of the time, traced on the flyleaf of the manuscript, teaches the reader on what occasion the justification of the Maid was there copied. I transcribe this note after the manuscript register of the Bibliothèque nationale:\nAt folio one is had the justification of Joan, famed through the world, the Virgin of France, who wrought marvels in matters of war for the king of France against the English, who also finally condemned her to the punishment of death. The treatise of this justification was edited by the lord Theodore, auditor of the Rota of the Roman court, and it ends at fol. 23. This treatise, and a certain one much contrary to it (1), the reverend father, professor of sacred page, brother Johannes Brahalli, inquisitor of the faith in the realm of France, of his grace sent to me heretofore in great quires, by the noble man the lord Leonard Wilszkehet, chancellor and ambassador of the most illustrious prince, Duke Sigismund, to the most glorious king of France. And because the same lord Leonard, chancellor, asked that the said quires be conceded to him by me, therefore it was procured that they should first be transcribed for caution, for the guidance of the brethren, if haply like cases and causes should emerge in future times (2).\n(1) Error of the note\u0026rsquo;s author. This memoir is that of Paul Pontanus, of which there will be question presently.\n(2) Bibl. nat., manuscript Suppl. lat. 1033, fol. 44.\nBy bringing this note together with Jean Bréhal\u0026rsquo;s letter printed in our second volume (3), it is recognised that the personage to whom was made the sending of this memoir, consequently the author of the note itself, is none other than the prior of the Dominicans of Vienna.\n(3) Page 70.\nIndependently of the two Roman texts, there exists at Paris a third, which M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy did not know. It is found in manuscript 51 (olim 334) of S. Germain Harlay, at the Bibliothèque nationale. This Harlay manuscript is a collection of memoirs for the justification of the Maid, composed of about the same pieces as the Ottobonian one, written in fifteenth-century Gothic cursive, and marked in several places with the name F. Jo. Brehalli. Thus it belonged to Jean Bréhal, inquisitor of France, named judge at the rehabilitation trial and, as has just been seen, author of the sending made to the Dominicans of Vienna.\nThe consultation of Theodore de Leliis begins at fol. 14 verso of this manuscript under this title: Extractum domini Theodorici auditoris rotae curiae romanae. And at the end one reads: Opus domini Theodorici, etc.\nM. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy signalised further the existence of the same work translated into French in the Soubise manuscript: Here follows an extract of the venerable person Messire Theodore, of the auditors of the Rota in the Roman court. Same version under the same title in the Arsenal manuscript Jur. fr. 144.\nVatican manuscript 3878, judged autograph, seemed to us bound to be followed preferably for our edition.\nIn the same volume and in the same hand, there is a summary of the trial which the author of the copies sent from Rome to Paris had thought to be also of Theodore de Leliis, though it was without author\u0026rsquo;s name (4). This conjecture is justified by the S.-G. Harlay manuscript, where the same piece is given (fol. 47) under this title: Summarium tocius processus habiti contra Johannam vulgo dictam la Pucelle per dominum Theodoricum auditorem Rotae in curia romana [Summary of the whole trial held against Joan, vulgarly called the Maid, by the lord Theodore, auditor of the Rota in the Roman court].\n(4) Bibl. Nat., Suppl. lat. 1033, fol. 41.\nLet us note further that Theodore de Leliis himself cites the Summarium in his consultation (5).\n(5) Ibid., fol. 67.\nHere is how this piece begins in the Vatican manuscript:\nJESUS. AND THE GLORIOUS JEROME. Summary of the whole trial held against Joan, vulgarly called the Maid. The trial was begun by the lord Pierre, then Bishop of Beauvais, against a certain Joan, vulgarly called the Maid, in the year of the Lord 1430, according to the rite and computation of the Gauls, in the ninth indiction, on the 9th day of the month of January, in the fourteenth year of the pontificate of the lord Martin, pope the fifth, of happy memory. Which bishop, pretending to have jurisdiction over the said Joan, because she had been taken within the limits of his diocese in a certain warlike conflict by the men-at-arms of the lord Duke of Burgundy; and first the said bishop, as appears from the trial, instigated as is believed by the king of England, personally went to the camps of the lord Duke of Burgundy, then situated at Compiègne, and required of him and of the lord Jean de Luxembourg, under whose custody the same Joan was detained, that they should deliver the said Joan to the king of England, that thereupon the king of England might deliver and assign her to the Church, etc., etc.\nThe last paragraph is of great importance, because it proves that in 1452 men did not think of contesting the authenticity of the posthumous information relegated to the end of the trial. Theodore de Leliis gives this analysis of it:\nAfter the condemnation and execution of the sentence, some days after, to wit the 7th of June, the judges caused certain witnesses to be examined on the things said and confessed by her when she was to be led to judgment, which in effect contain that the same Joan had been deceived and deluded by those voices which promised her her deliverance. She said nevertheless that she had really seen those things which she told of the apparitions, and of the angels, who she said had appeared in certain minute bodies: save what she had said of the crown brought to her King by an angel, asserting herself to have been the bearer-angel, and to have wrought the coronation in the promise of the crown. Whereby she seems to have interpreted her first speech congruously enough. Whether nevertheless it was of good spirit or evil, she said she referred to the judgment of the ecclesiastics. It is also said that she devoutly confessed and with great contrition took the sacrament of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s body.\nWe shall keep to these notions on the Summarium, to which we have not been able to give place in our edition.\nIII. Domini Pauli Pontani advocati consistorialis quaedam allegationes in processum Puellae [Certain allegations of the lord Paul Pontanus, consistorial advocate, into the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial] # This is an opinion which the author gave at first sight, pro prima summaria visione, after the pieces of which he had communication in 1452, the year when he came into France as secretary of the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville\u0026rsquo;s legation (1). I know no text of this piece save in manuscript S.-G. Harlay 51 (fol. 34), where it is transcribed under the title above. Each allegation there gives rise to developments which I have refrained from reproducing. They are all in favour of the Maid, and drawn either from the condemnation trial or from the informations of 1452.\n(1) Above, p. 301.\nThe Soubise manuscript, on M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy\u0026rsquo;s testimony, contained a French translation of this memoir, entitled: Here follow certain allegations of Messire Raoul de Pont, consistorial and Parliament advocate, touching the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial. But Paulus Pontanus was never Raoul de Pont, and there is no likelihood that this jurisconsult, attached to the Roman court, ever sat in our Parliament. The error is not peculiar to the Soubise manuscript. That of the Arsenal (Jur. fr. 144) goes further; for it attributes to the memoir not only a title but a subscription in which Pontanus would have called himself advocate in Parliament. I do not believe that testimony any more than the other.\nIV. Consultatio ejusdem Pauli Pontani [Consultation of the same Paul Pontanus] # A more thorough work by the same author, made, one would say, on the model of Theodore de Leliis\u0026rsquo;s consultation; that is to say that the inexactitude of the twelve articles is demonstrated therein, ending by indicating what are the points of law which the practitioners will have to elucidate. Like Theodore de Leliis, Pontanus availed himself of the condemnation trial (which he calls primum registrum [first register]) and of the two informations made by order of the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville (processus praeparatorius, processus ultimus [preliminary process, last process]).\nWe have at the Bibliothèque nationale two texts of this memoir. One in volume S.-G. Harlay 51, with no other superscription than the word Jesus; the other in manuscript Suppl. fr. 1033 (fol. 68 v.), after the Ottobonian manuscript 2284 at the Vatican, where it is signed Paulus Pontanus advocatus consistorialis. The notice written at the head of the Ottobonian manuscript (2) by the prior of the Dominicans of Vienna would tend to make it believed that Pontanus\u0026rsquo;s work is directed against the Maid; for the German religious says that Bréhal sent him, at the same time as Theodore de Leliis\u0026rsquo;s treatise, quemdam huic valde contrarium [a certain one much contrary to it]; and a little further on he adds: folio xxxi incipit tractatus Anglicorum predicto tractatui contrarius, et incipit sic: Primus articulus continet quasi summam [at folio 31 begins the Englishmen\u0026rsquo;s treatise contrary to the aforesaid treatise, and it begins thus: The first article contains as it were the sum]. But only a superficial reading can have made him see therein a treatise conceived in the English opinion.\n(2) See above, p. 425.\nI have given of Pontanus\u0026rsquo;s consultation only what it offers of interest for history.\nV. Summarium fratris Johannis Brehalli [Summary of brother Jean Bréhal] # An opuscule composed by the Inquisitor of France to direct the doctors consulted on the subject of the rehabilitation. I reduced it to the simple statement of the propositions on which the author argues, supporting himself by Joan\u0026rsquo;s answers recorded in the trial.\nI had at my disposal two texts of this piece. One, without title or subscription, in manuscript Suppl. fr. 1033 of the Bibliothèque nationale, after the Ottobonian volume 2284 of the Vatican; the other at the end of manuscript S.-G. Harlay 51, equally without title, but terminated by these words: Finit summarium fratris Johannis Brehalli inquisitoris fidei [Here ends the summary of brother Jean Bréhal, inquisitor of the faith].\nThe reading of the Ottobonian manuscript is preceded by a sort of argument, which is this:\nForasmuch as the same Joan in the schedule of abjuration and in the sentence of condemnation is reputed a lying contriver of divine revelations and apparitions, a pernicious seductress, presumptuous, lightly believing, superstitious, a diviner, a blasphemer against God, the saints male and female, a contemner of God Himself in His sacraments, a prevaricator of divine law, sacred doctrine and ecclesiastical sanctions, seditious, cruel, apostate, schismatic, erring manifoldly in our faith, offending in many ways against God and holy Church, expressly refusing with obdurate, obstinate and pertinacious mind to submit herself to the said Church, the lord Pope and the general council, pertinacious, obstinate, excommunicate and heretic: whether according to the contents of the trial she is to be so accounted?\nThe more principal and graver points upon which Joan the Maid was condemned as a heretic and delivered to the punishment of fire follow; as well as her answers, and to them substantially extracted from the trial.\nThere follow the statements which I printed after the Harlay manuscript, suppressing the discussions established on each.\nA French translation of the same piece existed in the Soubise manuscript, though that of the Arsenal offers nothing like it (1). It was preceded by a little collection of Joan\u0026rsquo;s answers on the fact of her revelations, of which M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy preserved to us the title:\n(1) Notice des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 192.\nHere follow the more principal and great points on which Joan the Maid was taken while keeping the sheep, as a heretic and idolater, and was condemned and finally consumed by punishment of fire at the Old Market of Rouen before Saint-Sauveur; and the answers which she made and that may be drawn and extracted from her trial, because she said and affirmed to have had visions and bodily apparitions of Saint Michael, heard and received often the voices and revelations of Saint Margaret, Saint Catherine and other spirits.\nVI. F. Johannis Brehalli epistola F. Leonardo Praedicatorum Viennensium scripta [Letter of brother Jean Bréhal written to brother Leonard of the Friars Preachers of Vienna] # This letter accompanied the sending specified above (1) which the Inquisitor of France made to the prior of the Dominicans of Vienna. It is dated from Lyon, 31 December. I have not been able to fix its year, though there are in it two historical facts: the embassy in France of the chancellor of Austria, and the restoration of the Dominicans of Nantes to the enjoyment of their provincial chapter (2). I suppose that agrees with the winter of 1453.\n(1) Page 425.\n(2) Vol. II, p. 71.\nAmong our manuscripts, only no. 1033 S.-F. of the Bibliothèque nationale gives this piece, after the Ottobonian volume so often cited in the preceding paragraphs. It is there entered in the table of contents under two different titles: first, Folio 58 habetur copia epistolae prefati inquisitoris ad fratrem Leonardum conventus Viennensis; and then: Folio 58, epistola inquisitoris fidei in regno Franciae ad F. inquisitorem fidei per provinciam Salisburgensem [At folio 58 is had the copy of the aforesaid inquisitor\u0026rsquo;s letter to brother Leonard of the convent of Vienna; at folio 58, the letter of the inquisitor of the faith in the realm of France to the inquisitor of the faith through the province of Salzburg].\nVII. Consultation of Pierre l\u0026rsquo;Hermite, sub-dean of Saint-Martin of Tours # A memoir in answer to seventeen of the articles proposed by Paul Pontanus outside the question of dogma. The original text is lost; there remains of it only a detestable French translation in the Arsenal manuscript. It formed part also of the matters contained in the Soubise manuscript; but with the lacuna of which mention was made previously (3).\n(3) Above, p. 422.\nI hesitated long to reproduce aught of the very faulty Arsenal version. I ended by giving a specimen of it among the detached pieces of the present volume (1), where it might perhaps not be sought, did I not here warn that it is there.\n(1) P. 245.\nChapter II. The Rehabilitation Trial # 1. Of the first writings of the trial # The registrars of the rehabilitation trial were Denis Comitis or Lecomte, and François Ferrebouc, both notaries in the University of Paris. Present at the first day of the cause, legally instituted at the second, they took minutes and drew instruments without interruption from the beginning to the end. But the instance being established on divers points of the realm at once obliged them to commit several substitutes in their lieu and place. The depositions of the witnesses, which are the capital part of the trial, are thereby found to have been generally collected and translated into Latin by clerks foreign to the registry. Not to speak of the informations of 1452, whose writings had for authors Socius or Compaing Otte and Jean Dauvergne, both of Rouen, those of Lorraine, made in January 1456 at Domrémy, Vaucouleurs and Toul, were drawn up by Dominique Dominici, church notary at Toul; that of Orléans, made in February and March of the same year, had for registrar Guillaume or Gérard de la Salle (2), whom the judges called again to collect, in the month of May, the depositions of the five last witnesses of Paris. Hugues and Henry Bellièvre, attached to the ecclesiastical court of Lyon, received at the end of May the testimony of Jean d\u0026rsquo;Aulon, Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s maître d\u0026rsquo;hôtel, and sent it to the judges without having translated it from French into Latin; which is perhaps why it was inserted as it was in the trial. It is the only one in that case. As for Comitis and Ferrebouc, they drew up only the informations of Rouen and of Paris, begun in December and January, completed in May 1456. Nor does it appear that they needed substitutes for the redaction of the procès-verbaux or for the drawing of the tribunal\u0026rsquo;s acts.\n(2) He is found in the instrument under these two Christian names. See vol. III, pp. 2 and 118.\nThe existence has never been signalised, in any archive repository, of the originals or minutes which formed the rehabilitation\u0026rsquo;s file. It is probable that all of it perished long ago. I believe I have found trace of it in a document posterior by few years to the trial. It is an inventory drawn up about 1460 of the Bags and letters of the King being at Tours (1). Article 15 of it is thus conceived: Item, another bag of common affairs, in which is the appointment of Xaincoins, the seal of my lord Prégent de Coëtivy, the affair of the Maid, and several other affairs. If by the affair of the Maid are to be understood the papers of the rehabilitation, it will be conceived that those papers may have been early lost or destroyed, having been carried into a provincial castle instead of having their place in one of the crown\u0026rsquo;s great repositories.\n(1) The original of this inventory is in manuscript 8438 of the Bibliothèque nationale, fol. 81.\n2. Of the two modes of redaction applied to the instrument of the trial # Far short was the merit of the men to whom we owe the redaction of this trial from equalling that of the authors of the condemnation instrument. Nor is there any proportion between the literary merit of the two works. As much as the one is rapid, disengaged, clear, so much is the other diffuse and confused. That depends on the tribunal\u0026rsquo;s not having meddled in the redaction. The two registrars had all the charge of it, and though Ferrebouc enjoyed in his time a certain reputation as a lettered man (1), it is certain he was but a schoolboy in comparison with Thomas de Courcelles.\n(1) See vol. III, p. 95, note 1.\nTheir task, it must be owned, was rendered very laborious by the quantity and length of the pieces produced before the tribunal, pieces which after the usage of that time had to be transcribed integrally into the definitive act. Now, the whole condemnation trial — minute, Latin redaction and instrument of the sentence — had been delivered into the judges\u0026rsquo; hands, who moreover accepted the informations of 1452 and eight consultative memoirs chosen from the number of those which the solemnity of the debate and the king\u0026rsquo;s exhortations had caused to rain from all parts. All that made in volume well twice as much as the cause, already very long by itself. In presence of this mass of documents, Comitis and Ferrebouc did not at first dream of departing from the ordinary practices. They drew up the instrument of the rehabilitation in the form of letters patent, in which the judges, speaking there from one end to the other in the first person, stated the whole course of the procedure, insertion being made in their place of the acts decreed and of the pieces produced. In that form was executed a copy of the trial, of which considerable fragments remain to us in the famous d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript of the Bibliothèque nationale. But this copy, once made, received no authentic character, either because the judges did not approve it, or because of their own motion the registrars found their work too little satisfying to despatch it in that state.\nThey began again therefore at fresh expense, and sought this time to convert into a methodical collection what they had not been able to draw up suitably in the accustomed form of judicial documents. The authentic copies that we have of the trial are the result of this second work.\nHere is wherein the second redaction differs from that which preceded it:\n1° The protocol is preceded by a preface in which the registrars set out the mode of division they thought fit to apply to their matters.\n2° The facts of the cause are no longer presented under the warrant of the judges, but under that of the registrars, who name the judges in the third person, and themselves in the first, every time they intervene in the narrative.\n3° The deduction of the trial is divided into seven periods which form seven chapters, between which have been intercalated two complementary chapters to contain, one the informations, the other the doctrinal opinions admitted by the tribunal.\n4° The registrars, according to what they say in their preface (1), having delivered under their signs three expeditions of the trial, thought they ought to insert only in a single one the writings of the condemnation. Now, as of those three expeditions we possess only two, which do not contain the said writings, it results from that very absence that the manuscripts which are for us the legal instrument of the rehabilitation present a difference more with the first redaction.\n(1) See vol. II, p. 2.\nThe description of the manuscripts will finish bringing into relief the fact, which nobody has perceived until now, of two consecutive redactions given to the procedure of 1456.\n3. Of the faulty redaction of the definitive instrument # For having undergone the divisions and reductions just enumerated, the definitive instrument of the rehabilitation is not of easier reading. One loses oneself in the prolixity of the procès-verbaux, and in that, no less great, of the justificative pieces with which they are overloaded, as citations, reports, requests, parties\u0026rsquo; memoirs, etc.\nMoreover, the manuscripts testify to an extreme negligence on the registrars\u0026rsquo; part, not only by the incorrectness of the texts, but also by faults of redaction which one is surprised to meet in an act clothed with a legal character.\nThus, for example, numbers, whether expressed in figures or written in full letters, are almost always faulty. From the beginning of the cause, this produces an inextricable confusion. A first appearance is there dated 17 November 1455, at the end of which the parties are adjourned for the 7th of the same month (1). This impossible date of 7 November returns in the following procès-verbal (2). In having recourse to the primitive redaction (3), one finds the adjournment pronounced for the 17th, while the preliminary step is dated only approximately, a paucis citra temporibus [a little before these times]. After that, if one is right in attributing to the adjournment the date of the appearance, is one equally right in effecting the inverse transposition?\n(1) Vol. II, pp. 82, 90 and 91.\n(2) Vol. II, p. 92.\n(3) Vol. III, p. 372.\nThe Christian names, as much of witnesses as of the tribunal\u0026rsquo;s officers, are a source of errors no less frequent. One of the first functionaries of the realm, Raoul de Gaucourt, is called Jean de Gaucourt (4); Nicolas Taquel, registrar at the first trial and witness at the second, has become Pierre Taquel (5); a certain De la Salle, church notary employed several times by the tribunal to collect the informations, is called sometimes Guillaume, sometimes Gérard, as I have already remarked (6); etc., etc.\n(4) Vol. III, p. 16.\n(5) Vol. III, p. 195.\n(6) Above, p. 432.\nFor what concerns the very style of the procès-verbaux, it happens that in several places the discourse has remained in the judges\u0026rsquo; mouth, as it was originally, for want of having put the verbs and pronouns into another person. Numerous examples of this will be found in the edition (7).\n(7) Vol. II, pp. 151, 152, 262, 266; III, pp. 118, 246.\nElsewhere it is the redaction of the procès-verbal of one same audience which differs from one to the other of the two manuscripts (8). A still graver irregularity presents itself on the procès-verbal of the audience of 9 June 1456, where the summoned parties were foreclosed by contumacy from the right to speak against the productions. The two manuscripts begin by agreeing on a certain redaction, after which the tribunal would have, the same day, heard the petitioners\u0026rsquo; request and pronounced the foreclusion of the summoned (9). Then after that there presents itself in one of the same texts a quite different narrative, after which the judges, the demand heard, would have put off to the morrow to pronounce, tam ex officio quam alias [as well ex officio as otherwise]: which brings about one audience more, which has its separate procès-verbal (10).\n(8) Vol. III, pp. 256, 258, 297.\n(9) Vol. III, p. 247.\n(10) Vol. III, pp. 282 and 253.\nAll this demonstrates that the authentic expeditions issued from the registry without having been collated; that Comitis and Ferrebouc signed them with closed eyes, leaving the faults committed by their clerks to the excellence of the cause.\n4. Description of the unique manuscript of the first redaction # Bibliothèque nationale, d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript. — It is a folio maximo volume, on choice vellum, 51 by 30 centimetres; gilt on the edges, with green calf binding, the back in red morocco with Napoleon\u0026rsquo;s cipher. On the boards have been transferred engraved coppers which belonged to an older binding, to wit, two vairèd and helmeted escutcheons, which are the arms of the house of Urfé, plus eight corner-pieces composed of emblems in which interlace, with the device uni, the ciphers I and C.\n294 leaves numbered first in Roman numerals from j to xxxij, then from 1 to 261 in Arabic numerals.\nTwo well-distinct hands alternate with each other in divers places of the manuscript. One is the flowing cursive of Louis XII\u0026rsquo;s time, the other is the finest Gothic of Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s chancery. These alternations produce such confusion that nobody until now has been able to find his way in it. The description of the volume must therefore be at the same time a discussion, whence will issue with more evidence the fact previously alleged, that there were two different redactions of the rehabilitation trial.\nThe key of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript consists in well separating what is of one hand from what is of the other. That is why I will first operate the distinction by enumerating the manuscript\u0026rsquo;s matters in groups which will indicate in which of the two hands they are traced.\n1° Writing of the sixteenth century. From the fol. numbered j to fol. xxxij is found the Journal du siège d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, beginning on the first page by its ordinary title: Petit traicté par manière de cronique, etc. (1) Then, starting from the first leaf marked in Arabic numerals, comes the instrument of the condemnation trial: In nomine Domini amen. Incipit processus, etc., as far as the words ego non deponerem sine licentia Dei of the interrogatory of 3 March, which end the verso of fol. 16, and are followed by a headline Item dit announcing the continuation at recto fol. 17.\n(1) See the continuation in our vol. IV, p. 95.\n2° Writing of the fifteenth century. At the top of recto fol. 17, Item dit que la demoiselle de Luxembourg, etc., and the whole continuation of what I have said to be the French minute (2). That ends at verso fol. 34, where begins a new transcription of the Latin instrument, In nomine Domini amen. Incipit processus, etc., which instrument this time is complete. It is followed by the instrument of the sentence, Deinde sequitur tenor sentencie seu sentenciarum contra eamdem Johannam late seu latarum, which goes from verso fol. 96 to verso fol. 100. After comes the deposition of Jean d\u0026rsquo;Aulon, Sequitur consequenter deposicio nobilis viri, etc. (3), which transports us into the thick of the rehabilitation trial, that is to say to the procès-verbaux of the audiences of 9 and 10 June 1456, interrupted at the bottom of verso fol. 103 by the words per deffunctum magistrum Petrum Cauchon, and the headline loquentes, in a more modern hand, announcing fol. 104.\n(2) Above, pp. 385 and 397.\n(3) It is useless to count a modern leaf (fol. 101), intercalated in d\u0026rsquo;Aulon\u0026rsquo;s deposition and completing it. This document, being not of set form, is everywhere the same.\n3° Writing of the sixteenth century. Recto fol. 104: Loquentes qui veritatem non enunciarunt, etc. It is the last paragraph of I know not what memoir, which brings us back to the first trial by the copy of the annexes of the condemnation; and at the end of these annexes, at verso fol. 110: Finis processus condemnacionis libri Sancti Victoris [End of the condemnation trial of the Saint-Victor book]. Then at fol. 111: Hic est initium libri absolucionis [Here is the beginning of the book of the absolution], a title which is followed by the registrars\u0026rsquo; preface set at the head of the second redaction: Exigit racionis ordo, etc.\n4° Writing of the fifteenth century. Recto fol. 113. The intitule of the rehabilitation trial as we report it at p. 367 of our third volume: Continet istud opus processum judicialem, etc., with the whole continuation of the procedure put in narrative form in the judges\u0026rsquo; mouth. The document continues in this form to the bottom of verso fol. 240, where it is interrupted by the phrase brevissimo temporis spacio Cenomannia, Normannia, Acquitania quae multis annis per Anglicos occupata fuerat absque pene sanguinis Gallorum effusione… [in the briefest space of time Maine, Normandy and Aquitaine, which for many years had been occupied by the English, without almost any shedding of French blood…], a phrase which is of a justificatory memoir written by Martin Berruyer, Bishop of Le Mans.\n5° Writing of the sixteenth century. Recto fol. 241. Copy of the definitive redaction of the rehabilitation trial as it exists in the Saint-Victor manuscript, from the audience of 4 June 1456. One reads at fol. 261 and last, after the sentence: Hic est finis libri absolutionis Johannae Darc dictae vulgariter la Pucelle [Here is the end of the book of the absolution of Joan of Arc, vulgarly called the Maid].\nSuch is the content, one may say the chaos, of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript. M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy first discerned one thing in it: it is that all the sixteenth-century writings were so many complements destined to fill lacunae which existed in a text earlier written. M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy also judged very well, though by conjecture, that the part of that old text where the interrogatories in French are, was the copy of the French minute. Beyond that, he saw therein but smoke, and he proves it by saying that, without the presence of the minute, the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript would be of no use (1).\n(1) Notices et extraits des manuscrits, vol. III, p. 201.\nDoubtless such a judgment would be allowed to be pronounced if, apart from the French minute, the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript were the exact copy of the authentic text of the rehabilitation; but is it so? By no means, since the fourth section of that manuscript shows us the rehabilitation procedure unfolding in quite another manner; since one sees that procedure begin by a long intitule which is only there (2); since one there hears speak no longer the registrars but the judges. Here indeed is a capital enough difference for the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript not to be replaced by any other, all those known offering but the copy of the definitive instrument, in which the exposition is made by the registrars.\n(2) Vol. III, p. 367.\nThat is not all: the pieces inserted in the trial are not disposed in the fourth part of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript as they are in the originals or in the copies of the authentic redaction. There they have been gathered in methodical order, all the informations together, all the consultations together. Here on the contrary they come at the place where they were produced. Thus, following the first audience, is found the information of 1452 and the memoir of Guillaume Bouillé, because those pieces were deposited by the petitioners on the very day that the judges seized themselves of the prosecution.\nThe fourth section of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript taking thus the aspect of an original monument, it must be made the object of an attentive examination, and it must be assured whether the procedure is there deduced in a complete manner. In giving oneself to a sustained study of the text, one discovers a solution of continuity which M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy did not perceive.\nAt the bottom of fol. 204 verso, this intitule is read:\nDeinde sequitur minuta seu notula notariorum processus agitati contra eandem Johannam la Pucelle, tradita seu tradite in vim compulsorie per magistrum Guillelmum Manchon, alterum notariorum, et pro majori parte ejus manu scripta: in qua minuta inter alia inscribitur quoddam foliolum faciens mentionem de correctione certorum articulorum de quo in acto precedenti fit mentio.\n[Then follows the minute or note of the notaries of the trial conducted against the same Joan the Maid, delivered in virtue of compulsion by master Guillaume Manchon, one of the notaries, and for the greater part written by his hand: in which minute is inscribed among other things a certain little leaf making mention of the correction of certain articles of which mention is made in the preceding act.]\nAnd the recto of fol. 205 begins with another title: Opinio reverendi in Christo patris domini Heliae Petragoricensis [Opinion of the reverend father in Christ, the lord Hélie of Périgueux].\nNothing corresponds to the first of these titles; the memoir of the Bishop of Périgueux arrives as the second announces it: there is therefore a lacuna between the two.\nNow, this title to which nothing corresponds announces very clearly the copy of the minute of the first trial. Is there any reason why this copy should have been inserted there? Yes; for what precedes is the procès-verbal of the day of 5 June 1456, in which it is said that the petitioners produced, with several other pieces, Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, French text and Latin text.\nAs the deposit of these pieces is entered in a more express manner in the procès-verbal in question than in that of the definitive redaction (1), I believe it useful to report its very terms:\n(1) See vol. III, p. 282.\nTo satisfy the assignation of the day, the same procurators exhibited and produced a certain letter of the king of England signed by master Laurent Calot, his secretary, whose sign was proved by the witnesses hereunder; as also a certain paper in which was said to be contained a certain work made by master Jean de Jarson; as also the trial formerly made and conducted against the same Joan the Maid, as much in French as in Latin, by masters Guillaume Manchon, Guillaume Colles otherwise called Boysguillaume, and Nicolas Tasquel, notaries of the said trial, recognised and acknowledged; and notably a certain little paper leaf written and signed by the hand of the same Manchon and by him recognised, in which it was stated to have been resolved that the articles contained in the trial and the sentence ought to be corrected and so corrected set before those deliberating; and yet it is certain that the same were nowise corrected, etc. (2).\n(2) D\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, fol. 202 verso. This passage does not form part of the fragments of the same manuscript which I printed at the end of my third volume.\nLet us now report ourselves to the second section of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, that where the fifteenth-century writings begin. We find there first the decapitated copy of the interrogatories in French, with intercalation of notes of procès-verbaux in Latin, that is to say the piece which M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy conjectured, and which he would have affirmed to be the minute of the trial had he known the title without sequel reported above. The Latin redaction and the instrument of the sentences which come next in the same section complete the deposit effected in the terms of the procès-verbal of 5 June. D\u0026rsquo;Aulon\u0026rsquo;s deposition, received at Lyon on 28 May, and which consequently could reach the judges only in the first days of June, arrives likewise in its chronological order, being placed after the copies of the trial; finally the audiences of 9 and 10 June, by which the manuscript\u0026rsquo;s second section ends, finish proving that this whole section, to be in its place, ought to be intercalated in the fourth, between leaves 204 and 205.\nIn truth there will still be a lacuna between the verso of leaf 204 and the text thus carried over; there will be a lacuna of all that is wanting to the minute; it is a void irreparable today, as it already was at the beginning of the sixteenth century, since when men would fill it, they had to have recourse to the Saint-Victor manuscript (1), a mere copy of the authentic instrument. I add that the loss was already old at the moment of that restoration, if it be judged by the state of folio 17; for it is visible that this leaf, stained with damp and soiled, served a long time as cover to the manuscript.\n(1) Above, p. 440.\nThe place where the second section ends does not attach itself either immediately to fol. 205 of the manuscript. There exists there another solution of continuity, which comes from the loss of the leaves where were transcribed the procès-verbaux of 18 June, of the 1st and 2nd July, the promoter\u0026rsquo;s conclusions and divers other things besides.\nBut these mutilations do not prevent that the second section of the manuscript ought to be intercalated in the fourth at the place indicated, that is to say that it is necessary to transpose leaves 17 to 103 between the two leaves 204 and 205.\nThe old writings which finish with the fourth section on leaf 240 are far from conducting us to the term of the trial. There are wanting in it four of the consultative memoirs accepted by the tribunal, the visit and the recollection of those memoirs, the conclusion in the cause and the sentence. These lacunae, joined to those already signalised, may be evaluated at about a third of the trial, so that the damage befallen the manuscript between the moment of its execution and that of its restoration is of more than a hundred leaves, the sum of the subsisting fifteenth-century leaves being two hundred and fifteen.\nAs for the seventy-nine leaves which form the first, third and fifth sections of the manuscript, they are the copy of another text which would easily be recognised by the chronicle of the siege of Orléans which forms its beginning, even if its provenance were not indicated at fol. 110, where one reads: Finis processus condemnacionis libri Sancti Victoris. Thus it was with the Saint-Victor manuscript, a most defective and most posterior copy of the authentic redaction of the two trials, that men believed they could recompose the redaction without analogue of which the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript contains the debris. The unintelligence of this conception is surpassed only by that of the execution, since the present state of the manuscript proves that men knew neither to recognise the lacunae nor to put back in their place the transposed quires.\nTo sum up:\n1° The d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript is the unique copy of an essay-redaction applied to the Maid\u0026rsquo;s rehabilitation trial, but not adopted for the despatch of the engrossments of the said trial.\n2° From the fifteenth century, when the quires of this copy were attached, an ill-starred transposition caused to be sewn at the head of the volume the copy of the condemnation writings, which ought to have taken place in the interior, following the procès-verbal of 5 June.\n3° In the sixteenth century, probably under the reign of Louis XII, the manuscript, much dilapidated and reduced to about two-thirds of its volume by the destruction of several quires, was repaired by adding to it new quires, of which the matter was taken from the Saint-Victor manuscript, and which were transferred with as little discernment as the binder had shown in attaching the old ones together.\n4° All that is of the oldest writing in the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript has the price of an original; all that is of a later hand is without any value.\nThere remains only to sum up the historical notions that we possess on this singular work.\nThe letters C and I which form part of the cover\u0026rsquo;s ornaments are the initials of Claude d\u0026rsquo;Urfé (1502–1558) and of his wife Jeanne de Balzac. This lady having died in 1542, her husband, to express the regret her loss caused him, adopted the device uni which is also found on the manuscript\u0026rsquo;s chasing. Claude d\u0026rsquo;Urfé was a great lover of books. The old authors of Forez speak with admiration of a magnificent library which he had formed in his castle of La Bâtie. He possessed especially manuscripts of inestimable price, and these manuscripts he owed for the most part to his wife, who had inherited them from her mother Anne de Graville, daughter of Louis XII\u0026rsquo;s admiral, a person no less illustrious by her literary tastes than by her birth (1). After all that I am led to infer that the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript comes to us from Admiral Louis Mallet de Graville: a conjecture which is further confirmed by that other which I made previously (2), to wit that the same manuscript must have been between the hands of the compiler employed by Louis XII at the said admiral\u0026rsquo;s instigation.\n(1) Les D\u0026rsquo;Urfé, Souvenirs historiques et littéraires du Forez, by Aug. Bernard, 8vo. Paris, 1839.\n(2) Literary notice of the condemnation trial, above, pp. 413 and 416.\nMoreover it becomes very probable, after the age of the writing, that it is again Louis de Graville who caused to be completed, with the text of the Saint-Victor manuscript, that of the primitive redaction of the rehabilitation which had arrived all mutilated between his hands.\nBesides the arms and emblems of Claude d\u0026rsquo;Urfé, the manuscript bears for mark the name of Baluze written on the first leaf. What is known of the transmissions of which it was the object does not explain the presence of that erudite\u0026rsquo;s name. Fevret de Fontette, who possessed it in 1769 and who consecrated to it an important article in the Bibliothèque historique de la France (3), says he held it of a M. Thomas d\u0026rsquo;Islan, who had it of M. de Chavannes, who had it of Honoré d\u0026rsquo;Urfé, the author of L\u0026rsquo;Astrée, grandson of the Claude d\u0026rsquo;Urfé of whom there has just been question.\n(3) Vol. II, no. 17207.\nIn 1787, M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy found this volume at the repository of Charters and Historical Monuments, Place Vendôme, and could not learn how it had arrived there (4). It fell to the Bibliothèque nationale at the moment of the revolution, and was bound under the Empire as it is seen today, because the old cover, which was of wood and green velvet, was falling in shreds.\n(4) Notices et extraits des manuscrits, vol. III, p. 198.\n5. Description of the manuscripts of the definitive redaction # 1. Bibliothèque nationale, no. 5970 Latin. — Volume of very large folio, on vellum, 526 millimetres high by 323 wide, gilt on the edges, bound in red morocco with the arms of France on the boards, gilt fillets, bands on the back with the title Processus justificationis Joannae d\u0026rsquo;Arc. It is composed of 207 leaves, of which only the first 204 are numbered in Roman numerals. Fine Gothic cursive of the time of Charles VII, with initials ornamented with pen-flourishes; seventy lines to the page; eighty-five letters to the line.\nOf the two authentic copies, it is much the finest. It is that also whose text has most constantly served for our edition. It is legalised at the bottom of each leaf (but only from the third) by the formula sic affirmo, which the two signatures Comitis and Ferrebouc follow. The same signatures are generally repeated in the interior of the text after the transcription of the acts decreed by the tribunal.\nAt the top of recto fol. 1, after a blank reserved for an initial E which was not executed: EXIGIT RACIONIS ORDO et recta disposicio equitatis docet, etc. The end of the trial is at recto fol. 204. It is announced by the autograph attestations of the same Comitis and Ferrebouc, attestations whose text will be found in the edition (1). The signature of each consists, besides the flourish, in a drawing of interlacements, as the notaries of the fifteenth century appended to acts of great solemnity.\n(1) Vol. III, p. 352.\nThe three last leaves, which are not numbered, contain a Latin poem on the Maid. This piece, disposed in two columns and separated into two books or cantos, appears written in the same hand as the trial. It is without title or author\u0026rsquo;s name. Its text will be found printed for the first time in the present volume (p. 42).\nManuscript 5970 was originally marked Tab. juris civilis j. super fine liber xvj; then later, in large figures, 187, and finally 6817.\nI believe I recognise in the two first of these marks old shelf-numbers of the Trésor des Chartes, and in my opinion the manuscript comes from that repository. There are good reasons to give for it. Louis XI (it is an ascertained fact) caused to be deposited at the Trésor des Chartes the royal copy of the rehabilitation, which had been kept until then at the Chamber of Accounts (1). In 1540, 1565, 1612 and 1661, Hector Boethius, Du Tillet (2), Jean Hordal (3), Denys Godefroy (4) consulted in turn the rehabilitation trial of the Trésor des Chartes. In the last century there is no more trace at the Trésor des Chartes of such a manuscript. Now, three authentic expeditions of the trial were executed; one which remained at Notre-Dame until 1785 and which consequently is not that of the Treasury; the other which contained all the condemnation writings, among others the minute in French of the interrogatories, unknown to Hordal and to all authors before M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy — and it is not that one either which could have lain formerly at the Trésor des Chartes. There remains then the third manuscript, that to which this article is consecrated, to answer the conditions of the deposit effected by order of Louis XI.\n(1) See above, p. 254.\n(2) Recueil des Rois de France, part II, p. 364, edition of 1618. See below the description of manuscript S. F. 350-10.\n(3) Heroinae nobilissimae Joannae Darc, etc., Historia, etc. Preface and p. 205.\n(4) Histoire de Charles VII, p. 903.\n2. Same repository, Notre-Dame fund, no. 138. — Volume in middling folio, of paper and vellum intermixed, thirty-seven by twenty-seven centimetres, worm-eaten in the last quires; in boards and covered with green parchment, the edge painted yellow.\nOne hundred and eighty leaves numbered in old Arabic numerals. Cursive writing, save at the beginning of the paragraphs whose first word is in large moulded Gothic. Initials ornamented with pen-flourishes.\nAuthentic expedition, one of the three mentioned in the registrars\u0026rsquo; preface; initialled at the bottom of all the leaves Comitis and Ferrebouc, without approbative formula.\nThe text begins at recto fol. 1 after a parchment flyleaf: EXIGIT RACIONIS ORDO et recta disposicio equitatis docet, etc.; the E of exigit richly illuminated with arabesques on a ground of gold, and flanked by a miniature vignette descending the length of the margin. It ends at the recto of fol. 180 with the date of the final sentence, die septima mensis julii [the seventh day of the month of July], after which come immediately, without attestation formula, the two signatures Comitis and Ferrebouc.\nMarked originally Invent. CX; then in seventeenth-century cursive and in red ink: I am of the library of Notre-Dame of Paris. More recently: At the church of Paris H. 10. Finally the old stamp of the King\u0026rsquo;s Library.\nThough destined to make proof of the trial as well as the preceding, this manuscript is not yet altogether conformable to it. First it does not contain the consultative memoirs accepted by the tribunal, save that of Gerson. The registrars warned the reader of this suppression by a marginal note set opposite the eighth article of their preface announcing the insertion of the said memoirs: Tractatus de quibus in hoc octavo articulo fit mentio solum sunt inscripti in duobus magnis processibus propter eorum prolixitatem [The treatises of which mention is made in this eighth article are only inscribed in the two great trials, on account of their prolixity]. Differences of procès-verbaux between manuscript 5970 and this one have already been signalised (1). Finally it contains, more than the other, the instrument of the sentence, which is there transcribed among the productions of 5 June.\n(1) Above, p. 437.\nThere is further to be read on the inside of the cover of the Notre-Dame manuscript a note already very old, which is conceived in these terms: M. P. Louvet, advocate in Parliament, in his history of Beauvais, book 2, under Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, in 1420, p. 558, says p. 560 that Monstrelet made the description of the taking, imprisonment of the Maid, and of her judgment in verses which he reports, where among other things there is:\nAt the trial of her innocence\nThere are singular things,\nAnd it is a great pleasure\nTo see all the two matters.\nThe said trial is chained\nIn the library of Notre-Dame\nOf Paris, and was there given\nBy the bishop, on whose soul God have mercy.\nThese verses are not Monstrelet\u0026rsquo;s, but Martial d\u0026rsquo;Auvergne\u0026rsquo;s, and they are extracted from the Vigiles de Charles VII, which will be found more amply cited above, p. 78. It is indeed our manuscript that they concern. After having belonged to the Bishop of Paris, Guillaume Chartier, who was one of the rehabilitation judges, this volume was bequeathed by him to his church. In 1472, the year of the prelate\u0026rsquo;s death, his testamentary executors delivered it to the chapter, which caused it to be bound between two boards, with the donor\u0026rsquo;s arms, with clasps and iron-work (1). This iron-work consisted, among other pieces, of a chain which held the volume fixed on one of the desks of the library of Notre-Dame; that is why Martial d\u0026rsquo;Auvergne says it is chained. From 1475 the chain is mentioned in the authentic act of a transcription which is today at Rome (2); Martial\u0026rsquo;s testimony is of 1484.\n(1) See the act of execution, p. 218 of this volume.\n(2) Below, p. 458.\nSome years later, but still under the reign of Charles VII, the Notre-Dame manuscript served for the execution of that of Saint-Victor. At the end of the sixteenth century, the Jesuit Mariana consulted the same text and drew thence the materials of a narrative which he afterwards introduced into his history of Spain (3). Edmond Richer avows having made use of it also for his unpublished history of Joan of Arc. Lenglet Dufresnoy is one of the last who saw it at Notre-Dame. It passed into the King\u0026rsquo;s Library in 1756, when the chapter of the church of Paris ceded its manuscripts to Louis XV, who was having a monumental sacristy built for them. M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy mentioned it, but did not study it, presuming it more conformable to manuscript 5970 than it really is.\n(3) Book XX: An eternal ornament of Gaul, noble to all ages, as the judges given in the cause by Calixtus, the Roman pontiff, pronounced; which acts are kept with faith in the archive of the supreme temple of Paris.\n3. Same repository, Saint-Victor fund, no. 285. — Volume already described with the condemnation texts (4).\n(4) Above, p. 398.\nThe copy of the rehabilitation trial there begins at fol. 350, after five leaves left blank at the origin, on which have since been transcribed the first decrees rendered by the Parliament of Paris against the Protestants, among others that of Louis Berquin. The initial E of the notaries\u0026rsquo; preface, Exigit rationis ordo, contains a miniature rather finely executed, representing a woman in petticoat and peasant\u0026rsquo;s coif with red buskins, a sword and a halberd. That there might be no mistaking the personage he meant to represent, the artist coloured on a banderole the name of the Maid.\nThe Saint-Victor manuscript is a copy of that of Notre-Dame, as proves the note relative to the suppression of the consultative memoirs which is there reproduced textually. Right at the end of the manuscript, in place of the final attestations, the copyist wrote this note: We certify to all that the original trial of the said Maid, of which this is immediately extracted, exists signed Comitis and Ferrebouc on every leaf of it.\nThe old analytical table placed at the head of the volume indicates in the following manner the principal parts of the rehabilitation:\nItem, another trial made about the year of the Lord 1455, by ordination and rescript of the apostolic see, under the reverend fathers Jean, Archbishop of Reims, Guillaume of Paris and Richard of Coutances, bishops, professors of law, and master Jean Bréhal, doctor of sacred theology, inquisitor of the faith in the realm of France, judges in this part, at the instance of Isabelle, mother of Joan the Maid, and of her brothers and parents, for the innocence and justification of the said Joan to be declared; in which trial are set at length the informations and inquests made in the place of the said Joan\u0026rsquo;s origin and elsewhere, from folio 350 to 568. And it is to be noted that in the trial are inserted at length several treatises of several bishops and prelates, professors of sacred theology and of laws, and of others who wrote solemnly and at full upon the matter of the said trial; which nevertheless are not written in this volume.\nItem, the tenor of the definitive sentence rendered and promulgated by the above-named deputed judges in the city of Rouen, in the archiepiscopal palace, in the year of the Lord 1456, in the month of July; by which sentence it is declared that the trial, sentences and executions made under the lord Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, against Joan the Maid, contain manifest fraud, calumny, contradiction and error of law and of fact; annulling the said trial with its sequels and wholly voiding it, and declaring the same Joan and her parents to have contracted no note or stain of infamy therefrom, and to be cleared and purged of the crimes imputed to her; ordaining finally the present sentence of the lord judges to be solemnly and forthwith published in the city of Rouen in two places: one, to wit, forthwith in the square of Saint-Ouen, a general procession and public sermon preceding; and in another place on the following day, in the Old Market, namely in the place where the said Joan was exterminated by the cruel burning of fire by the English, with solemn preaching there and the affixing of an honourable cross to the perpetual memory of the said Joan, etc., f. 568.\n4. Same repository, Supplément français, no. 350a. — Volume already described with the condemnation texts.\nThe rehabilitation writings are in a different hand, more careless and a little more modern. Ægidius Perrini, whose ex libris is found on the manuscript\u0026rsquo;s first page, would appear to be its author. They begin at fol. 132 recto with the registrars\u0026rsquo; preface, preceded by the title: Commissio et ordinatio notariorum ex parte delegatorum episcoporum judicum [Commission and ordination of the notaries on behalf of the deputed bishop-judges].\nThe note Certiores omnes facimus, etc., placed at fol. 195 after the final sentence, proves that this copy, moreover much abridged, was made upon the Saint-Victor manuscript.\nAfter the rehabilitation comes a notice of three pages, in a still more modern hand, under this title: Argument of the trials hereinbefore contained, extracted by me Claude du Han, lord of the said place (1), and curate of Punerey. 1576. This notice begins thus: In the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, in the time of Charles the Seventh, the Maid of Domrémy aged eighteen years, etc. At the end is repeated the name of Claude du Han, whose presence we have already signalised on one of the first leaves of the volume (2).\n(1) The lordship of du Han was in Barrois, between Bar and Saint-Mihiel. It became in the last century the duchy of Franquemont.\n(2) Above, p. 402.\n5. Same repository, Suppl. fr., no. 350b. — Volume already described with the condemnation texts, and signalised as having been collated and rendered conformable to the preceding.\nThe unnumbered leaves which precede the text are charged with notes, of which this one:\nThere is a like copy of these two trials transcribed in a volume which is in the Saint-Victor library, with this inscription Hic liber est, etc. (1); which abbot lived almost in the same time as the said Maid of Orléans, and had been prior of the priory (of Bussy) dependent on the said abbey, which had given him the more curiosity to recover the copy of the said two trials. The original of that of the revision and of her justification is in a great volume written on parchment, very authentic, at the Trésor des Chartes of France (2) in the Sainte-Chapelle at Paris.\n(1) See in the description of the condemnation-trial manuscripts, p. 399, this mark reported at full length.\n(2) See above, manuscript 5970, p. 449.\nThere comes next the notice of Claude du Han, mentioned apropos of manuscript S. F. 350a. All this precedes the copy of the condemnation trial. That of the rehabilitation begins at fol. 177 with the title: Commissio et ordinatio notariorum, etc., and ends at fol. 312, without the registrars\u0026rsquo; final attestations, by this addition in the hand of the manuscript\u0026rsquo;s annotator: In the original signed du Han, which I have, is written what follows: Certiores omnes facimus, etc. (3).\n(3) See the continuation above, loc. cit.\n6. Same repository, Suppl. latin, no. 952. — Work already described with the condemnation texts. Tome I, which contains the rehabilitation, is like tome II, and furnished, with more reason, with the same half-title.\nAt fol. 1: Argument of the trial as much of the condemnation as of the justification of Joan called the Maid, and the text: In the time of King Charles the Seventh, etc. It is Claude du Han\u0026rsquo;s notice, signalised apropos of manuscript Suppl. fr. no. 350a.\nFol. 3 verso: Commissio et ordinatio notariorum ex parte delegatorum episcoporum.\nFour hundred and forty-six leaves.\n7. Same repository, Brienne collection, no. 181. — Volume on paper, folio, bound like that of the other trial which belongs to the same fund (1); equally signed and initialled by Petau and Pithou, under the same formula.\n(1) Notice of the condemnation manuscripts, no. 9, p. 400.\nHalf-title after 6 blank leaves: Trial of the justification of the innocence of Joan of Arc called the Maid of Orléans, 1456.\nAnd after three other blank leaves, at recto numbered 1: Argument of the trial as much of the condemnation as of the justification of Joan called the Maid. It is Claude du Han\u0026rsquo;s notice, whose original redaction is in manuscript S. F. 350a: In the year one thousand four hundred and twenty-nine, in the time of King Charles the Seventh, the Maid of Domrémy, etc.\nThe trial appears copied upon the original contained in no. 5970, but with numerous suppressions: it ends on leaf 381 of the volume.\n8. Same repository, Sérilly collection, no. 181. — One vol. folio on paper; marbled calf binding, bands, gilt fillets, Colbert\u0026rsquo;s arms on the boards.\nTextual copy of the preceding Brienne manuscript.\n9. Same repository. Saint-Germain-Harlay manuscript, no. 51. — Volume on paper, of like condition to that of the first trial which belongs to the same fund, and which was described with the condemnation texts.\nNo title. The text begins on the first page: Exigit rationis ordo, etc.\nAt the end: This is extracted from a manuscript of the library of Saint-Victor, which contains the trial of the Maid of Orléans and her justification, and whose title is: Iste liber est Sancti Victoris Parisiensis quem fecit fieri Fr. Nicasius de Ulmo abbas hujus ecclesiae; and the number is 29.\nFormerly marked 335.\n10. Library of Geneva, French manuscript 86. — Volume already described with the condemnation texts.\nThe copy of the rehabilitation begins at leaf 128, Exigit rationis ordo, etc. We have already warned that it was incomplete, and that for the continuation reference was made to the Saint-Victor manuscript. It is in fact interrupted in the fourth chapter of the procedure, towards the end of the ninetieth article of the memoir presented by the petitioners: Unde cum talis non esset qualem cedulla exprimebat, id potuit dicere… [Wherefore, she being not such as the schedule expressed, she might say…]. That does not make the quarter of the instrument.\n11. Vatican library, Christine fund, no. 1916. — Volume small folio on paper and parchment intermixed; 266 leaves. Entitled in the catalogue Johannae dictae la Pucelle processus jussu Calixti papae institutus [Trial of Joan, called the Maid, instituted by order of Pope Calixtus].\nAuthentic copy executed in 1475 by two Parisian church notaries, Jean Cordier and Pierre Mesnart, at the request of illustrious personages who willed that the memory of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s fair deeds should be perpetuated. The work of transcription was made after an original, signed Comitis and Ferrebouc and furnished with a chain: tokens by which the Notre-Dame manuscript is recognised; the more so as the consultative memoirs were wanting in it, and consequently are wanting in the copy.\nHere is the instrument which attests the circumstances in which this manuscript was executed:\nIn the name of the Lord, amen. Let all and singular who shall inspect, see and hear this present public instrument know that, in the year of the Lord one thousand four hundred and seventy-five, in the eighth indiction, on the fourth day of the month of August, in the fourth year of the pontificate of the most holy father in Christ and our lord, the lord Sixtus, by divine providence pope the fourth, we, the notaries underwritten, by the opinion, counsel and instance of certain illustrious men who most veritably revolved in their minds that, when for the common utility certain things are ordained, it belongs to public honesty and honour to procure their increase, lest their memory perish in damage, but that it be perpetuated: this present book or present volume, bound between two boards, covered with tawny leather, beginning on its first leaf Exigit racionis ordo, and on its last, signed by us notaries, ending die septima mensis julii; containing the business of the trial of the late Joan of Arc of worthy memory, vulgarly named the Maid, made, conducted and completed by the late most reverend and reverend fathers in Christ and lords, the lords Archbishop of Reims, and Bishops of Paris and of Coutances, judges specially deputed by the holy apostolic see, as is there narrated, with the clause: In so far as ye, or two, or one of you, etc. against the late reverend father in Christ and lord, the lord Bishop of Beauvais, and the sub-inquisitor of heretical pravity constituted in the diocese of Beauvais, and the promoter of the criminal affairs of the court of Beauvais, and all others having interest in this part or then to have it; with a certain other volume or book bound likewise between two boards, covered with white leather, from one of whose boards hung a certain little chain: which indeed book or volume contained the business of the trial of the said Joan the Maid of worthy memory, conducted and defined before the same judges; and which was signed by the provident and discreet men masters François Ferrebouc, licentiate, and Denis Comitis, bachelor in decrees, public notaries by apostolic and imperial authority, who were said to have been present as notaries and registrars in this business of the trial, on every leaf of it with their manual signs — word for word, in many and divers sittings we read, read over, and finally on the day aforesaid, finishing the work, collated; and so all and singular the things contained and written in this present book or volume we have found and ascertained to agree mutually and together with all and singular the things contained and written in the said book or volume signed with the manual signs of the aforesaid Ferrebouc and Comitis. In approbation whereof, and lest aught be added or diminished in the same, whence change of the sentence might be had, we signed the same book, so collated by us, on every leaf of it with our manual signs, together with the appending of our subscriptions and of our public signs, that faith and assertion of truth be given. Of all and singular which premises, a public instrument or public instruments were asked of us, the notaries underwritten. These things were done at Paris, in the rue des Noyers; by us, the notaries underwritten, in the year, indiction, month, day and pontificate aforesaid.\nAnd because I, Jean Cordier, Parisian clerk, master of arts, sworn public notary by apostolic and imperial authority and of the venerable courts of conservation of the apostolic privileges of the University and episcopal court of Paris, have duly collated this present book or present volume, together with the notary underwritten, with another authentic volume signed with the manual signs of two public notaries, more amply described in the aforesaid instrument, word for word, and found them mutually to agree: therefore each leaf, with the underwritten notary, I signed with my manual sign, and for the greater strength of truth, I set my public and accustomed sign, subscribing myself here with my own hand, together with the above-said underwritten notary, on this present public instrument faithfully written by the other\u0026rsquo;s hand, required and requested.\nSigned, J. CORDIER.\nAnd I, Pierre Mesnart, clerk born at Paris, bachelor in canon law, public notary by apostolic and imperial authority; because I duly collated this present book or present volume, together with the notary above-written, with another authentic volume signed with the manual signs of two public notaries, more amply specified in the above-written instrument, word for word, and found them mutually to agree: therefore each leaf, with the aforesaid notary, I signed with my manual sign, and for the greater strength of truth, on this present public instrument faithfully written with my own hand, I set my public and accustomed sign, together with the above-written notary, subscribing myself here with the same hand, required and requested.\nSigned, P. MESNART.\nThe document just read occupies leaves 222 and 223 of the manuscript. From fol. 224 to 266 is the copy of the memoir of Élie de Bourdeille, Bishop of Périgueux, to prove the falsity of the accusations brought against Joan.\n12. Library of Bennet\u0026rsquo;s College at Cambridge. — Lenglet-Dufresnoy signalised the existence in this library of a copy entitled processus pro Johanna dicta la Puzil, which makes the pendant of a manuscript of the condemnation.\nSee the preliminary notice of the first trial, no. 22.\n13. Manuscripts cited by divers authors. — Edmond Richer, in the advertisement to the reader of his unpublished history of Joan of Arc, says he consulted, besides the Notre-Dame manuscript, another original belonging to M. Du Lys, advocate-general in the Cour des Aides. It was signed, he adds, Franciscus Ferrebouc, Dionysius Comitis, and contained, for justificative memoirs, only the following: that of Gerson; that of Élie de Bourdeille; a treatise subscribed M. E. N.; the recapitulation of Jean Bréhal; the opinion of Robert Ciboule, and finally that of Guillaume Bouillé.\nRicher must well be believed when he calls his manuscript original, and then this text would be the third issued from the registry, after what the notaries testify in their preface. But how does it happen that our author found therein only six memoirs instead of nine, when it is certain that the third manuscript of the rehabilitation was the most complete of all? How does it happen again that Richer seems to have had no knowledge of the interrogatories in French, when the same manuscript must have contained them, all the pieces of production having been inserted in it?\nToo many elements are wanting to us to discuss thereupon. Either Richer explained himself ill, or M. Du Lys\u0026rsquo;s manuscript was no longer a complete text. All that we can say is that after Richer, as before him, the trace of the third authentic copy of the rehabilitation escapes us entirely.\nTo complete this review, it must be said that, to M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy\u0026rsquo;s knowledge, two private libraries, that of M. de Saint-Genis and that of M. de Flandres de Brunville, contained in 1789 each a modern copy of the rehabilitation. The latter adhered to a text of the first trial.\n6. Of the consultations inserted in the trial # According to the procedure in matters of faith, the cause, brought to a certain point, had to be submitted to the greatest possible number of canonists and renowned theologians, to have their opinion as much on the substance as on the form. They gave it by word of mouth or in writing, at the judges\u0026rsquo; discretion, and it was recorded in the trial. Pierre Cauchon on this point followed rigorously the prescriptions of the law; the delegates of the holy see appointed to the rehabilitation showed themselves less severe formalists. First, they made no use of the power which authorised them to exact written answers, which caused almost all the persons consulted to prefer to opine by word of mouth. To uphold the so solemn judgment they were about to render, they received only four drawn-up memoirs. Next, instead of entering in the trial the oral opinions as they had been collected by the registrars or their substitutes (for the registrars declare they did not assist at that operation) (1), the tribunal decreed that they should be fused together by the inquisitor, so as to form of them a methodical recapitulation in which the consultants\u0026rsquo; authority would disappear under that of the judge co-ordinating their answers. Thence issued a considerable work which took place in the eighth chapter of the definitive redaction (2). It is entitled Recollectio fratris Johannis Brehalli [Recollection of brother Jean Bréhal].\n(1) Vol. II, p. 332.\n(2) Vol. III, p. 334.\nMost naturally, the four drawn-up memoirs entered the same division of the trial. There was put besides the transcription of several other memoirs which were indeed doctors\u0026rsquo; consultations on Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s affair, but which had for the most part been ordered by the king, and whose composition had preceded the trial by several years. Doubtless the tribunal judged that in accepting these writings, they would be worth as much for the cause as if they had been drawn up by its order; and doubtless also this manner of seeing is what rendered it more easy-going on the formality of the consultations.\nThe memoirs as well accepted as ordered, which took place in the instrument of the trial, are eight in number. Their authors are Jean Gerson; Élie de Bourdeille, Bishop of Périgueux; Thomas Basin, Bishop of Lisieux; Martin Berruyer, Bishop of Le Mans; Jean Bochard, Bishop of Avranches; Jean de Montigny, canon of Paris and counsellor in Parliament; Guillaume Bouillé, dean of the chapter of Noyon; finally Robert Ciboule, chancellor of the University of Paris.\nThat of Gerson is the last work that issued from the pen of that great man. It was composed at Lyon, a few days after the deliverance of Orléans, in 1429. The others which are anterior to the cause date from the year 1452, when the Church began to take a side in Joan\u0026rsquo;s affair. The moment when they were welcomed by the tribunal is not specified in the definitive redaction; but the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript teaches us that Guillaume Bouillé\u0026rsquo;s memoir was delivered by Isabelle d\u0026rsquo;Arc the day she came to demand justice at the audience of the Bishop of Paris (1). According to the same text, Gerson\u0026rsquo;s opuscule was deposited at the audience of 5 June 1456 (2).\n(1) Vol. III, p. 372.\n(2) Above, p. 443.\nBy the marginal note which accompanies the preface of the Notre-Dame manuscript (3), the registrars warn that they have put the totality of these memoirs only in the two great expeditions of the trial, in duobus magnis processibus. Gerson\u0026rsquo;s work alone, with the procès-verbal of the operations made upon the opinions stated, fills the eighth chapter of the Notre-Dame manuscript. Manuscript 5970, which is one of the two great trials, contains in effect the eight memoirs and Jean Bréhal\u0026rsquo;s recollection. Only five of them remain in the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, which are those of Bouillé, Gerson, Élie de Bourdeille, Thomas Basin and Martin Berruyer. Finally the manuscript pretended original by Edmond Richer (4) contained six, under the names of Gerson, Élie de Bourdeille, Jean Bréhal, Robert Ciboule, Guillaume Bouillé, and an unknown, whose subscription in ciphers was composed of an M, an E and an N. I suppose that this unknown is Martin Berruyer, and that the three initials of his subscription were not M. E. N. but M. E. C.: Martinus episcopus Cenomannensis [Martin, Bishop of Le Mans].\n(3) Above, p. 450.\n(4) Above, p. 460.\nIt remains to make some critical remarks on each of the memoirs in particular.\n1° Gerson\u0026rsquo;s opuscule has long been known, and figures as much in the collection of his works published by du Pin (1) as in Melchior Goldast\u0026rsquo;s collection entitled Sibylla Francica (2). I know a fifteenth-century transcription of it in Saint-Victor manuscript no. 732 (fol. 201), at the Bibliothèque nationale. It bears the title: Super facto Puellae et credulitate sibi praestanda [On the Maid\u0026rsquo;s affair and the credence to be given her]. The date and the author\u0026rsquo;s name are at the end: Lugduni, millesimo cccc. vicesimo nono, die xiiij. maii in vigilia penthecostes, post signum habitum Aurelianis in depulsione obsidionis anglicanae. Actum autem est a famosissimo et solennissimo sacrae theologiae professore magistro Joh. Jarson, cancellario parisiensi [At Lyon, 1429, on the 14th day of May, in the vigil of Pentecost, after the sign had at Orléans in the repulse of the English siege. Done moreover by the most famous and most solemn professor of sacred theology, master Jean Jarson, chancellor of Paris]. The Saint-Victor manuscript is a collection of several treatises of Gerson. The memoir on the Maid must be found in a quantity of analogous collections of the same epoch.\n(1) Vol. IV, p. 864.\n(2) 4to, 1606.\n2° Élie de Bourdeille\u0026rsquo;s memoir exists apart in an Arsenal manuscript (fonds latin, Histoire, no. 88), which belonged to the Celestines of Paris. It is a very fine fifteenth-century text. It bears this title: Justificatio Puellae Franciae quae a rege caelorum sempiterno arbitratur Karolo regi Francorum directa ad ipsius consolationem et gubernationem; sed olim per gentem Anglorum capta dignoscitur et morti tradita [Justification of the Maid of France, who is adjudged to have been directed by the everlasting King of heaven to Charles, king of the Franks, for his consolation and government; but who once is known to have been taken by the English nation and delivered to death].\nThe rehabilitation-trial manuscript which is at Rome (3) contains another transcription of the same work, a transcription relegated after the trial and outside the formulas which warrant its authenticity.\n(3) Above, no. 11.\nThe author in his exordium says he was engaged by the king\u0026rsquo;s letters patent to give his opinion, and that he had for forming it only the Summary of the trial and the Instrument of the sentence, of which copy had been sent him (1).\n(1) Vol. III of this edition, p. 307.\n3° Thomas Basin, in his history of the reign of Charles VII, says, speaking of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial: This trial might be argued faulty on many heads, as may appear more amply from the little book which we published thereon, at the request of the same Charles asking counsel of us, if he into whose hands it comes shall have leisure to read it (2). As until these latter times the Histoire de Charles VII by Thomas Basin passed for being by Amelgard, Amelgard was put in the number of the doctors consulted on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s affair, and all the libraries of Europe were ransacked to find his memoir (3). This search had no chance of bearing fruit. The work announced by the Histoire de Charles VII was none other than the piece inserted in the trial under the name of Thomas, Bishop of Lisieux.\n(2) Vol. IV, p. 355 of this edition.\n(3) De l\u0026rsquo;Averdy, Notice des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 516.\nEdmond Richer declares he had a separate copy of it (4). Perhaps it is the same that is today at the Vatican library under no. 1832 (5).\n(4) Unpublished Hist. of Joan of Arc, Bibl. Nat., ms. Fontanieu, p. 285.\n(5) Indicated in the Bibliothèque historique de la France, vol. II, no. 17211.\nThomas Basin says in his epilogue that he took cognisance of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s affair after a register despatched to his address by Guillaume Bouillé, and which contained, besides the copy of the twelve articles and that of the abjuration, Paul Pontanus\u0026rsquo;s memoir to consult (6).\n(6) Vol. III of this edition, p. 313.\n4° Martin Berruyer\u0026rsquo;s opinion bears the date of 7 April 1456. It was therefore given at the request of the rehabilitation judges. It is seen by the citations the author makes that he had in his hands not only the instrument of the condemnation trial but also the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville\u0026rsquo;s inquiries.\nM. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy read Martin Berruyer\u0026rsquo;s name as Martin de Beuzines or de Wesines (1), though Lenglet Dufresnoy had given before him the true reading of this name (2).\n(1) Notices et extraits des Manuscrits, vol. III, p. 519.\n(2) Histoire de Jeanne Darc, part II, p. 190.\n5° The Bishop of Avranches\u0026rsquo;s memoir is but a very succinct opinion given at the tribunal\u0026rsquo;s request during a short stay that prelate made at Paris in 1456 (3). He declares he read, to form his opinion, only the summary of the trial, which he attributes to Paul Pontanus, when it is proved that this summary is by Theodore de Leliis (4).\n(3) Vol. III of this edition, p. 317.\n(4) See above the notice of this summary, p. 426.\n6° There is only one text of Jean de Montigny\u0026rsquo;s memoir; it is that of manuscript 5970, where the author\u0026rsquo;s name happens to have been cropped at the binding, so that there remains only the first syllable: Opinio domini Johannis de mo… decretorum doctoris [Opinion of the lord Jean de Mo…, doctor of decrees]. Among the celebrated men of the time, Jean de Montigny is the only one I have found answering the conditions of this mutilated title. He belonged at once to the University of Paris, to the church of Paris and to Parliament. His work is addressed to the rehabilitation judges.\n7° Guillaume Bouillé\u0026rsquo;s memoir escaped M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy though it was at once in the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript and in no. 5970 of the Bibliothèque nationale. The protocol originally explained that it had been written in honour of God and of the king of France (1). The homage to the king was effaced in the definitive redaction.\n(1) Vol. III, p. 382.\nThe work is rather of theology than of law; it has also a political side, in that the author applies himself to demonstrating on every occasion that the king was altogether resolved to provoke the revision of the Rouen trial. It seems to result thence that Bouillé\u0026rsquo;s memoir preceded all the others, even those of the Roman jurisconsults.\n8° Robert Ciboule\u0026rsquo;s consultation is dated from the month of January 1452 (old style). This date may agree with the title, where it is said of the author: who both before this trial was begun and also after its beginning, the delegates requiring his counsel, etc., wrote upon the affair of the said trial. Robert Ciboule, consulted by the rehabilitation judges, would have sent them, after correction, a memoir which he had written in 1453.\nÉtienne Pasquier attributes the date of 1456 to a separate manuscript of the same work which he had seen in the hands of Feron, that great searcher of armories, and whence he could extract an analysis of the arguments raised by Robert Ciboule against Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s judges (2).\n(2) Recherches sur la France, book VI, ch. 5.\n7. Of the edition of the trial # For two hundred and fifty years that the rehabilitation manuscripts have not ceased to be consulted, they have not failed to furnish pieces to our divers historical collections. Godefroy reports the final sentence, after the Trésor des Chartes manuscript, at the end of his Histoire de Charles VII (1). In 1753 Lenglet Dufresnoy published in the Histoire de Jeanne Darc the act of guarantee given by the English government to the Maid\u0026rsquo;s judges, as well as Jean d\u0026rsquo;Aulon\u0026rsquo;s deposition (2). The same erudite drew up moreover, for the public\u0026rsquo;s convenience, the table of the other pieces and depositions contained in the trial. Finally he proposed to bring into a second edition of his book (3), the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville\u0026rsquo;s informations; three of the depositions collected at Domrémy; thirteen of those received at Orléans; that of Thibaud d\u0026rsquo;Armagnac, collected at Paris; eight of those given by the Rouen witnesses; finally the memoirs of Thomas Basin, of Martin Berruyer and of the Bishop of Avranches.\n(1) Page 903.\n(2) Second part, pp. 57 and 104.\n(3) See above, p. 390.\nThis edition, as I have said, was not made, and it fell to M. de l\u0026rsquo;Averdy to give the public the most complete knowledge yet possessed of the rehabilitation, as much by a long and conscientious analysis of the trial, as by the numerous extracts he drew from the witnesses\u0026rsquo; depositions. These extracts fill no less than fifty 4to pages in small text; but they have the inconvenience of having been reduced to a systematic order.\nSuch are the essays which preceded the present edition. It remains for me to indicate in what principles I conceived it.\nI have endeavoured to render it conformable as far as possible to the impression of the first trial. The text has been divided into paragraphs; the French distinguished from the Latin by the use of a smaller type; the intitules detached by the same means from the pieces to which they relate; finally, for the notable points of the procedure which nothing brought out, I have intercalated titles of my own, which I have put in brackets, to show that they do not exist in the manuscripts.\nThe text which I have followed by preference is that of manuscript 5970. I have sometimes corrected it by the Notre-Dame manuscript, but never without warning the reader. I have most often limited myself to mentioning as mere variants the readings of that second manuscript. For several procès-verbaux of chapters VI and VII, where the two manuscripts no longer agree, I thought I ought to give side by side the text of the one and of the other, using the same disposition which permitted me, in my first volume, to set side by side the definitive redaction and the minute.\nThe wish of the Society of the History of France was to publish the rehabilitation trial integrally. Without causing it to fail of the aim it would reach, I believed I could advise it a notable reduction on chapter VII, with regard to the consultative memoirs as well as Jean Bréhal\u0026rsquo;s recollection. These works indeed have nothing historical. Nothing is discussed in them but Joan\u0026rsquo;s orthodoxy or the legality of her condemnation, after the circumstances entered in the trial. Works of jurisprudence or of theology, these memoirs would have swelled to no purpose by a volume the present edition; joined to this, that they are so ill digested most of them, that Edmond Richer, theologian though he was, had himself pronounced their exclusion when he projected the trial\u0026rsquo;s publication: and there would be no need, says he, to have them printed, for that they are too little elaborated and polished, and tumultuously written, even in a century in which barbarity triumphed (1). I have therefore limited myself to publishing short extracts of them where I saw for history the possibility of turning them to account, not as to the Maid\u0026rsquo;s affair, on which they teach nothing new, but relatively to the composition of these writings themselves. The prologues where the authors declare the motives which set them to work, the exordiums where they establish the division of their discourse, the conclusions where they sum up their thought and often enumerate the documents of which they made use: such are the parts where I have exclusively taken my extracts. As Jean Bréhal\u0026rsquo;s recollection offered, contrary to the other memoirs, a chapter where the discussion rests on facts drawn outside the trial, that chapter has been printed integrally. It concerns the old prophecies which announced Joan, or at least which had been applied to her coming (2).\n(1) Manuscript Fontanieu, p. 285 at the Bibl. Nat.\n(2) See vol. II, p. 337.\nAs for the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, which offers in its old part a redaction so different from that of the authentic copies, to bring out the better the capital points by which it departs from those copies, I thought I ought to give of it separately a specimen and an analysis. Both will be found at the end of the instrument of the trial (3). For specimen, I reproduced the text of the two first sessions; and the analysis could be made without the longueurs of the discourse, as much by means of the rubrics furnished by the manuscript itself, as by designating the untitled parts by the titles applied to the corresponding parts of the definitive redaction. Of course the statement drawn up on this system was so, abstraction made of the manuscript\u0026rsquo;s modern interpolations. I have also replaced in the order befitting them the displaced leaves, so that the series of the titles reported represents the chronological deduction of the procedure. I interrupted it at 5 June to insert, under the rubric which announces it, the instrument of the sentence. It is a piece whose value was signalised in the preliminary notice of the condemnation trial (4). Its absence from manuscript 5970 is the cause for which I relegated it to that place, in spite of its importance.\n(3) Vol. III, p. 367.\n(4) Above, p. 410.\nChapter III. Extrajudicial Opinions and Memoirs Published in Joan\u0026rsquo;s Lifetime # I have gathered in this division, which occupies the end of the third volume, all the memoirs of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s contemporaries which were not, like Gerson\u0026rsquo;s, honoured by being accepted among the rehabilitation\u0026rsquo;s consultants.\nI. Summary of the conclusions given by the doctors assembled at Poitiers # The Maid, during her trial, invoked several times, against her judges, the book of Poitiers (1). She meant thereby the procès-verbal of the examination she had undergone in that town in presence of an ecclesiastical commission named by the King. The known members of that commission are: Regnauld de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims and chancellor of France, president; Pierre de Versailles, then abbot of Talmont; Pierre Turelure, inquisitor of Toulouse; Jean Lombard, professor at Paris; Guillaume Aimeri and Séguin Seguini, Dominicans; Jean Erault, professor of theology; Guillaume Lemaire, canon of Poitiers, Mathieu Mesnaige and Jourdain Morin (2).\n(1) Vol. I, pp. 39, 70, 71.\n(2) Vol. III, pp. 19, 74, 102, 203.\nThe examination lasted three weeks; it therefore gave rise to considerable writings. The end pursued in making it warrants well enough the care that must have been brought to the keeping of those writings. Nevertheless, at the moment of the rehabilitation, that piece, so capital for Joan\u0026rsquo;s memory, was not produced. The judges were obliged to put in their sentence that they had known the examination made at Poitiers only by witnesses\u0026rsquo; report (3). Moreover they had the deposition of only one of the examiners named above, Séguin Seguini, when it is certain that more than one of them still lived. Pierre Turelure, for example, died only in 1466 (4), and yet did not depose. That is why posterity will regret for ever the procès-verbaux of Poitiers, the fairest document, I doubt it not, that it could have possessed on Joan of Arc, since that immortal girl showed herself there in all the freshness of her inspiration: full of gaiety, of vigour, of irresistible impulse, and answering without constraint judges of good faith whom she was sure to subjugate.\n(3) Having regard to the witnesses\u0026rsquo; depositions on her examination made at Poitiers and elsewhere, in presence of very many prelates, doctors and experts, in presence of R. P. Reginald, formerly Archbishop of Reims, etc. Vol. III, p. 357.\n(4) Our vol. III, p. 208.\nThe commission having sufficiently enlightened itself, sent to the king\u0026rsquo;s council its conclusions, of which a summary — which is the piece in question in this article — appears to have been spread by Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s government in a great number of copies. I conjecture that because the German chronicler Eberhard de Vindeck, who drew from the Emperor Sigismund\u0026rsquo;s correspondence the matter of a curious chapter on the Maid, is found to have had at his disposal the same summary, which he made to enter his narrative (1). Our French text has nevertheless nothing official. It exists, with other fragments on the Maid, in French manuscript 7301 of the Bibliothèque nationale, following a prose history of the Passion of Jesus Christ. A Breton clerk named A. de Kaerrymell, who signed the writings of the Passion, appears to be also the author of the extracts on Joan; and, a more important circumstance, appears to have been contemporary.\n(1) See our vol. IV, p. 487.\nM. Buchon published twice the summary of the Poitiers deliberations, first in his Collection des Chroniques nationales (2), and then in the Panthéon littéraire. The text I give has been reviewed on the manuscript.\n(2) Vol. IX of Monstrelet.\nII. Treatise of Jacques Gélu, Archbishop of Embrun # This work was written after the raising of the siege of Orléans, to strengthen the king in the favourable opinion that the greatest number of French theologians thought he ought to have of the Maid. Its text is unedited; but it has long been signalised and even analysed (3). Lenglet Dufresnoy proposed to print it in the second edition, which he did not make, of his Histoire de Jeanne Darc (4). The manuscript whereof I took cognisance is at the Bibliothèque nationale (latin, Cangé, no. 6199). It is a small volume on parchment, of 4to format, whose first letter is ornamented with the painting of an escutcheon of France: a probable indication that this copy is the one which was presented to the king. Nevertheless it swarms with faults.\n(3) Lenglet Dufresnoy, Histoire de Jeanne Darc, vol. I, p. 34.\n(4) See above, pp. 390 and 468.\nThe work, at its appearing, had been judged worthy of being confirmed at the Chamber of Accounts of Grenoble. It was transcribed on that court\u0026rsquo;s register, entitled: Processus super insultu et guerra Anthonii de anno mcccc xxx [Trial on the assault and war of Antoine, of the year 1430]. M. de Boissieu, first president of the said chamber, had a copy of it despatched to MM. du Puy, which is still found today in volume 639 of the Du Puy Collection at the Bibliothèque nationale. It is entitled: Epistola directa serenissimo regi Francorum, compilata per reverendissimum in Christo dominum Jacobum Gelu, archiepiscopum Ebredunensem, super adventu Johannae Domini N. J. C. ancillae prefato regi ab alto directae [Letter addressed to the most serene king of the Franks, compiled by the most reverend lord in Christ Jacques Gélu, Archbishop of Embrun, on the coming of Joan, handmaid of Our Lord Jesus Christ, directed from on high to the aforesaid king].\nJacques Gélu\u0026rsquo;s treatise is a hotchpotch of little instruction. I reduced it much, pruning the longueurs of the discussion on points of dogma. The reader may be assured that these suppressions bear on no passage of any historical value. Where there was a single word to gather for the historian, rather than lose it I chose rather to reproduce whole periods of manifest uselessness and fatiguing obscurity.\nIII. Propositions of master Henri de Gorcum for and against the Maid # The beginning of this opuscule is that of a writing composed while Joan was at the apogee of her glory. It received from copyists the following title: Opus collativum de quadam Puella quae olim in Francia equitavit [Comparative work on a certain Maid who once rode in France]. The first editor of Gerson\u0026rsquo;s works, having found it in a manuscript, without author\u0026rsquo;s name and following the memoir written at Lyon in 1429 (1), printed it under Gerson\u0026rsquo;s name. Ellies du Pin restored to Henri de Gorcum the property of this work, though he too had found it anonymous in a Saint-Victor manuscript (2); but Melchior Goldast, in his collection De Sibylla francica, published in 1606, had given a text at the head of which the true author is named: Henrici de Gorkeim propositionum de Puella militari in Francia libri duo [Two books of propositions by Henri de Gorcum on the warrior Maid in France]. It is to be remarked that the most complete editions of Fabricius\u0026rsquo;s Bibliotheca do not mention this work of Henri de Gorcum.\n(1) Above, p. 464.\n(2) Opera Gersonii, vol. IV, col. 859.\nNot having been able to recover the Saint-Victor manuscript cited by du Pin, I had to content myself with the editions to reprint this opuscule.\nIV. Sibylla francica [The French Sibyl] # Melchior Goldast published this work at the head of the collection cited in the preceding article. He set it under a title containing all he knew of the author and the provenance: Laudayani cujusdam anonymi clerici, de Sibylla francica rotuli duo, quos Goldasto communicavit R. P. Johannes Myntzenbergius, prior monasterii Carmelitarum apud Francofurdianos [Two rolls on the French Sibyl by a certain anonymous clerk of Lauda, communicated to Goldast by R. P. Johannes Myntzenberg, prior of the Carmelite monastery at Frankfurt]. His edition is very faulty. A manuscript text, no less corrupt, exists among Christine\u0026rsquo;s manuscripts at the Vatican (no. 507). The latter is distributed no longer in two parts, but in four. It has neither title nor author\u0026rsquo;s name; but it is entered in the catalogue under this indication: De Puella Aurelianensi seu Sibylla Gallica disputatio duplex, una cum votis theologorum [Double disputation on the Maid of Orléans or the Gallic Sibyl, together with the opinions of theologians]. The manuscript Supplément latin no. 1033 of our Bibliothèque nationale contains a copy executed in 1787 of the Vatican text.\nThe two parts of the Sibylla francica (for there are but two) were written at a little interval one from the other, and the second bears the date of 27 September 1429. The facts alleged in the first are put under the warrant of a knight who had fought in France at the siege of a town whose name was left blank in the manuscripts (1). The author further cites the testimony of a French religious of the order of Prémontré, with whom he had conversed at Laudaya (2). This circumstance is what led Goldast to call the author of the Sibylla francica anonymus Laudayanus [the anonymous of Lauda].\n(1) Vol. II, p. 422.\n(2) Lauda or Landau? See vol. III, p. 433.\nThe second dissertation (secundus rotulus) is the result of a conference which the anonymous had, in a castle he does not name, with a doctor of law who was returning from England (3). As that doctor had given reasons against the Maid, our writer endeavours to refute him. He dedicates his work to Pierre de Grumbach, cantor of Saint-Germain of Speyer and vicar-general of the diocese, who had likewise received the homage of the first dissertation.\n(3) Vol. III, p. 439.\nThough the two books of the Sibylla francica are full of divagations and of an extreme obscurity, on account of the bad state of the texts, I reproduced them entire, as a curious monument of the opinion that could be formed of our Joan abroad. For the German ecclesiastic, she was a sibyl, a sibyl accepted of God, like her predecessors of antiquity. So he inquires much less of her exploits than of her predictions, or of the manner in which she looked at the sky during the night.\nTable of the Pieces Contained in this Volume # Testimonies of the Fifteenth-Century Poets # Christine de Pisan — 1 Antoine Astesan — 22 Anonymous author of a Latin poem on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s coming and on the deliverance of Orléans — 24 Martin Le Franc — 44 Martial d\u0026rsquo;Auvergne — 54 The mystery of the siege of Orléans — 79 Valeran Varanius — 87 Georges Chastellain — 90 François Villon — Ibid. Octavien de Saint-Gelais — 91 Letters, Acts and Other Detached Pieces # The Maid\u0026rsquo;s letter to the English — 95 Fragment of a letter written on the back of the preceding — 98 Letter of Charles VII to the inhabitants of Narbonne — 100 Collect introduced into the office on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s occasion — 104 Letter of the young lords of Laval to the ladies of Laval — 105 Furnishing of a garment made for the Maid, at the Duke of Orléans\u0026rsquo;s expense — 112 Letter of Perceval de Boulainvilliers to the Duke of Milan — 114 Fragment of a letter on prodiges come to pass in Poitou — 124 The Maid\u0026rsquo;s letter to the inhabitants of Tournai — 125 The Maid\u0026rsquo;s letter to the Duke of Burgundy — 126 Letter of three Angevin gentlemen to the wife and the mother-in-law of the sire de Bueil — 127 Letter of Alain Chartier to a foreign prince — 131 Fragment of a letter of the Duke of Bedford — 136 Exemption from taxes granted to the inhabitants of Greux and Domrémy — 139 Deliberation of the council of the town of Reims — 141 Public outrage done to the magistracy of Abbeville on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s account — 143 Communication of the king and of the Maid to the inhabitants of Troyes — 145 Note of divers provisions of war furnished by the town of Clermont-Ferrand at the Maid\u0026rsquo;s request — 146 The Maid\u0026rsquo;s letter to the inhabitants of Riom — 150 Letter of the sire d\u0026rsquo;Albret to the same — 151 Ennoblement of Joan of Arc and of her family — 153 Deliberation of the town council of Tours on a request of the Maid — 163 The Maid\u0026rsquo;s letter to the Hussites of Bohemia — 164 The Maid\u0026rsquo;s letter to the inhabitants of Reims — 168 Letter of the same to the same — 170 Edict against the English captains and soldiers who refused to pass into France for fear of the Maid — 173 Mass sung for Charles VII and for the Maid — 175 The Maid\u0026rsquo;s stay in the parish of Élincourt — 177 Letter of the Duke of Burgundy to the inhabitants of Saint-Quentin on the taking of the Maid — 180 Analysis of a letter of the chancellor of France to the inhabitants of Reims on the same subject — 181 Information on the Shepherd whereby men would have replaced the Maid — 183 Distribution of a tenth of the tax voted by the estates of Normandy for the purchase of the Maid — 184 Purchase of gold coin to pay the price of the Maid — 189 Edict against the English subjects who deserted for fear of the Maid — 191 Indemnity to Pierre Cauchon for the negotiations which preceded the purchase of the Maid — 194 Tower named after the Maid at Poitiers — 195 Payment made to the doctors called from Paris to attend the trial — 196 Gratification granted to Jean Beaupère over and above his days\u0026rsquo; wages — 200 Second payment to the doctors of Paris — 201 Deliberations of the chapter of Rouen on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial — 202 Gratification to the inquisitor Jean Lemaire — Ibid. Indemnity to the doctors sent to Paris to submit the trial to the Faculties — 203 Payment to Guillaume Erard for his participation in the trial — 205 Definitive settlement of account with the doctors of Paris — 207 Tumult at Serqueux in Champagne for the payment of a debt contracted by the Maid\u0026rsquo;s brother — 209 Donation of the Île-aux-Bœufs to Pierre du Lys — 211 Alms of the Duke of Orléans to one of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s brothers — 214 Works for the rehabilitation while the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville was informing — 216 Notice on the memoir of Pierre l\u0026rsquo;Hermite, sub-dean of Saint-Martin of Tours — Ibid. Co-operation of the chapter of Rouen in the rehabilitation — 218 Bequest of a copy of the rehabilitation trial to the church of Paris — Ibid. Confirmation of the privilege of nobility granted to the descendants of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family — 219 Bargain for the restoration of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s monument at Orléans — 224 Permission to the cadet branch of the du Lys family to take the Maid\u0026rsquo;s armories — 233 Reduction of the privilege of nobility for the descendants of the family of Le Bret — Ibid. Donation of Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s hat to the Oratorians of Orléans — 234 Inscriptions of the fountain raised at Rouen — 235 Inscriptions of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s monument at Orléans, at its second restoration — 238 Destruction of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s monument at Orléans — 239 Approbation of Napoleon Bonaparte, First Consul, to the project of raising a new monument to Joan of Arc — 243 Acquisition of Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s house by the department of the Vosges — 244 Pieces signalised by divers modern authors, which could not be recovered — 245 Testimonies Extracted from the Account Books # The Maid\u0026rsquo;s arrival in France — 257 Equipment of the Maid — Ibid. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s first stay at Orléans — 259 Deliverance of Orléans — 260 Expedition of Jargeau — 261 Battle of Patay — 263 Taking of Beaugency — Ibid. Embassy of the Duke of Brittany to the Maid — 264 Journey and stay at Reims — Ibid. The return — 266 The Maid\u0026rsquo;s portrait shown in Germany — 270 The Maid at Orléans in January 1430 — Ibid. Liberality made to the Maid\u0026rsquo;s painter — 271 Trial of condemnation — Ibid. Canons of Rouen incarcerated on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s account — 272 Anniversary of Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, at Orléans — 274 Reception of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s eldest brother, at Orléans, in 1436 — 275 Liberalities of the town of Orléans towards Isabelle d\u0026rsquo;Arc — Ibid. Beginning of the procedure for the rehabilitation — 276 The rehabilitation sentence executed at Orléans — Ibid. Present for the marriage of a nephew of the Maid, at Orléans — 278 Liberalities of Charles VII, of Duke Charles of Orléans and of Louis XI towards the du Lys family — 279 Documents Relating to the 8 May Festival # Chronicle of the establishment of the festival — 285 Indulgences granted by the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville for the celebration of the festival — 299 Other indulgences granted by Thibaud d\u0026rsquo;Aussigny — 302 Others granted by François de Brillac — 304 Others granted by the Cardinal Rolin — 306 Costs for the celebration of the festival in the fifteenth century — 308 Verses composed for the festival — 313 Complementary indications — 316 Documents on the False Joan of Arc # Extract from the Chronicle of Metz — 321 Another redaction of the same piece — 323 Extract from the Formicarium of Jean Nider — 324 Extract from the accounts of the town of Orléans for 1436 — 326 Extract from the contract of sale of a quarter of the seigniory of Haraucourt — 328 Extract from the Chronicle of Álvaro de Luna — 329 Extract from the accounts of the town of Orléans for 1439 — 331 Extract from the accounts of the town of Tours — 332 Testimony of Pierre Sala — Ibid. Extract from a remission of the Trésor des Chartes — 333 Extract from the Journal de Paris — 334 Extract from the book of famous women, by Antoine Dufour — 336 Supplement to the Pieces and Extracts Concerning the Maid # Fragment of the Religious of Dunfermline — 339 Ennoblement of Guillaume Cailly, companion of the Maid — 342 Letter written in 1429 by the agents of a town or of a prince of Germany — 347 Letter of Jean Desch, secretary of the town of Metz — 352 Contribution of the town of Bourges for the siege of La Charité — 356 The taking of Joan announced to the Duke of Brittany — 358 The Maid\u0026rsquo;s stay at the castle of Drugy — Ibid. Itinerary followed by the Maid from Drugy to Rouen — 360 Ennoblement of Jean de Novelonpont, companion of the Maid — 363 Letter of the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville to Charles VII — 366 Inscription of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s monument restored by the Orléanais in 1571 — 367 Continuation of the Memoir to consult on Guillaume de Flavy — 368 Spanish chronicle of the Maid — 374 Itinerary of the Maid — 377 Literary Notice of the Condemnation Trial # Of the first writings of the registry — 385 Of the instrument of the trial — 387 Of the edition of the trial — 389 Description of the manuscripts of the trial — 392 Of the instrument of the sentence — 410 Of the abridgement or summary of the trial — Ibid. Of an old translation of the trial — 414 Notice of the Rehabilitation Pieces # Of the preliminary information on the iniquity of the first trial — 419 Of the consultation of Theodore de Leliis — 423 Of the allegations of Paul Pontanus — 427 Of the consultation of the same — 428 Of the summary of Jean Bréhal — 429 Of the letter of Jean Bréhal to the prior of the Dominicans of Vienna — 431 Of the consultation of Pierre l\u0026rsquo;Hermite — 432 Of the first writings of the rehabilitation trial — Ibid. Of two modes of redaction applied to the instrument of the trial — 434 Of the faulty redaction of the definitive instrument — 436 Description of the unique manuscript of the first redaction — 438 Description of the manuscripts of the definitive redaction — 447 Of the consultations inserted in the trial — 461 Of the edition of the trial — 467 Of the summary of the conclusions given at Poitiers — 471 Of the treatise of Jacques Gélu — 473 Of the propositions of Henri de Gorcum — 474 Of the treatise De Sibylla francica — 475 The End\nAnalytical Table of the Contents Contained in the Five Volumes # ABBEVILLE, disposed to submit to the French, IV, 391. Words spoken against the magistracy of —, V, 143. Joan visited by the bourgeoises of —, V, 359. ABISSOR (Richard), subscribes the condemnation of Joan by the University of Paris, I, 424. ABJURATION. Text of Joan\u0026rsquo;s —, I, 447; different from the formula which she pronounced, III, 132, 156, 197. Account of the scene of —, II, 17, 334, 338; III, 52, 58, 61, 64, 113, 122, 146, 156, 164, 187, 194, 197, 273; IV, 468, 471, 472. Joan revokes her —, I, 436; III, 149, 157. ACCUSATION. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s being placed under —, I, 32. Act of — drawn up against her, I, 202 et seq. ADÈLE (Guillaume) assists at the condemnation trial, I, 375. Exhorts Joan to submit, I, 380. ADRÉSIN. See Alespée. AGNÈS, godmother of Joan, I, 46. SAINT AEWIS appears to Joan, IV, 268, 270. AIDES (cour des) [Court of Aids]. Registers of the —, V, 232. Advocate-general at the —, V, 226. SAINT AIGNAN, patron of Orléans, IV, 102, 104, 163; V, 300, 302, 314. His shrine, V, 297, 309, 311. His church at Orléans, III, 32, 33; IV, 102, 142, 144; V, 296, 298, 303, 305, 308, 342. SAINT-AIGNAN, town in Berry; Charles VII at —, V, 106, 107. AIREVILLE (Philippe d\u0026rsquo;), captain of Nemours for the English, IV, 413. AIMERY (Guillaume), examiner of Joan at Poitiers, III, 19, 83, 203, 204; IV, 210. AISNE, river, crossed by the French, IV, 49. ALAIN (Jacques), inhabitant of Vaucouleurs, II, 445, 447. SAINT ANDREWS, in Scotland. The Monk of —, chronicler, IV, 476. ALBI. Extract from a cartulary of the hôtel-de-ville of —, IV, 300. ALBRET (Charles, sire d\u0026rsquo;), sent for after the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 368. Fights at Jargeau, IV, 45; at Patay, IV, 242; V, 357. Has Joan lodged at René de Bouligny\u0026rsquo;s, at Bourges, III, 86. Accompanies the king to Reims, IV, 46, 69, 248, 376; V, 128. Fights at the day of Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193; at the attack on Paris, IV, 86. Writes to the inhabitants of Riom, V, 148. Accompanies Joan at the siege of Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier, III, 217; V, 74, 148; at the siege of La Charité, IV, 48; V, 146, 356. ALBRET (Guillaume d\u0026rsquo;), lord of Orval, brings succour to Orléans, IV, 117. Fights at the Herrings day, IV, 119, 122; is killed there, IV, 124, 206. ALENÇON (the town of), supposed conquered by the Maid, IV, 337. Bailiff of —, for the English, V, 178. Chronicles of the dukes of —, IV, 1, 38. ALENÇON (Jean, duke of). First news he has of Joan, III, 91. Present at her coming, IV, 363. The only one of the princes who welcomes her well, IV, 327. Witness of the sign brought by her, I, 119, 143, 285. Confidant of the secret revealed to the king, III, 112; IV, 208. Gives a horse to the Maid, III, 66, 92. Conducts her to Saint-Florent, IV, 10. Prepares the Orléans expedition, III, 93. Sent with Joan after the deliverance of Orléans, III, 10; IV, 42, 64, 66, 67, 169, 234, 236; V, 262, 293. Gives notice of the campaign to the constable, IV, 44. Words Joan says to him at Jargeau, III, 96; IV, 171, 236; at Beaugency, IV, 175, 317; at Patay, III, 41, 99; IV, 243. Duped by the English of the Marchenoir garrison, IV, 179, 246. Assists at the coronation as peer of France, IV, 20, 77, 186, 380; V, 128. Discontented at the return from Reims, IV, 79, 188. Assists at the skirmish of Montépilloy, IV, 21, 22, 83, 198, 434. Writes to the Parisians, IV, 464. Fights at the attack on Paris, IV, 25, 27, 28, 86, 87, 197, 199, 343. The king refuses him leave to send the Maid into Normandy, IV, 30, 48. He withdraws home, IV, 29. Communicates with Joan, II, 450. Reprimanded by her when he swore, III, 73, 99. Has had predictions from her, IV, 39. Called by her the fair duke, IV, 14, 15, 24, 27, 39, 236. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 90. ALENÇON (the duchess of), visited by Joan, IV, 10. Promise Joan makes her about her husband, III, 96. Comes to Orléans, V, 264. ALESPÉE or ADRÉSIN (Jean), assists at the condemnation trial, I, 40, 59, 69, 196, 202, 334, 403, 459. His opinion on the procedure, I, 428. His determination on Joan, I, 350. His sentence, I, 464. Present at the abjuration, I, 444; at the execution, I, 469; weeps, II, 375. Envies Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, III, 191. Bestirs himself for two canons imprisoned because of her, V, 272. ALLÉAUME (Jacques), receiver of Orléans, V, 224. ALLEU (Pierre de l\u0026rsquo;), present at the demand for rehabilitation, III, 373. THE GERMANS go to join Charles VII at Reims, V, 355. — auxiliaries of the Burgundians at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 441. ALMENÊCHES. Serjeanty of — in the viscounty of Argentan, V, 183. ALNWICK (William), Bishop of Norwich, assists at Joan\u0026rsquo;s abjuration, I, 443. Subscribes the safeguard of the judges, III, 243. ALMS offered to the Maid, II, 125; IV, 227. AMADE and AMADOC, French captain at Orléans, IV, 148. Fights at Patay, IV, 319. SAINT-AMANCE (Jacquier de), interrogated at Domrémy, II, 408. AMBLEVILLE, herald at arms of the Maid, III, 26. AMBOISE (the town of), opened to the Bretons, IV, 346. Captain of —, see Bours. AMBOISE (Georges d\u0026rsquo;), Archbishop of Rouen, V, 86. AMBOISE (the sire d\u0026rsquo;). See Thouars. AMELGARD confounded with Thomas Basin, IV, 350; V, 465. AMERVAT (Eloi d\u0026rsquo;), master of the chapel of Orléans cathedral, V, 312. AMI (Nicolas l\u0026rsquo;), assists at the condemnation trial, I, 92. His words on Joan of Arc, IV, 4. AMIENS, disposed to submit to the French, IV, 394. Bailiff of —, V, 144. Chancellor of the church of —, see Quénerville. AMOURET (Thomas), consulted on the procedure, I, 426. AMPULLA (the holy), brought by an angel, IV, 479; by a dove, IV, 313; miraculously, IV, 534. The English would carry it off from Reims, IV, 343. Miraculously replenished for the coronation of Charles VII, IV, 328. See Saint-Remy. ANCENIENSIS VILLA, Ancenis in Touraine, III, 101. ANDELOT, in Champagne, I, 209; II, 451, 454. Provost of —, see Petit. LES ANDELYS. Collegiate church of Notre-Dame of —, II, 10. ANDRÉ (Jean), church notary at Toul, II, 465. SAINT ANDREW. Cross of —, rallying sign of the Burgundians and the English, IV, 286. Church of Saint-André-des-Arcs at Paris, IV, 454. ANDRIEU (Robert), sent from Clermont-Ferrand to the Maid, V, 146. ANGELS. Summary of Joan\u0026rsquo;s doctrine on the —, I, 273, 276. Under what form they appeared to her, I, 480. The character of the — usurped by the Maid, I, 317, 343, 479; attributed to her, III, 409; V, 146. ANGERS (the inhabitants of) send succour to Orléans, IV, 156, 467. Accused of treason by Catherine de la Rochelle, IV, 473. Dean of Saint-Jean of —, V, 164. THE ENGLISH, summoned by letters of the Maid, I, 53; III, 7, 24, 27, 74, 126; IV, 42, 139, 215, 301, 306, 478; V, 96. Summoned by word of mouth, III, 68; IV, 12, 18, 138, 225, 344; V, 42. The Maid wills that they withdraw out of France, I, 234, 241; V, 354. Their retreat from Orléans, III, 9, 25, 29, 110, 127; IV, 63, 164, 232, 366; V, 348. Their discouragement, IV, 341, 418. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s impression upon them, III, 8, 24, 174, 189; IV, 66, 221, 341, 418, 431, 480, 493, 517; V, 162, 192, 296. Whether God hates them, I, 178, 258. Have the reputation of being superstitious, II, 370. — priests saved by the Maid, III, 69. — prisoners well treated by her, III, 74. Fear of the —, cause of Joan\u0026rsquo;s evasion at Beaurevoir, I, 110, 150, 226. Joan believed she would escape them by ransom, III, 131. Put the Maid on trial to dishonour the king, II, 70, 301, 303, 305, 307, 328, 360; III, 134, 173; IV, 273. Fear lest she die of sickness, II, 203, 219; III, 31, 244. Violent her in her prison, II, 5, 8, 203, 318. Find the trial too long, III, 190. Intimidate the members of the tribunal, II, 14, 19, 24, 349, 364; III, 166, 183, 184. Insult Joan after her abjuration, II, 376. Joan asks their pardon, I, 483; II, 344. They weep at the moment of the execution, II, 6, 20. Conversion of one — on seeing her die, II, 357. ANGLESCHERIE, English brood, II, 8. ENGLAND. Opinion on Joan in —, III, 440. Terror produced there by her name, V, 162, 192. Joan conducted into — (fabulous), IV, 335. Salisbury\u0026rsquo;s body sent into —, IV, 101; and that of William Glasdale likewise, IV, 463. Chronicles of —, IV, 403, 476. ANGLICT or LANGLOIS, church notary at Lisieux, I, 365. ANGOT (Jean), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109, 265. ANCERENSIS VILLA, Anché in Touraine, III, 101. ANJOU, pacified, V, 333. ANJOU (Charles d\u0026rsquo;), accompanies the king on the Reims journey, IV, 376; V, 354. ANJOU (Louis III of), King of Sicily, IV, 338. ANJOU (Marie of), Queen of France, was at Bourges at Joan\u0026rsquo;s coming, III, 85. Joan sees her before being presented to the king, V, 100. Attests Joan\u0026rsquo;s virginity, I, 95. Brought to Gien for the coronation, then sent back to Bourges, IV, 180, 247. Goes as far as Épernay, V, 354. Informed of her husband\u0026rsquo;s coronation, V, 128, 131. Receives Joan\u0026rsquo;s salutations on the return from Reims, III, 86. Deduction of her kindred, IV, 338. ANJOU (René of), Duke of Bar, rejoins Charles VII at Provins, IV, 23; at Saint-Denis, IV, 47; at Reims, IV, 77, 185; V, 65. Discontented at the too prompt return from Reims, IV, 49, 188. Commands an army corps at Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193. Lodged at La Chapelle-Saint-Denis, IV, 27, 342. Prevents the Maid from attacking Paris a second time, IV, 28. RINGS of the Maid, I, 86, 103, 185, 236, 238; on one of which she continually fixed her looks, IV, 480. A gold — sent by her to Anne de Laval, V, 109. ENNOBLEMENT of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, V, 149, 220, 227; restricted, V, 233. — of Gui de Cailly, V, 342. — of Jean de Novelonpont, V, 363. ANQUETIL (Henriet), Orléanais, V, 275. SAINT ANTOINE, church of Orléans, V, 287. — of Paris (the commander of), IV, 434. — in Dauphiné (the abbot of), V, 134. SAINT ANTONINUS of Forciglioni. His opinion on Joan, IV, 506 note. APPARITIONS of the Maid, under what form perceived, I, 479, 480, 481, 482. Cease from the moment she is condemned, IV, 473. Joan\u0026rsquo;s first —, I, 52; III, 204; IV, 118, 430, 524; V, 117. — common to Joan and to Gui de Cailly, V, 344. See Revelations, Voices. ARAGON (Yolande of), Queen of Sicily, mother-in-law of Charles VII, prepares the Orléans expedition, III, 93. Attests Joan\u0026rsquo;s virginity, III, 209; V, 87. Commission of the inhabitants of Tours and of Angers towards her, IV, 473 note. Informed of her son-in-law\u0026rsquo;s coronation, V, 128, 131. Counsellor of —, at Tours, V, 154. ARAGONESE. See Mathias, Sernay. APPARVAT (Edward), élu of Argentan for the English, V, 178. APREMONT. Building stone of —, V, 225. AQUITAINE (duchy of). Its defence entrusted to the cadet of Armagnac, IV, 377. Annals of — cited, IV, 337. THE FAIRIES\u0026rsquo; TREE at Domrémy, I, 67, 68, 186, 210, 211, 328; II, 394, 396, 398, 400, 404, 407, 409, 410, 413, 416, 418, 420, 422, 425, 427, 430, 434, 440, 456; IV, 468. The curate of Domrémy went there at Ascension, II, 397. Joan had no particular devotion to it, II, 391, 399, 405, 407, 411, 440, 450. Said to be of the Maid, V, 246 note. At what epoch destroyed, II, 390 note. D\u0026rsquo;ARC, family name of the Maid, II, 71; V, 50, 220, 343. See Daix, Jeanne. ARC (Isabelle d\u0026rsquo;), mother of the Maid, I, 46, 208; II, 74; IV, 205. Goes to join her daughter in France, III, 101. Ennobled, V, 151, 220. Requires the rehabilitation of her daughter, II, 82, 92; III, 368, 370, 373; V, 76. Asks not to have to assist at all the audiences, II, 108. Appears before the Archbishop of Reims at Orléans, II, 283. Pensioned by the town of Orléans, V, 276. Dies there, V, 276. See Isabellette, Romée. ARC (Jacquemin d\u0026rsquo;), Joan\u0026rsquo;s eldest brother, ennobled, V, 154, 220. ARC (Jacques d\u0026rsquo;), father of the Maid, I, 46, 208; II, 388, 398, 400, 401, 407, 408, 410, 443, 451; IV, 205, 520 note. His dreams on his daughter\u0026rsquo;s subject, I, 132, 219. Joan hides from him her design of going away, I, 129. He would have had her put to death rather than let her go, I, 432; IV, 472. He goes to find the king with his wife, IV, 269, 280; at Reims, III, 198; V, 144, 266, 267. Ennobled, V, 151, 220. Dies of grief at his daughter\u0026rsquo;s death, V, 83. ARC (Jean d\u0026rsquo;), brother of Joan, flees to Neufchâteau with his sister, II, 423; III, 101. Accompanies her into France, III, 101; IV, 126, 300; V, 260. Lodges at Jacques Boucher\u0026rsquo;s at Orléans, IV, 153. Ennobled, V, 151, 220. Believes he recognises his sister at Metz in 1436, V, 321. Returns to Orléans, V, 275, 326. Gratified by that town, V, 260, 275, 326. Provost of Vaucouleurs, II, 74. Prosecutes his sister\u0026rsquo;s rehabilitation, II, 82; V, 76. Appears at Paris, II, 74, 82; III, 255, 368, 373. Appears at Rouen, III, 256, 258, 351, 352. Bearer of the commission to inform in Joan\u0026rsquo;s country, II, 387. Produces witnesses for the discharge, II, 451, 464. Asks for act of the rehabilitation sentence, III, 362. Bailiff of Vermandois and captain of Chartres, V, 279. Discharged of the provostship of Vaucouleurs, V, 280. Called du Lys and of Vaucouleurs, V, 279, 280 note. Called Petit-Jean, V, 321. His lineage, V, 227, 230. ARC (Pierre d\u0026rsquo;), younger brother of the Maid, comes to find his sister in France, IV, 126, 306; V, 108. Dwells in the same house at Orléans, IV, 153. Fights at the deliverance of the town, V, 213. Accompanies Joan to Reims, III, 198. Ennobled, V, 151, 220. Named Pierre du Lys, see Lys. Taken at Compiègne with his sister, IV, 439, 447; V, 210. Believes he recognises her at Metz, V, 321. Receives divers gifts from the Duke of Orléans, V, 213, 214, 280; from the town of Orléans, V, 276, 278; from the king of France, V, 279. His lineage, V, 228. ARGENTAN, town, V, 178, 180. Enumeration of the viscounty of —, V, 182. ARGENTON (the lord of), V, 109. ARLON, in Luxembourg, V, 322, 324, 327. ARMAGNAC (Bernard of), Count of Périgord and of La Marche, estranged from the king\u0026rsquo;s service, IV, 46, 240, 320; commissioned to the defence of Aquitaine, IV, 377. Supposed on the Reims journey, IV, 376; at the siege of Paris, IV, 343. ARMAGNAC (Jean, Count of). Correspondence between him and Joan, I, 82, 243, 245, 246. Supposed to assist at the siege of Paris, IV, 343. ARMAGNAC (Thibaud of), lord of Termes, defender of Orléans, III, 119; IV, 44, 158. Fights at Patay, IV, 177. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 118. ARMAGNAC (the Cardinal of), gratified with a manuscript on Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s rehabilitation, V, 422. ARMAGNACS, injurious denomination of the French, III, 108; IV, 286, 427, 462, 464, 467, 473; V, 169. ARMOIRIES of the Maid, I, 117, 300; V, 227, 246; granted to the cadet branch of the du Lys family, V, 230. — of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, V, 228; of Gui de Cailly, V, 345. ARMOISES (Robert des), married to the false Joan of Arc, V, 323, 324, 325, 328, 329. Jeanne des —, V, 331, 332. See Joan of Arc (false). ARMOUR of Joan made by the king\u0026rsquo;s order, IV, 3, 301, 363; V, 258, 289; made at Tours, III, 67, 94, 210; donned at Poitiers, IV, 212; before the departure for Orléans, IV, 426; described, IV, 469; V, 107. Joan armed at Orléans and on the Reims journey, IV, 56, 60, 70, 132, 248, 283, 322; armed with a jaseran, III, 9, 127; IV, 233; wearing a chapeline at Jargeau, III, 97; a salade at Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier, III, 218; kept her — at the bivouac, IV, 250; V, 120; loved fine armours, V, 120. Arms given her by the town of Clermont, V, 146. Her — offered by her at Saint-Denis, I, 179, 304; IV, 88; V, 71; is taken by the English, IV, 89; V, 71. See Banner, Sword, Standard. ARNOLIN (Henri), confessed Joan, II, 459. Interrogated at Toul, II, 458. ARONDE, river, V, 176. ARUNDEL (the Earl of), English captain at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 32, 49, 92, 346; V, 73. Commands at the battle of the Shepherd, V, 171, 173. ARRAS. The Maid at —, I, 96, 100, 229, 230, 326. Conferences at — for the peace between Charles VII and Philip the Good, IV, 390. Jean du Lys the younger, alderman of —, V, 228, 230. ARSENAL. Manuscripts of the — relating to Joan of Arc, V, 421, 464. ARTICLES. The preliminary information against Joan reduced into articles for the instruction and interrogation, I, 28. The interrogatories reduced to twelve —, I, 327; III, 64, 143, 163, 196; by Nicolas Midi, III, 60; by the doctors sent from Paris, III, 143. Text of the twelve —, I, 328. Right is not done to the corrections demanded upon the —, III, 144, 196, 234. Deliberations upon the —, I, 337 et seq., 411 et seq.; III, 145. The twelve — read to Joan according to the trial\u0026rsquo;s word, I, 430 et seq.; which the registrar denies, III, 145; refuted by Theodore de Leliis, II, 22; impugned by the defence, II, 174, 187, 203, 222, 255; III, 272, 291. Production of the draft of the corrections proposed for the —, III, 143, 231, 238, 376; written by Manchon\u0026rsquo;s hand, III, 196, 231, 237, 330. The twelve — condemned, III, 359; torn after the dictum of the rehabilitation sentence, III, 362. ARTILLERY. Joan heard at the service of the —, III, 109. The Reims journey made without —, III, 118. — lost at the siege of La Charité, IV, 49, 94. ASTESAN (Antoine), his testimony on Joan of Arc, V, 22. ATOURNÉS or aldermen of Compiègne, V, 174, 376. AUBÉE (Guillaume), witness to the rehabilitation acts, II, 137; III, 227. AUBERŒ (sergenterie of), in the viscounty of Exmes, V, 183. AUBERT (Jean), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 30. AUBERVILLIERS, near Paris. The French encamped at —, IV, 392. AUCUIS. See Loiselleur. AUGE. Sergenterie of the —, in the viscounty of Argentan, V, 183. Archdeaconry of the diocese of Évreux, III, 373. AUGUSTINIANS. The church and convent of the —, at Orléans, IV, 97; V, 296, 310. Bastille of the —, at the same place, III, 70, 79, 94, 108, 117, 214, 215; IV, 7, 43, 60, 159, 217, 226, 493; V, 55, 292. — of Bayeux, see Bayeux. AULT (Raoul), assists at the condemnation trial, I, 39, 49, 59, 69, 81, 92, 382, 405. His determination on Joan, I, 358. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. AULON (Jean d\u0026rsquo;), maître d\u0026rsquo;hôtel of the Maid, afterwards seneschal of Beaucaire; the most honest man of the French army, III, 15. Was at Chinon at the Maid\u0026rsquo;s coming, III, 77. Declares he saw her for the first time only at Poitiers, III, 209. Put to her service, III, 15, 210, 218; IV, 129, 211. Goes to Blois to fetch the army, III, 211. Confidant of a revelation of Joan\u0026rsquo;s, at Orléans, III, 79, 212. Charged with a command at the taking of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc, III, 214. Advances first at the assault of the Tourelles, III, 216. Causes the bridge of Orléans to be broken with a bombard, III, 80. Wounded at the siege of Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier, III, 217. Taken at the sally of Compiègne, IV, 439, 447. Serves Joan in her prison of Beaulieu, IV, 35. Dwelt a year by her side, III, 218. Invited to depose on the Maid by the Archbishop of Reims, III, 208. Deposes at Lyon, III, 209. Notes on his life, III, 206. AULON (Philippe d\u0026rsquo;), pensioned by Louis XI, III, 207 note. AUMALE, reduced to the French authority, IV, 48; V, 69. AUMONT (the lord of), Burgundian captain, V, 144. AUSSIGNY (Thibaud d\u0026rsquo;), Bishop of Orléans, grants indulgences for the celebration of 8 May, V, 302. AUTIN (Jean), witness cited for the rehabilitation, II, 296. AUSTRIA (Ernest and Frederick, dukes of), III, 462, 463. Ambassador of the duke of — in France, II, 71. See Wilzkehet. Chancellor of —, see Ulrich. AUVERGNE. Fighters sent from — to Orléans, V, 119, 430. Charles VII reduced to contenting himself with —, IV, 127. AUVERGNE (Martial d\u0026rsquo;), or of Paris, author on the Maid, V, 31, 451; on the Shepherd, V, 173. AUXERRE. The Maid passes there coming into France, I, 54, 222. Returns there with the French army, IV, 46, 247; V, 60, 264. Excites no enthusiasm there, IV, 286. The town of — received by composition in spite of Joan, IV, 72, 184, 250, 377. Review of the men-at-arms between — and Troyes, III, 76. AVERDY (De l\u0026rsquo;), cited, II, 5, 19, 59, 352; IV, 255; V, 406, 408, 409, 420, 421, 422, 424, 461, 466, 467, 468. His error on the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, V, 441. AVIGNON (Marie d\u0026rsquo;), predicts the coming of Joan, III, 83. AVIT (Jean de Saint-), Bishop of Avranches. His determination on Joan not entered in the trial, II, 6. Threatened by d\u0026rsquo;Estivet, II, 348. AVRANCHES, supposed conquered by the Maid, IV, 337. Bishop of —, see Avit, Bochart. SAINT AVY, church of Orléans, IV, 102. Shrine of —, V, 314. AWREBRUCH (Blanche d\u0026rsquo;), wife of Guillaume de Flavy, IV, 273; V, 372. AYMERI or AYMERICI. See Aimery. BAQUILLON, near Metz, V, 322. BAIGNART (Robert), confessor of Joan, III, 119. Preacher at Orléans, V, 309. BAILLY (Nicolas), informs at Domrémy in 1429, II, 441, 454, 455. Interrogated at Toul in 1455, II, 451. BÂLE (council of), explained to Joan, II, 4, 13, 304. Terms in which it is proposed to her to submit to it, I, 398. Joan appeals to it, II, 5, 224, 254, 349. Jean Beaupère goes there, II, 21; V, 198. Loiselleur dies there, III, 162. Conversations on Joan at the —, IV, 504. BALUZE (Étienne). His name on two manuscripts of the trial, V, 396, 447. BALZAC (Jeanne de), wife of Claude d\u0026rsquo;Urfé, V, 446. BARRIER (the gate). See Orléans. BANNER of the Maid described, III, 104; IV, 132, 301. Confounded with the standard, IV, 322, 490; V, 238. Burnt, IV, 133. Borne to the exclusion of other ensigns, IV, 451, 452. Taken up again by the descendants of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, V, 229. Borne at the 8 May festival at Orléans, V, 310, 316. BANNIÈRES (the), or trade guilds at Tournai, V, 124. BAQUEVILLE-LE-MARTEL, parish of the diocese of Rouen, II, 317; III, 193. BAR (duke of). See Anjou (René of). Duchy of —, IV, 38. See Barrois. BAR (le Bourg de), taken by the English, IV, 119. Delivered, IV, 63, 165. BARATIN (Pierre), bourgeois of Orléans, V, 262, 275, 326. BARBE (H. La), notable of Reims, V, 144. BARBIER (Robert), assists at the condemnation trial, I, 6, 39, 48, 69, 81, 196, 202, 382, 405; at the abjuration, I, 444. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199. His determination on Joan, I, 349. His opinion on the torture, I, 403. BARBIN (Guillaume), predicts the deliverance of France, IV, 536. BARBIN (Jean), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 82. BARDIN, diminutive of Isambard or Isambert, II, 161, 302, 343. See Pierre (Isambard de la). BARETON (Jean), priest of Rouen cathedral, I, 340. BARNEVILLE (Jean), witness to the rehabilitation acts, III, 255. BARON, village near Senlis, IV, 47, 80, 82, 191, 192, 386. BAROUSE. See Berwoit. BARRÉ and BARNEY (Jean), godfather of the Maid, I, 46, 421; II, 398, 429. Edite, his wife, II, 429. BARREY (Jean), subscribes the condemnation of Joan by the University of Paris, I, 424. BARRETTE, French captain, IV, 91; V, 72; lieutenant of the Maid at Compiègne, V, 177. BARRIAUT (Massot), Orléanais, V, 263. BARROIS, duchy, IV, 3, 38, 52, 153, 213; V, 27, 237. Inhabitants of —, IV, 342. BASIN (Jean and Perrin), Orléanais, IV, 161 note; V, 334. BASIN (Thomas), Bishop of Lisieux; his opinion on Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 309; IV, 355; demanded by Charles VII, IV, 355. Notice on this work, V, 465. Judged the Maid after Pontanus\u0026rsquo;s consultation, III, 313; and after the very instrument of the trial, IV, 355. His historical testimony on her, IV, 350. Is the author of the history of Charles VII attributed to Amelgard, IV, 350. BASQUEZ, bore Joan\u0026rsquo;s standard at the assault of the Tourelles, III, 216. BASSET (Jean), assists at the condemnation trial, I, 39, 49, 81, 196, 202, 334; V, 271. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199. His determination on Joan, I, 342. Imprisoned because of Joan, V, 272, 278. BASTIS (Jean de), assists at the condemnation trial, I, 382. BATEUR (Mathieu Le), assists at the condemnation trial, I, 442. BÂTIE (La). Library of the castle of —, V, 446. BAUDRIBOSC (Guillaume de), assists at the condemnation trial, I, 58, 69, 81, 92, 354, 459. His sentence, I, 466. BAUDRICOURT (Robert de), captain of Vaucouleurs, made war against the Burgundians, IV, 205. Joan goes to find him, I, 53, 216, 233, 333; II, 391, 414, 428, 432, 436, 444, 456; III, 193; IV, 52, 118, 205, 330; V, 133. He refuses at first to hear her, I, 53; II, 436; IV, 32, 118, 205, 326, 508. She reveals to him the battle of the Herrings, IV, 125, 206. Sole confidant of Joan\u0026rsquo;s revelations, I, 128. Visits her at her hostess\u0026rsquo;s, II, 446. Writes to the king on her subject, III, 115; IV, 128. Gives her a sword, I, 54, 76, 222. Has her dressed as a man, IV, 469; V, 30. Is not he who advised her this clothing, I, 74, 222. Had indoctrinated her to abuse the French, IV, 407. His words to the Maid, I, 58, 220, 222; II, 444; V, 30. He sends her to the king, IV, 362; V, 30. Conducts her himself to Nancy, then to Bourges, IV, 268, 331. BAUGENCY falls to Salisbury\u0026rsquo;s power, V, 286. The English withdraw there, III, 71; IV, 10. Defended by Talbot, IV, 239. Siege of —, III, 10, 120; IV, 14, 174, 240, 412; V, 263. Surrender of the town, III, 97; IV, 45, 66, 318, 340, 371, 419; V, 37, 120, 122, 351; of the castle and the bridge, III, 98; IV, 66, 67, 175, 244. Talbot conducted prisoner to —, III, 75. Archdeacon of —, V, 309. BAUGENY (Simon de), Orléanais, IV, 116. BAUGI (Pierre), Breton captain, IV, 318. BAUT (Pierre le), Breton chronicler, IV, 315. BAVON (Anne), visits Joan at Rouen, II, 155. BAYEUX. Augustinians of —, III, 100. BAYONNE, conquered by the Maid (fabulous), IV, 334. BAZOCHES (Thomas de), lieutenant of the captain of Reims, IV, 292. BÉATRIX, godmother of the Maid, II, 388, 410. Interrogated, II, 395. BÉATRIX, lady of Bourlémont, II, 404. BEAUCAIRE (seneschal of). See Aulon (Jean d\u0026rsquo;), Villars (the sire of). BEAUCE. Joan believed she would arrive at Orléans by the —, III, 5; IV, 215, 218. The —, road of the second convoy brought to Orléans, IV, 56, 222; place of the greatest strength of the English besieging Orléans, IV, 151, 217, 218. Arrival at Orléans of the English garrisons of the —, IV, 134. Arrival of the Bretons by the —, IV, 316. Beaugency besieged on the — side, IV, 175. March of the English army by the —, IV, 413, 416. BEAUÇOIS (Simon), often helped Joan to arm, III, 81. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 77. BEAUFORD. See Winchester. BEAUHARNAIS (Jean), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 34. Pétronille, his wife, deposes likewise, III, 35. BEAULIEU, in Vermandois. The English at —, V, 74. The Maid prisoner at —, IV, 34, 35, 402. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s attempted escape at —, I, 163, 249; IV, 470. BEAUMANOIR (Jacques de Dinan, lord of), at the expedition of Patay and of Reims, IV, 66, 68, 176, 177, 243, 316, 319, 320. Performs at the coronation the office of peer, IV, 380. BEAUMONT (viscounty of), possessed by the Duke of Alençon, IV, 29. BEAUNE-LA-ROLANDE, village of the Orléanais, IV, 149. BEAUPÈRE (Jean), doctor sent for to the condemnation trial, II, 62; assists at it, I, 29, 31, 34, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 113, 180, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 195, 323, 354, 404, 430. Interrogates the Maid, I, 50, 64, 70; II, 16; III, 48; with partiality, I, 357; III, 54, 140. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199. His determination on Joan, I, 337. Sent to Paris to gather the University\u0026rsquo;s opinion, I, 407, 409, 420; II, 64. Paid for his trouble, V, 197, 199, 203, 208. Advises Joan to submit, II, 21. Assists at the abjuration, I, 443; III, 54, 64. Sent to ascertain Joan\u0026rsquo;s relapse, II, 21. Goes off to the council of Bâle, II, 21; V, 198. Interrogated in 1450, II, 20. His opinion on Joan and on her revelations, II, 20, 24. BEAUREVOIR. Joan at the castle of —, I, 95, 110, 230; II, 298; IV, 121; IV, 402, 447; casts herself down from the tower, I, 150, 152, 160, 169, 259, 261, 266, 326, 333; II, 45. Pierre Cauchon goes there, V, 194. BEAUREVOIR (the lady of), in relation with Joan, I, 95. BEAUVAIS, reduced to the French authority, IV, 48, 80, 85, 190, 391; V, 69. Chief town of the reconquered country, IV, 394. Battle of the Shepherd lost by the garrison of —, V, 171, 172, 173. Citations executed at — for the rehabilitation, III, 182. Bishop of —, see Cauchon, Hellande. Cathedral of —, II, 129. Garden of the bishopric of —, II, 133. BEAUVAISIS. Ravage of the — in 1429, IV, 93, 393. BEAUVAU (Waleran de), defends Paris, IV, 393. BEAUVAU (Pierre de), gives a horse to the Dauphin, Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s brother, V, 38. Writes the news of the coronation, V, 130. BEAUVOISIER (Jean le), present at the demand for rehabilitation, III, 373. BEC (Jean du), present at the rehabilitation acts, II, 208, 270, 276; III, 39, 362. Chosen to second the Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, V, 218. BEC-HELLUIN (le), abbey. See Frique (Thomas). BEDE the Venerable, predicted the Maid, III, 338, 341; V, 12. BEGOT (Jean), inhabitant of Domrémy, II, 441. BELIN (Geoffroi de Saint-), French captain, IV, 91. BELLES, woman of Orléans, IV, 97. BELLIER (Guillaume), host of the Maid at Chinon, III, 17. The false Joan of Arc writes to him, V, 327. BELLIÈVRE (Barthelemi and Hugues), church notaries at Lyon, III, 220, 221. BÉNÉDICTÉ, surname of Jean d\u0026rsquo;Estivet, II, 15, 141, 303; III, 196. See Estivet. BENEDICT XIV, antipope, I, 245. SAINT-BENOÎT-SUR-LOIRE. The Maid at —, III, 116. BERETH (Martin), subscribes to the Maid\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. BERGASSE (Philippe de), author on Joan of Arc, IV, 521. BERGER or PASTOUREL (Guillaume le), what he says of Joan, V, 168. Makes an unsuccessful sortie against the English, V, 170, 171, 172, 173. Brought bound to Paris, V, 170; drowned in the Seine, V, 171. BERGÈRE (la), name of a bombard of Orléans, IV, 171. BERMONT (Notre-Dame de), hermitage near Domrémy, II, 389, 404, 413, 416, 420, 427, 433, 439, 452, 455, 462; III, 193. Allusion to the chapel of —, IV, 524. BERNI (Guernerio), author on the Maid, IV, 519. BERNIER (Mgr), bishop of Orléans, restores the commemorative festival of the deliverance of the city, V, 317. BERRY. Convoy brought from — into Orléans, IV, 144. The king returns to — after his coronation, IV, 394; V, 71. The sire d\u0026rsquo;Albret, lieutenant of the country of —, V, 150. Seneschal of —, V, 121. BERRY (Jacques le Bouvier, called), king-at-arms and chronicler of France, author on the Maid, IV, 40; on the Shepherd, V, 172. His chronicle incorporated into the Journal du siège d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, IV, 95. BERRIAT SAINT-PRIX (M.), drew up the itinerary of the Maid, V, 377. BERRUYER (Martin), bishop of Le Mans, gives his opinion on the trial of Joan, III, 314. Notice on his memoir, V, 440. BERTHELOT (Raoulet), bourgeois of Tours, V, 155. BERTIN (Nicolas), present at the condemnation trial, I, 454, 459. BERTRAND (messire), physician of Orléans, V, 275. BERWOIT, alias BAROUST (John), guard of the Maid, I, 48, 135. BEDFORD (John of Lancaster, duke of), summoned by the Maid, I, 240; IV, 140, 216, 308; V, 96. Sends an army to Talbot\u0026rsquo;s relief, IV, 44, 413, while waiting to go himself, IV, 369. Will not abandon the siege of Orléans, IV, 147. Withdraws from Paris after the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 233. Returns through Brie with an army, IV, 382, 453. Awaited by the French at Château-Thierry, IV, 20; at Lamotte-de-Nangis, IV, 79, 188; V, 68. Retreats, IV, 79. Offers battle to the king of France, IV, 46; at Mitry, IV, 47, 80, 189, 433; V, 69; at Notre-Dame de la Victoire and at Montépilloy, IV, 21, 47, 82, 83, 191, 194, 433. Prevents a rapprochement between Burgundy and France, IV, 390. Writes to the king of England about his reverses, V, 136. Retreats to Paris, IV, 24, 80, 196, 436. Renews his alliance with the duke of Burgundy, IV, 48, 201. Prevents the English from renouncing their conquests in France, IV, 341. Withdraws to Rouen, IV, 25, 48, 85, 197; V, 69. Lodged in the castle of that city, IV, 35. Has the Maid delivered to him, IV, 35. Spies on the visit of Joan by the matrons, III, 163. The judgement and death of Joan attributed to him alone, IV, 35, 480, 506. He narrowly escapes an ambush at Mantes, V, 169. Defends Lagny, V, 145. BEDFORD (the duchess of), has Joan visited by matrons, II, 201; III, 89, 155, 163, 180. Orders that regard be shown her, III, 155. Has a woman\u0026rsquo;s skirt made for her, III, 89. BÉTHUNE (Antoine de), fights at Montépilloy, IV, 387. BÉTHUNE (Jeanne de). See Beaurevoir (the lady of). BEUIL (the lord of), at the defence of Orléans, IV, 101, 222. BEUVRONNE, stream near Dammartin, IV, 46. LIBRARY. Manuscripts of the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris concerning the history of the Maid, IV, 1, 38, 40, 51, 204, 277, 284, 300, 312, 313, 339, 347, 350, 361, 406, 429, 532, 533, 536; V, 44, 95, 104, 105, 121, 131, 164, 165, 166, 173, 194, 280, 323, 358, 368; concerning her condemnation, V, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 409; her rehabilitation, V, 424, 425, 428, 429, 431, 438, 447, 449, 452, 454, 455, 456, 464, 473, 475. The library of the National Assembly possesses a manuscript of the trial, V, 392. The library of the Institut de France possesses the manuscript of the chronicle of the Maid, IV, 204. See Arsenal, Bâtie (la), Bodleian, Geneva, Sainte-Geneviève, Orléans, Paris, Rosny, Vatican, Saint-Victor, etc. BIDAULT (Jean), nephew of P. Cauchon, II, 195; domiciled at Rouen, II, 11. Guillemette, his sister, wife of De Rivel, II, 194. BIENVILLE, near Compiègne, V, 176. BIARS (Guillaume de), witness cited for the rehabilitation, II, 296. BILLORMI rather than BILLORINI (Martin), vice-inquisitor of France, I, 3; III, 378; V, 392. His letter to the duke of Burgundy, I, 12. BISCAY. Help sent from — into France, V, 330. BISET (Sir Henry), captain of Jargeau, IV, 167. BISUETIO (Gui de), canon of Rouen, I, 364. BLATNA. See Rozmital. BLAYE, recovered by the Maid (fabulous), IV, 535. BLOIS. Embassy of the Orléanais at —, IV, 114, 119. Joan for the first time at —, III, 4, 18, 67, 78, 104; IV, 5, 54, 139, 213, 215, 363, 490. Help sent to Orléans by those of —, IV, 156, 167. The captains, defenders of Orléans, go to — to fetch the king\u0026rsquo;s army, III, 79, 210; IV, 5, 55, 56, 152; V, 290. Joan returns there after the deliverance of Orléans, III, 80. Castle of —, V, 280. Saint-Sauveur church at —, IV, 215. Bailiff of —. See Thibault. BLONDEL (Robert), author on the Maid, IV, 345. BLOUNT (Thomas), treasurer of Normandy, V, 178, 191, 196, 198, 202, 203, 205. BODLEIAN (library), at Oxford. Manuscript of the — on the Maid, IV, 482; V, 339. BOGAET (Robin le), V, 263. BOCHART (Jean), called de Vaucelle, bishop of Avranches, at Paris during the rehabilitation trial, III, 317. Consulted on the condemnation of Joan, III, 318. Notice on his memoir, V, 466. BOQUET (Isambert), Orléanais, V, 270. BOETHIUS (Hector), consults the rehabilitation manuscript, V, 449. BOHEMIA. Joan predicts the pacification of this country by a woman, III, 436. BOHEMIANS, heretics of Bohemia. English army levied against them, IV, 81, 191, 453. Joan threatens them by letter, IV, 503. See Hussites. BOLEVE (Jean), Orléanais, V, 263. BOIS CHENU or CHESNU, above Domrémy, I, 68, 213; III, 15, 133, 340, 341, 342. BOISGUILLAUME. See Colles. BOISSEL (Guerould), dean of the faculty of canon law of Paris, I, 419, 421. BOISSIEU (M. de), sends a memoir on the Maid to Le Puy, V, 474. BOISY. See Gouffier. BOIVIN (Robert), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 287. BOLLEMONT, for Bourlemont, II, 404, 413, 427. BOLEMONT, for Bourlemont, II, 404, 413, 427. BOMBACHELIER (Jean), Orléanais, V, 326. BONAPARTE (Napoleon), approves the rebuilding of a monument to the Maid at Orléans, V, 243. Authorises the restoration of the festival of the deliverance of Orléans, V, 317. BONNART (Hervé), prior of Saint-Magloire of Orléans, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 32. BONESQUE (Jean de), his determination on Joan, I, 352. BORGARS, family of Orléans, V, 234. BONNET (Guillaume), abbot of Cormeilles, attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 381, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443. His opinion on the procedure, I, 424; his determination on Joan, I, 367. BONNES-NOUVELLES (church of), at Orléans, V, 344. BONNET (Simon), one of the examiners of the Maid, III, 92. BONNY-SUR-LOIRE, taken by the French, IV, 180, 246. Summons to the captain of —, IV, 245. BONS-MOULINS, place near Louviers, V, 179. BORD-AUX-MIGNONS (la), near Orléans, IV, 136. BORDEAUX, conquered by the Maid (fabulous), IV, 334. BORDELAIS. The defence of the — entrusted to the cadet of Armagnac, IV, 377. BORDELLE (Jean), grand vicar of Beauvais, II, 135. BORDES (André), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 33. BOREHOLISE. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s stay at the château of —, V, 165. BOSC (Nicolas du), chosen to second Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, V, 218. Present at the rehabilitation trial, II, 208, 270, 276; III, 39, 353, 362. BOSCHET or BOUCHET (the lord of), V, 111. BOSQUIER (Pierre), apologises for having spoken ill of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s judges, I, 493; condemned for it, I, 495. BOUCHER (Guillemin), Orléanais, V, 275. BOUCHER (Jacques or Jacquet), treasurer of Orléans, host of the Maid, I, 101; III, 68, 124, 125, 127, 211; IV, 133, 219, 227; lends his house for a war council, IV, 57, where he attends, IV, 58. Reimbursed for the Maid\u0026rsquo;s expenses, V, 260; pays for a garment made for the Maid, V, 112, 114. His wife, one of the notable women of Orléans, III, 211; IV, 219, arms the Maid, III, 68; Joan\u0026rsquo;s words to her, III, 34. His daughter. See Havet (Charlotte). BOUCHER (Jean), canon of Tours and Angers, sings a mass for the Maid, V, 164. BOUCHER (Pierre), deposes in 1452, II, 323; cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. BOUCHIER or LEROUCHIER (Guillaume), attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 189, 195, 202, 375, 381, 404, 439; at the abjuration, I, 443; at the execution, I, 469. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 424; his determination on Joan, I, 337; exhorts her to submit, I, 380. His sentence, I, 464. BOUCHET (Jean), cited, IV, 537. BOUCHET (Henri du), owner of a manuscript of the trial, V, 405. BOUDON, Orléanais, IV, 162 note. BOUHIER (the president), owner of a manuscript of the trial, V, 409. BOUILLÉ (Guillaume), dean of Noyon, commissioned for the revision of the trial in 1450, II, 1. Sent to the king by Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, V, 365. Conveys to Thomas Basin the elements of his opinion on Joan, III, 343. His memoir on the first trial, III, 322; V, 467; produced at the rehabilitation trial, III, 372. Present at the rehabilitation acts, II, 112, 119, 194; III, 373; at the Orléans inquiry, III, 2, 21, 23. BOULAINVILLIERS (Perceval de), writes news of the Maid to the duke of Milan, V, 115, 124. BOULAY (Aubert), notable of Metz, V, 322, 323. BOULIGNY (René de), general of finances, III, 85; V, 258, 267. His wife. See Touroulde. BOULOGNE (county of). Arrival of an English army in the —, IV, 295. BOULOGNE (the count of), at the journey to Reims, IV, 180. BOURBON (Charles de), count of Clermont, then duke of Bourbonnais, stays at Blois during the siege of Orléans, IV, 114, 119, 130. Contributes to the defence of Orléans, IV, 125, 413, 426. Fights the battle of the Herrings, IV, 120, 121, 122; V, 288. Witness to the sign brought by Joan to the king, I, 57, 119, 143, 285, 396. Present at the siege of Troyes, IV, 73. Creates knights on coronation day, IV, 77, 186; fulfils the office of peer there, IV, 20, 46, 380; V, 128. Communicates with Joan, II, 450. Displeased at the return from Reims, IV, 79. Present at the day of Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193; at the attack on Paris, IV, 28, 86, 87, 197, 342. Appointed lieutenant-general of the Île-de-France, IV, 88, 200, 394. Renounces that office, IV, 90. Loses the château of Gournay-sur-Aronde, IV, 395. Information about the Maid given at Lyon by one of his stewards, IV, 425. BOURBON (Louis de), count of Vendôme, introduces Joan to Charles VII, III, 103. Announces to the king the recovery of the château of Vendôme, V, 102. Awaited for the Jargeau expedition, V, 108, 111; goes to the siege of that town, IV, 12, 170; to Beaugency, IV, 174; to the battle of Patay, IV, 67, 242; V, 262; to Reims, IV, 69, 73, 248. Performs the office of peer at the coronation, IV, 20, 46; V, 128. Displeased at the too-prompt return from Reims, IV, 79, 188. Fights at Montépilloy, IV, 21, 83, 193; at the attack on Paris, IV, 86, 197; V, 268. Left at Saint-Denis, IV, 88, 201; made governor at Senlis, IV, 24, 90, 394; and lieutenant-general of the whole country, IV, 90. Called to the relief of Troyes, V, 145. Accompanies Joan to Soissons in 1430, IV, 49. Author of the deliverance of Compiègne, V, 369. BOURBONNAIS. Fighters sent from — to Orléans, IV, 119, 130. Seneschal of —. See Chabannes. BOURG (Guillaume le), prior of Saint-Lô of Rouen, attends the condemnation trial, I, 59, 81, 92, 381, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443. BOURDEILLE (Élie de), his opinion on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 306. Notice on his memoir, V, 442, 464. BOURDON (Nicolas), visits the Maid at Drugy, V, 358, 359. BOURÉE, or bastard of Bar, of Masqueran. See Bar, Masqueran. BOURGEAUVILLE, parish of the diocese of Lisieux, II, 321. BOURGEOIS (Guillaume), substitute for Bréhal, II, 280. BOURGEOIS (Jean), Orléanais, V, 269; makes a garment for the Maid, V, 112, 114. LE BOURGEOIS. See Kermoisan. BOURGES, last bulwark of Charles VII, IV, 278, 303. Food and troops sent from — to Orléans, IV, 109, 156, 167. Assembly of men-at-arms held at —, IV, 376. The deliverance of Orléans is celebrated there by an annual procession, V, 297. The queen sent back to —, IV, 180. Charles VII goes there on leaving Saint-Denis, IV, 31, 268; Joan follows him there, III, 86; IV, 201; prepares the Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier expedition there, III, 217; IV, 31. The town of — contributes to the costs of the siege of La Charité, V, 356. Commissioners sent to — for the rehabilitation, II, 282. BOURGES (Thevanon de), Orléanais, V, 331. BOURGET (Jean), Augustinian, IV, 473 note. BURGUNDY (la) crossed by Joan on her coming to France, III, 75. Treated as false, III, 13. BURGUNDY (John the Fearless, duke of). The Maid\u0026rsquo;s opinion on his death, I, 184. His death reproached to Charles VII by the duke of Bedford, IV, 384. BURGUNDY (Philip the Good, duke of), supported the English against his oath, IV, 322. Receives an embassy from the inhabitants of Orléans, IV, 130, 146. Recalls those of his subjects who were besieging that city, IV, 147. Keeps a garrison of his men at Troyes, IV, 247. Denounces by his letters a conspiracy hatched at Reims for the French, IV, 285. Exhorted to make peace by the Maid, I, 235; V, 126. Summoned by her to the king\u0026rsquo;s coronation, V, 127. Goes to Paris, IV, 48, 453; V, 130. Has peace proposals made to the king, IV, 515; V, 130. Concludes a treaty at Compiègne, IV, 47; V, 174; and undertakes to hand over Paris, V, 140, where he returns with the king\u0026rsquo;s safe-conduct, IV, 48, 201, 295; Joan\u0026rsquo;s remark on this treaty, IV, 500. Raises troops against the king, IV, 392, 453; receives an embassy from him, IV, 390; begs him to lift the siege of Paris, IV, 342. Takes Gournay-sur-Aronde, IV, 396. Advances through Noyon, IV, 397; takes Choisy-sur-Aisne, IV, 49, 397, 438; besieges Compiègne, IV, 32, 324, 399, 400, 428, 438, 441. Joan announces she will take him prisoner, IV, 444, 516. He talks with her after her capture, IV, 402, 428, 439, 447; forbids her to be brought before him, IV, 517; announces the news of her capture, V, 166, 350. Receives from the English government the account of the Rouen trial, IV, 403. BURGUNDIANS, detested by the Maid, I, 65, 66, 262, 335. Joan knew only one at Domrémy, I, 65, 262; II, 423. The — recalled from the siege of Orléans by their duke, V, 147; auxiliaries of the English at the day of Montépilloy, IV, 194; defend Paris against the Maid, IV, 25; defend La Charité-sur-Loire, IV, 31. Joan asks their pardon, I, 485. BOURLEMONT (Jean de), II, 399. BOURLEMONT (Pierre de), knight, lord of Domrémy, II, 67, 212, 404, 407, 413. See Bollemont, Granier. BOURLEMONT (the lady of), French by origin, II, 427. See Beatrix and Roche. BOURRITEL (Guichard de), captain of Soissons, traitor to the French, I, 111, 273; IV, 49, 50. BOURREAU (the executioner), present at the Maid\u0026rsquo;s abjuration, III, 65, 147. Joan handed over to the —, II, 6, 8, 20, 344, 359, 375, 377; III, 132, 165, 188, 194, 202. Remorse of Joan\u0026rsquo;s executioner, II, 7, 352, 366. BOURRILLIER (Jean), called François, church notary, I, 421. BOURS (Régnault de), captain of Amboise, IV, 316. BOUSSAC (Jean de la Brosse, lord of Sainte-Sévère and of), marshal of France, I, 396; III, 4; at the defence of Orléans, IV, 101, 105, 106, 108, 110, 113, 115, 116, 117, 130, 136, 158, 164; V, 347; at the day of the Herrings, IV, 119, 125. Goes to fetch the army at Blois, III, 78; IV, 155, 222, 490. Takes part in the capture of Saint-Loup, IV, 6, 157; in that of the Augustins, IV, 158; in the Jargeau expedition, IV, 12, 64, 167, 170; V, 107, 111; in the battle of Patay, IV, 242, 371, 419; in the journey to Reims, IV, 180, 378; V, 129, 354; in the skirmishes of Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193; in the attack on Paris, IV, 26, 86, 197; in the La Charité expedition, IV, 31, 48; in the deliverance of Compiègne, V, 74, 367; in the battle of the Shepherd, V, 171, 172. Sent to Senlis, IV, 24; to the relief of the garrisons of the Île-de-France, IV, 90. BOUTEILLER (Jean le). See Rouen (bailiff of). BOUVIER (Jacques le). See Berry. BOWER (Walter), author on the Maid, IV, 478. BOYVEAU (Gui), Orléanais, III, 33. BRABANT. News of the Maid sent to the council of the duke of —, IV, 426. Chamber of accounts of —. See Comptes. BRAUCHE (Sir Henry), prisoner at Patay, IV, 319. BRAY-SUR-SEINE, refuses passage to the French, IV, 79, 189; submits, IV, 48, 201. BRÉCY (Philibert de), French captain, V, 210. BREDOUILLE (Regnauld), promoter of Beauvais, II, 133, 262; III, 37; included in the prosecution of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, III, 355; brings his bishop\u0026rsquo;s words on the subject of the rehabilitation, II, 268. Cited, III, 45, 228, 235, 253, 254; declared contumacious, III, 261, 352. BRÉHAL or BREHALLI (Jean), informs by commission of the legate d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, II, 157, 292, 310; III, 234; paid for this by Charles VII, V, 277. Composes a summary of the trial, V, 429; writes from Lyon to the Dominicans of Vienne, II, 70; V, 434; sends them several treatises, V, 423. Theology questions proposed by him on the trial, II, 68. Sent to the king by Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, V, 365. Adjoined as judge of the rehabilitation, II, 106; III, 375; sits in that capacity, II, 82, 92, 136, 138, 206, 262, 266, 281, 284, 286, 288; III, 47, 128, 222, 226, 246, 249, 253, 255, 256, 329, 351. Names substitutes for the interrogation of the witnesses, II, 280; interrogates the witnesses at Paris, III, 47; at Rouen, III, 134, 199. Consults the bishop of Avranches, III, 348. Charged by the tribunal with summarising the reasons alleged against Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 334; extracts from this summary, III, 334, 337, 338, 341, 347, 349; notice on the same work, V, 462, 470. Affixes his seal to the last citation, III, 354; and to the sentence, III, 362, which he goes to execute at Orléans, V, 277, 278. His name on a manuscript, V, 425. BRITAIN (Arthur of). See Richemond. BRITTANY (John, duke of), swears an oath to the English, V, 122, 339; sends an embassy to the Maid, IV, 497; V, 264. In correspondence with the lords of Laval, V, 110. Reconciles with the king of France, V, 162. Informed of Joan\u0026rsquo;s capture, V, 358. BRITTANY (Mary of), dowager duchess of Alençon, V, 264. BRETON (le petit), man-at-arms at the siege of Orléans, IV, 112. BRETONNIÈRE (Macé de la), bourgeois of Tours, V, 155. BRICONNET (Pierre), bourgeois of Tours, V, 154, 155. BRIDIERS. See Nailhac. BRIE, province of France, crossed by an English army, IV, 382. BRIENNE (manuscripts of) concerning the Maid, V, 400, 456. BRIDGET (Saint), prophesied about France, II, 429; IV, 484. BRILLAC (François de), bishop of Orléans, grants indulgences for the 8 May festival, V, 304. BRIMEU (David de), envoy of the duke of Burgundy to Charles VII, IV, 390. Fights at the siege of Compiègne with his brothers Jacques and Florimond, IV, 441. BRIMEU (Jean de), hands Château-Thierry back to the king, IV, 381. Fights at Montépilloy, IV, 387, 433. Taken at Choisy-sur-Aisne, IV, 49; near Crépy, IV, 398. Put in charge of the defence of Noyon, IV, 397. BRINON-L\u0026rsquo;ARCHEVÊQUE, Charles VII at —, IV, 292. BRIXEN. Diocese of —, III, 457. Bishop of —, III, 463. BRIXEY. Collegiate church of Saint-Nicolas de —, near Vaucouleurs, II, 434. BROCHART (Gilles), lieutenant at the bailliage of Alençon, V, 178. BROLBSTER (William), English priest, attends the trial of Joan, I, 193, 196, 209. BROQUIÈRE (Bertrandon de la), carries to Constantinople the certainty of Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, IV, 532. BROYART (Colin), rants against the Maid at Abbeville, V, 142. BRUILLOT or BRULLOT (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 49, 69, 81, 384, 405. His determination on Joan, I, 346. BRUN (Guyot le), saddler of Orléans, V, 259. LE BRUN DE CHARMETTES. See Charmettes. BRUNE (Régnault), Orléanais, V, 326. BRUNSWICK. War of —, III, 450. BRUSAC (Gaultier de), at the Jargeau expedition, IV, 64, 236. BRUT (Roman de), cited at the trial, III, 340. BRUXELLES VERMEILLE, a sort of cloth, V, 113. BRUYSE (John), keeper of the coffers of the king of England, V, 191, 192. BÛCHER (the stake) where Joan was burned, III, 186, 188; IV, 471; inscriptions set upon it, IV, 459. Extinguished for a moment to ascertain Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, III, 191; IV, 471. BUDÉ (Dreux), secretary of Charles VII, V, 104, 139, 334. BUILLONS (Jean de Meun or des), astrologer, IV, 345. BUIN (Michel le), interrogated at Vaucouleurs, II, 439. BUONINCONTRO (Lorenzo), author on the Maid, IV, 505. BUREAU. See Cormeilles. BUREY-LE-PETIT, village near Vaucouleurs, II, 411, 431, 439; Joan stays there, II, 443. BUSSY-LETTRE, in Champagne. Charles VII at —, IV, 298. BUST (Laurent du), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 49, 59, 81, 382, 405. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. His determination on Joan, I, 358. CABERT (Jean), notable of Reims, V, 141. CAHU (Gencien), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 30. CADIER (Jean), present at the Orléans inquiry, III, 23. CAEN. Supposedly conquered by the Maid, IV, 337. G. Érard\u0026rsquo;s clerk sent to —, III, 413. The taille money for the Maid\u0026rsquo;s ransom assembled at —, V, 182. CAGNY (Perceval de), historian of the Maid, IV, 1. CAILLART (J.), alderman of Reims, V, 141. CAILLY (Gui de), host of the Maid at Rully, IV, 151; V, 344. Ennobled, V, 342. CALABRE (Jean d\u0026rsquo;Anjou et de Lorraine, duke of), V, 280. CALAIS. The town of —, IV, 475, 477, 531. Pierre Cauchon goes there on commission, V, 194. CALCIATORIS (Jacques), witness at Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville\u0026rsquo;s inquiry, II, 310. Prior of the Dominicans of Évreux, II, 262; III, 37; speaks for the prior of Beauvais, II, 268. CALDRINI (Gaspar), cited, III, 450. CALLIXTUS III, pope, II, 72, 98; III, 368; V, 86. Charles VII writes to him to obtain the revision of the trial, V, 84. His bull authorising this revision, II, 95; III, 236. CALOT (Laurent), secretary of the king of England, III, 161, 166, 243; V, 200, 203. Insults Cauchon, III, 90. Guides Joan\u0026rsquo;s hand to sign her abjuration, III, 123. CAMBRÉSIS (le), handed over to the English, IV, 301. CAMBRIDGE. Manuscript of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial at —, V, 409, 460. CAMBRA. See Chambre (Guillaume de la). CAMPO-ROTONDO. See Champrond. CAMUS or LACAMUS (Jacques), attends the condemnation trial, I, 454, 459. Visits Joan before her death, I, 482. Deposes after the execution, I, 482. CAMUS (Jean le), Orléanais, V, 259. SAINT-CANDE-LE-VIEUX, Sanctus Candidus senior, parish of Rouen, II, 15, 329; III, 150. CANONIST (the). See Jean. CANTERBURY. Proclamation at —, V, 164. CAPPORAL. See Poisieux. CAPITOL (the), at Rome, V, 46. CARDINAL OF ENGLAND (the). See Winchester. CARDOT (Jean), grand vicar at Beauvais, II, 135. CARINTHIA. Superstition of the women of —, III, 457. CARLIER (Barthelemi), deputy of Tournai to Charles VII, V, 124. CARMELITES. General of the —. See Soret. Prior of the — of Paris, IV, 454. Church of the — at Orléans, IV, 102. CARRÉ or CARNET (Pierre), attends the condemnation trial, I, 59, 69, 382, 405, 460. His determination on Joan, I, 358. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. His sentence, I, 466. CARRELIER (Jean), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 29. CASSE (Henriet), horseman of the count of Vendôme, V, 268. CASTIGLIONE (de) and CASTILIUS. See Châtillon (Jean de). CASTIGLIONE (Zanone da), bishop of Lisieux, gives his opinion on Joan, I, 365. CASTILE. Ambassador of — in France, author of a history of the Maid, V, 374. CASTILE (Juan II, king of). Charles VII on the point of taking refuge with him, IV, 509. Receives ambassadors of the false Joan of Arc, V, 330. CASTILLE (Étienne), locksmith of Rouen, III, 155. CASTRES (bishop of). See Machet. CATELEU (Eustache), attends the condemnation trial, I, 382. CATHERINE (Saint). How she appears to Joan, I, 71, 72, 74, 85, 93, 153, 177, 235, 268, 329; IV, 468, 469. Reverence Joan pays her, I, 167, 168, 186, 187, 335, 395. Announced to Joan by Saint Michael, I, 170, 256. Touched by Joan, I, 185, 186, 239. Comforts Joan at Orléans, I, 79; at Beaurevoir, I, 267; at Rouen, I, 153, 155, 255, 281, 319. Speaks to her, I, 85, 107, 110, 117, 153, 181, 218. Joan promises her secrecy, I, 90, 139; makes her a vow of virginity, I, 127, 269. Comes sometimes without Joan calling her, I, 127. Charles VII asked by Joan to have faith in —, IV, 326. Forbids Joan to jump from the tower of Beaurevoir, I, 154, 169. Forgives her for having done it, I, 161, 261. Urges Joan to the sortie of Compiègne, IV, 438, 444. Reproaches Joan with her abjuration, I, 456. Invoked by her at her death, III, 159. Joan deceived by the devil in the guise of —, IV, 472. SAINTE-CATHERINE DE FIERBOIS, in Touraine, V, 106, 108. Arrival of the Maid at —, I, 56, 75, 222, 235. Sword of —, I, 76, 235; IV, 54, 93, 129, 212. Vow fulfilled at —, V, 165. Manuscript of the miracles of —, V, 164. SAINTE-CATHERINE DU MONT, at Rouen, abbey, IV, 337. See Conti, François (le). SAINTE-CATHERINE DU VAL-DES-ÉCOLIERS. Church of —, at Paris, IV, 254. CAUCHOIS (Guillaume le), attends the condemnation trial, I, 382. CAUCHOIS (Jean le), advocate of Rouen, V, 272. CAUCHON (Jean), lieutenant of the captain of Reims, IV, 292 note. CAUCHON (Pierre), native of the environs of Reims, IV, 190. Presented to the archbishopric of Rouen by the English government, I, 2. His steps to obtain that Joan be handed over, I, 4, 13; III, 134; V, 194; paid for, V, 194. Undertakes the trial willingly, II, 325; III, 137, 170; under the direction of the English council, IV, 202, 351. Proceeds against the Maid, I, 4, 15, 18, 20, 23, 32, 40, 112, 188, 189, 194, 326, 375, 402, 430; interrogates her, I, 45, 50, 60, 70, 81, 93, 113, 125, 181, 292, 324, 377, 400, 454; has her examined by matrons, II, 201, 217; III, 59; spies on her, III, 140. His partiality against her, II, 5, 7, 10, 303, 307, 349; III, 139, 152, 170, 173, 193; IV, 265. Intimidates the assessors and officers of the tribunal, II, 16, 221, 357; III, 139, 171. Gives Joan guards, I, 47; II, 307. Challenged by her, II, 349, 358; III, 52, 154. Asked to confess her, I, 131. Threatened by her, I, 62, 154. Reduces the attendance before whom the trial was held, I, 111; II, 202, 218; III, 59. Holder of a ring of the Maid, I, 86, 87, 237. Offers her counsel, I, 201, 379; II, 343, 351. Speaks of putting her to the torture, I, 400, 402. Object of Joan\u0026rsquo;s voices, I, 279; sends her a carp, III, 49; has her answers reduced to twelve articles, I, 327. See Articles. Admonishes her in her illness, I, 377. Summarises the cause before the assessors, I, 382, 405, 460. Concludes, I, 442. Pronounces the sentence, I, 446, 471; III, 165; IV, 460; mitigates it after the abjuration, I, 450. Murmurs of the English against him, II, 21, 355, 361, 376; III, 55, 61, 90, 130, 147, 156, 184. Joyful at the relapse, II, 5, 8, 305; III, 164. Allows Joan to confess and communicate, I, 473; II, 158; visits her on the morning of her death, I, 481; II, 478; III, 61, 169. Weeps at the moment of the execution, II, 352. Receives reparation for an insult on Joan\u0026rsquo;s account, I, 493, 495; III, 156. Receives a copy of the trial, III, 135. His seal at the foot of one of the expeditions, V, 393. Subscribes the safeguard of the judges, III, 243. Questions about his competence as judge, II, 56, 64, 216; III, 282. His domicile at Rouen, I, 27; II, 14; III, 137. Bishop of Lisieux at his death, II, 194. Dies suddenly, III, 165. His heirs, II, 194. Considerations for his memory during the rehabilitation, II, 96, 267; III, 370. PETIT-CAUX, Parvus Caletus, archdeaconry of the diocese of Rouen, II, 353; III, 182. CAVE (Pierre), attends the condemnation trial, I, 81. CAXTON (William), his testimony on the Maid, IV, 476. CAYET (Simon), witness to Jean Rivel\u0026rsquo;s request, I, 196. CAYROL (Guillaume), abbot of Saint-Crépin of Soissons, present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 372. CAYROT (Guillaume), abbot of Saint-Crépin of Soissons, present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 372. CAYA (Nicolas), attends the condemnation trial, I, 69, 81, 196, 202, 334, 382, 405, 459; without having been summoned, III, 178. Claims to have heard Joan only once, II, 336. His determination on Joan, I, 349. His sentence, I, 466. Absent at the condemnation, II, 336; III, 179. Deposes in 1452, II, 333. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. Produced, II, 191. Recalled, II, 45, 178. CELESTINES. Prior of the — of Paris, IV, 454. CENSURE (Pierre de la), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 32. CERF-VOLANT, synonym of Charles VII in the prophecies, V, 8. CERQUENCEAUX (the abbot of), French partisan at Orléans, IV, 107. CHABANNES (Jacques de), seneschal of Bourbonnais, at the defence of Orléans, IV, 101, 106, 110, 116, 117, 119. Appointed captain at Creil, IV, 394. Takes part in the Pont-l\u0026rsquo;Évêque undertaking, IV, 398. CHABOT (Jean), killed at the battle of the Herrings, IV, 124. CHAILLOT, near Paris, V, 51. CHAILLY (Denis de), at the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 43, 116, 117, 141 note, 158. CHALCONDYLES (Laonic), his testimony on Joan, IV, 529. CHÂLONS-SUR-MARNE. Joan at —, II, 391, 423. The inhabitants of — protest their devotion to the Burgundian cause, IV, 291; receive the French, IV, 18, 46, 76, 184, 298; V, 64; send the keys of their city to Charles VII, IV, 379, 499; V, 130, 353. The bishop of —, V, 64; at the coronation, V, 128. CHAMBRE (chamber). Vaucouleurs called — of the king by Joan, II, 436. Orléans — of the king, V, 313. — of the town at Orléans, V, 260. Chef de —, military grade, IV, 410. — des comptes. See Comptes. CHAMBRE (Guillaume de la), attends the condemnation trial, I, 92, 196, 202, 382, 405, 460; III, 50; visits Joan as physician, III, 48, 50. His sentence, I, 466; it was torn from him by violence, III, 50. Present at the execution, III, 53. Cited for the rehabilitation, III, 44; deposes, III, 49. CHAMPAGNE, conquest of — resolved by Joan, IV, 20. CHAMPEAUX (Jean de), deposes for the rehabilitation trial, III, 29. CHAMPENOIS (Léonard), canon of Tours, V, 154. CHAMPIER (Symphorien), author on the Maid, IV, 344 note. CHAMPION DES DAMES (le), cited, V, 44. CHAMPROND (Enguerran de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 190. CHAMPS (Gilles des), attends the condemnation trial, I, 40, 49, 59, 69, 81, 382, 405. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199. His determination on Joan, I, 347. Witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 137; III, 262. CHAMPS (Guillaume des), canon of Rouen, I, 354. CHAMPS (Imbert des), alderman of Paris, IV, 464. CHANCET (Richard de), president at the parlement of Paris, IV, 456. CHANDO (Jean), witness on Joan, III, 192. CHANDOS (standard of), at the capture of the Tourelles, IV, 103. CHANTELOUP (Jean), Orléanais, V, 310. CHAPELAIN (Jean), visits the Maid at Drugy, V, 360, 361. CHAPELLE (Guillaume de la), at the defence of Orléans, V, 287. CHAPELLE (Jean de la), chronicler of Saint-Riquier, V, 357. CHAPELLE (Pierre de la), at the defence of Orléans, IV, 98. CHAPELLE (the lord of La), V, 107. The lady of La —, V, 111. LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-DENIS, IV, 25, 26, 27, 48, 86, 87, 198; V, 70. CHAPIZAULT (Simon), witness at the first rehabilitation acts, II, 112. Instituted promoter of the rehabilitation, II, 152. Acts in that capacity, II, 155, 158, 191, 196, 378; III, 30, 33, 128, 255, 256, 259, 351, 352. Summarises the irregularities of the first trial, II, 198. Goes to Orléans to Isabelle d\u0026rsquo;Arc, II, 283. Gives his conclusions, III, 275. Requests the act of the rehabilitation sentence, III, 362. CHARDON (Jean), treasurer of the duke of Orléans, V, 214. CHARDON (Pierre), notable of Reims, V, 141. LA CHARITÉ-SUR-LOIRE. Siege of — resolved, III, 217; V, 146, 147; advised, IV, 180, 246; Joan diverted from going there by Catherine de la Rochelle, I, 108; goes there without a revelation, I, 147, 169. Summons to the captain of —, IV, 245. Joan at —, I, 109, 250, 298; forced to lift the siege, IV, 31, 49, 91; V, 72. The towns contribute to the supplies of the siege of —, V, 146, 147, 148, 269, 356. CHARLEMAGNE (saint), protector of France, III, 6, 7; IV, 208, 219. Proposed as a model to Charles VII, V, 34. The reign of Charles VII compared to that of —, IV, 325. The era of — renewed by Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s son, III, 464. Confused with Clovis, IV, 479. Character in Varanius\u0026rsquo;s poem, V, 87, 88. CHARLEMAGNE (island), before Orléans, V, 292. CHARLES (Simon), president of the chamber of accounts, on embassy to Venice at the Maid\u0026rsquo;s arrival, III, 115. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 114. CHARLES VII. His distress at Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival, III, 85, 400; IV, 127, 325, 338, 509; V, 340. Recognised by her, III, 116, 192; IV, 53, 127, 207, 270, 300, 332; V, 52. Refuses to believe her, III, 82, 115; IV, 362. The only one to whom Joan disclosed her revelations, I, 45. Receives a secret from her, III, 103, 116, 209; IV, 128, 258, 270, 278, 280; V, 133. The respect she has for him, V, 120. By what sign he recognises her, I, 75, 90, 91, 119, 121, 126, 134, 139, 282, 330, 396, 479, 480, 481, 484. Asked by her to hold his kingdom from God, III, 91. Promises he makes at her request, III, 91; IV, 486; V, 34. Goes with her to Poitiers, III, 209; IV, 214, 363; V, 119. Receives the archbishop of Embrun\u0026rsquo;s advice about her, III, 391. Receives her after the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 497; V, 295. Goes to meet her, IV, 496; V, 119. Pays homage to her services, V, 103, 343. Softens towards her, III, 116. Pressed by her to go to Reims, III, 12; IV, 11, 18, 69, 167, 235, 246, 497, 509; V, 134. Discouraged before Troyes, IV, 73, 75. His coronation, I, 91, 104; IV, 19, 77; V, 128. Knighted by the duke of Alençon, IV, 20, 77, 186; V, 128. His return from Reims, III, 199; IV, 20, 46, 79. Will do nothing more after the coronation, IV, 30, 37. Would have subdued Picardy by showing himself there, IV, 391. Grants a truce to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 394; V, 174. Challenged by the duke of Bedford, IV, 384. Rides before his army at Montépilloy, IV, 83, 434. Forced by the Maid to come to Saint-Denis, IV, 25. Draws up in battle array the day she attacks Paris, IV, 392. Prevents her from returning there, IV, 28. Displeased that she broke her sword, IV, 71. Exempts the villages of Greux and Domrémy from taxes, V, 138. Ennobles the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, V, 150, 230; and several companions-at-arms of the Maid, V, 342, 363. Welcomes an inspired shepherd from the Gévaudan, V, 163. Defended by Joan at Rouen, II, 15, 17, 353; III, 56, 168, 190. Cannot prevent Joan\u0026rsquo;s martyrdom, IV, 281; V, 84. Grieved by her death, IV, 518. Receives letters from the false Joan of Arc, V, 327; discovers her imposture, IV, 284. Regards himself as harmed by the Maid\u0026rsquo;s condemnation, II, 70. Orders the first steps for the revision of the trial, II, 1. Requests the pope\u0026rsquo;s authorisation, V, 77, 84. Has all the doctors of Europe consulted, II, 71; addresses several in his kingdom, III, 306; IV, 355. His eulogy by the inhabitants of Châlons, IV, 298; by Gui de Laval, V, 107. His epitaph, V, 23. His statue on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s monument, V, 222, 223, 240, 242. Vigils of —, V, 51. CHARLES VIII. Chronicle written for — while still dauphin, IV, 256. Anecdote of the court of — on the secret revealed by the Maid, IV, 279. CHARMES (Simon de), lieutenant of the captain of Monteclaire, II, 453. CHARMETTES (M. Le Brun de), historian of Joan of Arc, cited, III, 101; IV, 358, 425, 456, 460. CHARNY (the sire of), sent to Charles VII by the duke of Burgundy, IV, 48, 201. CHARPENTIER (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 58, 69, 381. His determination on Joan, I, 337. CHARRIER (Guillaume), receiver-general of finances in France, V, 257, 261. CHARRON (Guillaume le), bourgeois of Orléans, makes supplies for the town\u0026rsquo;s festival, V, 309. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 27. CHARTES. See Trésor des Chartes. CHARTIER (Alain), author of a letter on the Maid, V, 131. CHARTIER (Étienne), valet de ville at Orléans, V, 311, 312. CHARTIER (Guillaume), bishop of Paris, II, 73; III, 368. Delegated by Callixtus III for the rehabilitation, II, 95; V, 86; sits there as judge, II, 82, 92, 136, 137, 206, 262, 266, 281, 284, 286, 288; III, 47, 255, 256, 258, 329, 351; V, 77. Interrogates the witnesses of Paris, III, 47, 77; of Rouen, III, 128; V, 77. Consults the bishop of Avranches, III, 318. Had no seal of his own at the moment of the sentence, III, 354. Gives his church a copy of the trial, V, 78, 218, 451. CHARTIER (Jean), chronicler of France. His testimony on the Maid, IV, 51; reproduced in several chronicles, IV, 95, 203, 256; V, 51. His testimony on the Shepherd, IV, 173. CHARTRES. Nicolas Loiselleur helps lift the French siege of —, II, 10. Salisbury at —, V, 286. French astrologer prisoner at —, IV, 345. Captain of —. See Arc (Jean d\u0026rsquo;). Bailiff of —. See Armagnac (Thibaud d\u0026rsquo;). Vidame of —, IV, 174, 239. CHARTRES (Régnault de), archbishop of Reims, at Orléans during the siege, IV, 130. Witness of the sign brought to the king by Joan, I, 119, 140, 143, 285, 396, 401. Examiner of Joan, III, 171, 203, 357; IV, 208. Sent to Blois to prepare help for Orléans, III, 4; IV, 54, 55, 221. Wants to make the French who reached Troyes fall back, IV, 73, 182; V, 62. Writes to the inhabitants of Reims, IV, 297, 380. Crowns Charles VII at Reims, IV, 19, 77, 186, 380; V, 65, 128. The inhabitants of Reims write to him, V, 141. Goes on embassy to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 390. Questions Joan about the time of her death, III, 14. Put in charge of the government of the Beauvaisis, IV, 394; V, 172. Does not want the duke of Alençon and Joan to be together, IV, 30. Induces the inhabitants of Compiègne to submit to the duke of Burgundy, V, 175. Stays at Compiègne in 1430, IV, 49. Disparages Joan after her capture, V, 168. CHASTELLAIN (Georges), author on the Maid, IV, 440; V, 90; had seen her, IV, 449. CHATEAUBRIANT (the lord of), IV, 175. CHATEAUBRUN. See Nailhac. CHATEAUDUN (the town of), sends help to Orléans, IV, 144, 145, 150, 205, 222. Captain of —. See Villiers. CHÂTEAUNEUF-SUR-LOIRE. Charles VII goes there, IV, 245. CHÂTEAURENARD. Garrison of — sent to Orléans, IV, 222. Charles VII passes through —, IV, 48, 201. CHÂTEAU-THIERRY. The military leaders of Reims withdraw there, IV, 379. Embassy of the inhabitants of Reims to those of —, IV, 292. Surrender of — to the French, IV, 20, 46, 187, 381; V, 68. The Maid at —, I, 103; IV, 78, 80, 187, 188. The bearing she shows there, III, 199. Loose woman reprimanded by her at —, III, 73. Butterflies seen around her standard at —, I, 103. The place of — guarded by Poton de Saintrailles\u0026rsquo; company, V, 141. CHÂTILLON, near Paris. The abbot of —, IV, 454. CHÂTILLON (Guillaume, lord of), captain of Reims, IV, 184; absent at the moment of the French arrival, IV, 292; makes his conditions for coming to defend the city, IV, 293; goes there and leaves at once, IV, 294, 379. Abandons Château-Thierry, IV, 381. CHÂTILLON (Jean de), lord of Troissy, writes to the inhabitants of Reims, IV, 296. CHÂTILLON (Jean, sometimes Hulot de), preaches at Rouen against Joan\u0026rsquo;s orthodoxy, V, 84, 89. Attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 189, 194, 196, 202, 381, 399, 404, 430, 443, 459. Ill-treated by Cauchon, III, 139. Evicted from the hearings, II, 329; III, 153. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 423. His determination on Joan, I, 351. Charged with admonishing Joan, I, 384; III, 60. His admonition, I, 386. His sentence, I, 463. Attends the execution, I, 469. CHAUMONT-EN-BASSIGNY, bailliage, I, 209; V, 115, 138, 150, 210. Bailiff of —, II, 406; V, 153. See Torcenay. CHAUMONT-SUR-LOIRE (the lord of), at the defence of Orléans, IV, 101; at the journey to Reims, IV, 180. CHAUSSIER. See Calciatoris. CHAUVIGNY (Gui de), lord of Châteauroux, at the Patay expedition, IV, 174, 180, 238, 242; V, 108. CHAVANNES (M. de), owner of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, V, 447. CHÉCY. The Maid at —, IV, 151, 152; V, 290; III, 78. Mentioned, V, 214, 344. CHEMILÉ (Jean), canon of Tours, V, 154, 155. CHEMINON (abbey of), V, 252. CHEMYN (Lucas du), lord of Feron, descendant of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, V, 249. CHENU, church notary at Orléans, V, 303. CHESNE (Bertrand du), de Quercu, consulted on the procedure, I, 429. See Duchesne. CHESNEAU (Poterne), at Orléans, IV, 97, 104, 132. HORSE. Joan loved horses, V, 120; rides from childhood, IV, 361, 523; for the first time before the duke of Lorraine, IV, 331; to come from Vaucouleurs into France, IV, 469; V, 118; before the king, IV, 510. She had never ridden before her arrival in France, IV, 361. Tries a — at Chinon, IV, 526. Asks for the — of the late dauphin, V, 38. Another — given to the Maid by the duke of Alençon, III, 66, 92; by the king, V, 267; by the duke of Brittany, V, 264. The — of the bishop of Senlis taken by the Maid, I, 104, 160, 264. The town of Orléans pays for the Maid\u0026rsquo;s horses, V, 260. Which — the Maid had at Selles-en-Berry, V, 107; at the sortie of Compiègne, I, 118. Stone she used to help her mount at Poitiers, IV, 537. Bronze horse, instrument of Joan\u0026rsquo;s execution, IV, 535. CHICHE (Girard de), cited for the rehabilitation, III, 44. CHICHERY (Regnauld de), informs in Lorraine for the rehabilitation, II, 205, 382, 464. CHINON. Arrival of the Maid at —, I, 56, 75, 142, 143, 233; II, 438, 458; III, 4, 16, 22, 66, 77, 82, 91, 115, 192; IV, 3, 41, 126, 207, 300, 313, 315, 361, 524; V, 118. She lodges there with Guillaume Bellier, III, 17; is examined there, I, 75; III, 17, 92, 115; IV, 208, 270, 326, 362, 434; V, 31, 52, 118, 133, 289; is brought back there from Poitiers, III, 102. Charles VII learns of the deliverance of Orléans there, V, 104; returns there after the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 10; after the Reims journey, IV, 314. CHOISY-SUR-AISNE submits to the French, IV, 391. Retaken by the English and Burgundians, IV, 49, 50, 397, 438; V, 73, 176. Bridge of —, IV, 49, 437. Demolition of the fortress of —, IV, 397, 399. CHRISTINE, queen of Sweden. Manuscripts of —. See Vatican. CHRONICLE. See the qualifiers. CHRONOGRAMS on the Maid, III, 338; IV, 273, 275, 313, 314, 323, 481. CHUPPART (maître Jean), notable of Paris, IV, 454. CHUFPORT, for Suffolk. See Pole. CIBOULE (Robert), chancellor of the church of Paris, gives his opinion on Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 326. Notice on his memoir, V, 467. CINQUE PORTS. Warden of the — in England, V, 194. CLAIROIX, near Compiègne, Burgundian post, IV, 399, 401, 441, 445; V, 176. The mount of —, IV, 33. CLASSIDAS. See Glasdale. CLAUDE, name taken by the false Joan of Arc, V, 321, 324. See Joan of Arc (false). CLEMENT VII, antipope, I, 245. CLERC (Denys le), chaplain of Beauvais cathedral, II, 278. CLERC (Jean le), Orléanais, V, 262. CLERC (Thiesselin le), inhabitant of Domrémy, II, 395. CLERMONT-FERRAND, provides munitions for the siege of La Charité, V, 146. Commissioners sent to — for the rehabilitation, II, 282. CLERMONT EN BEAUVAISIS (count of). See Bourbon (Charles de). CLÉRY (Notre-Dame church of), pillaged by the English, IV, 102, 347; V, 286, 288. CLINCHAMP (P. de), canon of Rouen, I, 354. BELLS. Joan had them rung at the village, II, 413; on her journeys, III, 14; at Orléans, IV, 231; knelt at the sound of the —, II, 420, 424; IV, 352. COLIN (Jean), priest of Domrémy, questioned for the rehabilitation, II, 431; in the inquiry made by the English, II, 463. COLIN (Colin), questioned at Domrémy, II, 432. CLOVIS, first king of France, IV, 513. COARRAZE or COURRAZE (Raimond Arnaut, lord of), at the defence of Orléans, IV, 98, 116, 141, 158; at the deliverance of that city, IV, 43; at Jargeau, IV, 167. CŒUR-DE-LYS, poursuivant-at-arms, V, 327. COIFFE (Pierre le), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. COLETIER (Jean), notable of Paris, IV, 456. COLLEZ (Jean), the king\u0026rsquo;s mounted courier, V, 260. COLLES (Guillaume) or Boisguillaume, church notary, I, 4, 8, 37, 138, 341, 475; II, 326. Designated by Manchon, III, 137. His institution as clerk at the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, I, 25. Takes office, I, 31. His place at the hearing, III, 146. Reprimanded by Joan, III, 201. Forced to spy on her, III, 141. Instruments the determination of twenty-two of the assessors, I, 344. Called to certify the relapse, III, 164. How he stopped his drafting, III, 160. Translates the trial into Latin, II, 156. Signs the abridgement of the trial, III, 145, 387. Cited for the rehabilitation, III, 44. Re-summoned, III, 45, 160. Recognises the draft of the twelve articles, III, 143. Recognises his signature at the foot of the trial, III, 160. Witness at one of the rehabilitation acts, III, 227. COLLES (Michel), the same as the preceding (?), II, 326. COLLETET (Guillaume), communicates to Symphorien Guyon a piece on the Maid, IV, 277. COLOGNE. The false Joan of Arc at —, V, 323, 325. Church of —, III, 461. COLOMBEL (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 49, 59, 69, 81, 92, 196, 202, 382, 405, 460; at the abjuration, I, 444. His determination on Joan, I, 358. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. His sentence, I, 466. COMBAREL (Hugues de), bishop of Poitiers, one of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s examiners, III, 92. COMITIS or LE COMTE (Denys), church notary, II, 95, 112, 121, 131, 265, 276, 284; III, 39, 221, 229, 236, 252, 264, 362. Instituted clerk of the rehabilitation, II, 152. Absent from Paris at the final examination of the trial pieces, III, 332. His autograph signature, V, 448, 449, 457, 460. COMMERCY (Robert de Sarrebruck, damoiseau de), comes to the king of France, IV, 47, 77, 185; V, 65. Knighted by the king\u0026rsquo;s hand, IV, 381. Besieges the fortress of Montaigu, IV, 396. COMMINES (the lord of), at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 441. COMMON PEOPLE (gens du commun), in the Maid\u0026rsquo;s following, IV, 12, 13, 18, 215, 222, 234, 247, 341; V, 107. COMMUNES (gens des), placed under Joan\u0026rsquo;s orders, V, 290, 292. COMMUNION, received by Joan, I, 51; II, 6, 186, 320, 334, 366, 450; III, 18, 22, 62, 67, 100, 104, 114, 129, 158, 168, 173; IV, 231, 322; three times in one day, IV, 474; before her death, I, 475; II, 158; without having been released from excommunication, III, 149. COMMY (Cosme de), bourgeois of Orléans, deposes on the Maid, III, 27. Hosts the rehabilitation judges, V, 277. COMPAING (Jacquet), bourgeois of Orléans, V, 259, 262, 269. COMPAING (Pierre), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 32. COMPIÈGNE, handed back to the French, IV, 23, 47, 80, 190, 389. The Maid at — with the king, IV, 24, 47, 85, 196, 435; V, 69. Treaty concluded with the duke of Burgundy at —, IV, 174. Besieged by the English and Burgundians, IV, 32, 92, 399, 438, 441; V, 73, 175. Joan at the defence of —, I, 114, 236; IV, 32, 49, 50, 398, 438, 443. Sortie of —, I, 114, 116, 207, 298; IV, 33, 92, 261, 400, 439, 444, 446, 458, 516; V, 166, 176. Joan induced to the sortie of — by her voices, IV, 438, 443. Capture of Joan at —, I, 116, 207; II, 353; IV, 34, 92, 314, 344, 346, 351, 401, 428, 459, 467, 475, 477, 506; V, 73, 167, 177. Joan betrayed at —, IV, 272, 312, 346. Her revelations on the deliverance of —, I, 110, 267; IV, 35; her attachment to the town of —, I, 271, 334. Deliverance of —, V, 74, 369. Causeway before —, IV, 399, 400, 441. The royal house or palace of —, IV, 389. Bridge gate of —, IV, 400. Bridge and mills of — destroyed, V, 177. Saint-Jacques church of —, IV, 272. Great tower and cross of —, V, 373. Abbot of Saint-Corneille of —, I, 399. Atournés of —. See Atournés. Captain of —. See Flavy. COMPOSTELLA. Itinerary of the pilgrims of —, IV, 535. COMPTES (chambre des). Extract from the black registers of the — of Brabant, IV, 425. Treatise on the Maid ratified at the — of Dauphiné, V, 474. Extract from the registers of the — of Paris, V, 227, 254. The — of Paris transferred to Poitiers, V, 153. Masters and clerks of the —, IV, 454. President of the —. See Charles (Simon). LE COMTE. See Comitis and Conte (Le). CONDEMNATION of Joan to perpetual imprisonment, I, 450; to abandonment to the secular arm, I, 471. Joan\u0026rsquo;s complaints against her —, II, 8; announced to the emperor of Germany and the princes of Europe, I, 485; to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 403; to the Parisians, IV, 459. Iniquity of the —, IV, 36, 93, 265, 275, 312, 344, 353; V, 76. Severity of Louis XI against the authors of the —, IV, 528. Account of the trial of —, III, 377; IV, 352. Summary of the trial of —, V, 410. The trial of — paid by the king of England, II, 317; V, 194, 196, 200; drafted in French, II, 156, 333; III, 135, 376; V, 385, 397; in Manchon\u0026rsquo;s hand, III, 376; V, 442; put into Latin by the clerks, II, 156; III, 135, 196; expedited in authentic form, III, 135, 160. Remaining fragments of the minute, I, 95; V, 386. Manuscripts of the trial of —, II, 23, 156; III, 135, 330; V, 77, 387, 392. Disagreement between its various redactions, IV, 256, 266; V, 413. King\u0026rsquo;s order for the surrender of all the trial papers of —, II, 2. Deposit of the trial of — before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 156, 158; III, 135, 330; V, 443. Demand of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family\u0026rsquo;s procurators against the —, II, 190, 260. Reasons of law against the trial of —, II, 139, 199, 212; III, 265, 275; IV, 355. The trial of — annulled by the rehabilitation sentence, III, 361; IV, 355; V, 77; translated into French by order of Louis XII, IV, 254, 266; V, 411; and in the seventeenth century, V, 403. CONFESSION. Joan confessed often at the village, I, 51; II, 396, 398, 400, 402, 404, 415; at Vaucouleurs, II, 446; at Neufchâteau, I, 54; at the army, II, 455; III, 18, 104; before attacking the enemy, III, 34; she exhorted the men-at-arms to —, III, 32, 78, 81, 104, 106. Her — received by Jean Colin, II, 432; by friar Richard, II, 450; by Henri Arnolin, II, 459; by Loiselleur, III, 60; by Pierre Morice, III, 50; by Jean Pasquerel, III, 101, 106, 108; by Robert Baignart, III, 119; by Nicolas de Queuville, III, 124; by Martin Ladvenu, III, 158. Requested by Joan from her judges, I, 47, 131; II, 299; granted, I, 473; II, 6, 334. CONRAD (maître), foreign ambassador in France, V, 134. COUNCIL. The king\u0026rsquo;s — resolves to make use of Joan, III, 93, 102, 115, 203, 299; IV, 41, 53, 510. The king\u0026rsquo;s — at Poitiers, III, 203, 209. The grand — of Burgundy inclined to peace with France, IV, 390. The — of England decides that Joan shall be tried, V, 84; appoints the trial clerks, III, 37; pays the judges, V, 200, 202, 204, 206. A judicial — refused Joan at the beginning of her trial, II, 334, 366; III, 166; granted at the end, I, 343, 351. CONSTANCE (council of), III, 462. CONTE (Guillaume le), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. Witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 234, 353. CONTE (Vaste le), German agent in France, V, 352. CONTES (Louis de), surnamed Mugot, III, 124; and Imerguet, IV, 211. Dwells with Joan at the Couldray, III, 66. Becomes her page, III, 67; IV, 129. Gives her a horse to go to Saint-Loup, III, 68, 124, 212; IV, 223. Has not seen her again since the siege of Paris, III, 73. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 65. CONTI (Guillaume de), abbot of Sainte-Catherine of Rouen, attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80. COPPEGUESNE (Nicolas), attends the condemnation trial, I, 6, 27, 28, 30, 31, 39, 48, 58, 69, 81, 92, 188, 189, 202, 354, 381, 404, 459; V, 272; at the abjuration, I, 443. His determination on Joan, I, 337. His opinion on the torture, I, 403; on the procedure, I, 427. His sentence, I, 465. COQUEREL (Hector de), chosen to second Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, V, 218. Witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 120, 208, 270, 276, 287, 290; III, 38, 261, 362, 373. Sub-delegated judge of the rehabilitation, III, 376; sits in that capacity, III, 222, 226, 230, 246, 248, 252. CORBEIL. Retreat of the English to —, IV, 69, 78, 178, 244, 424, 453. Bedford at —, IV, 187, 453. Arrest of two visionary women at —, IV, 467. The prior of —, IV, 454. CORBENY or CORBIGNIACUM (abbey of Saint-Marcoul of). The king and the Maid at —, III, 199; IV, 20, 78, 187, 381, 433, 514; V, 67. CORBIE, ready to submit to the French, IV, 391. CORDELIERS (church of the), at Orléans, IV, 102. CORDIER (Jean), author of an authentic copy of the rehabilitation trial, V, 457. CORGUILLERAY (Jean de), abbot of Saint-Ouen, present at the rehabilitation acts, II, 208, 276, 384. CORMEILLES (Bureau de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 59, 92, 382, 405. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. His determination on Joan, I, 358. CORMEILLES (abbey of). See Bonnet, Segré. CORMIER, secretary of the duke of Orléans, V, 114. SAINT-CORNEILLE of Compiègne. See Dacier. COSNE. Siege of — advised, IV, 180, 246; resolved, V, 148. Summons to the captain of —, IV, 245. COSSA (Balthazar de), contender for the papacy, III, 462. COTELLE (Pierre), procurator-general of the bishop of Beauvais, II, 135. COTEREAU, church notary at Orléans, V, 306. COTTE (De), owner of an original manuscript of the trial, V, 394. COUDUN, village near Compiègne. The duke of Burgundy lodges there, IV, 399, 400, 441, 443; V, 167, 176. Fortress of —, IV, 399. COUETTE (Thomas), Carmelite, condemned by the Inquisition, V, 45. COUIES (?), Englishman killed at Orléans, IV, 230. COULANGE-LA-VINEUSE, in the Auxerrois, I, 77. Handed back to the French, IV, 247. COULDRAY (Le), in Touraine, the Maid stays there, III, 66. COULOMMIERS, in Brie. Submission of —, IV, 78, 187. Charles VII and the Maid at —, IV, 21. COULON (Jean), one of those who brought the Maid into France, III, 75. COULON (Jean), Orléanais, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 34. COULONCES (Jean de la Haye, baron of), at the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 156, 157, 158, 164, 165; V, 291, 348. COULONS (Jean de), Orléanais. Guillemette his wife deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 33. COURCELLES (Thomas de), summoned from Paris for the condemnation trial, III, 57, 62; attends it, I, 30, 31, 34, 58, 69, 81, 92, 143, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 323, 381, 404, 434, 459; at the abjuration, I, 443; III, 61; and at the execution, I, 470; III, 62. Interrogates the Maid, II, 16. Reads the articles of the accusation drawn against her, I, 201. His opinion on the procedure, I, 200, 428. His determination on Joan, I, 337; interpretation he gives of it later, III, 58. His opinion on the torture, I, 403. Works on the indictment, III, 135. His sentence, I, 466; which he restricts later, II, 58. Visits Joan on the morning of her death, I, 478; III, 61. Deposes after her death, I, 483. Charged with translating the trial into Latin, II, 349; III, 135. Paid for his participation in the trial, V, 197, 200, 209. Cited for the rehabilitation, III, 44. Deposes, III, 56. Questioned on the first inquiry made in Joan\u0026rsquo;s country, II, 380; III, 58. Panegyrist of Joan, V, 89. COURTENAY. Charles VII passes through —, IV, 48, 201. COUSSEY or CURXEILM, near Neufchâteau, II, 399. COUTANCES (bishop of). See Longueuil, Montjeu. COYNCES (Les), place near Patay, IV, 242. CRAVANT. Battle of —, V, 67. The town of — surrenders to the French, V, 247. CRÉCY-EN-BRIE. Submission of —, IV, 78, 187; V, 68. CREIL submits to the French, IV, 391. Guarded by Jacques de Chabannes, IV, 394. CRÉPY-EN-VALOIS. The French at —, IV, 21, 46, 80, 84, 188, 386, 433; V, 69; leave it and return, IV, 23, 47, 190, 389, 435. Joan would have wished to die there, III, 14; stays there again in 1430, I, 114; IV, 32. Encounter of Burgundians and French near —, IV, 398. French garrison at —, IV, 436. CRÉQUI (Jean de), at Montépilloy, IV, 387, 433. Defends Paris, IV, 393. At the siege of Compiègne, IV, 400, 441, 445. Dangerously wounded in the fight where the Maid was taken, IV, 401, 439. CROCE (Geoffroy de), witness at one of the rehabilitation acts, III, 353. CROSS, given by Joan to the men-at-arms, V, 38. Presented to Joan at her last moments, II, 6, 20, 303; III, 159, 194. Erection of a — in the Maid\u0026rsquo;s honour requested, II, 190; III, 297; decreed, III, 361; carried out at Rouen, IV, 528. Fine — on the Orléans bridge, and boulevard of the same name, IV, 99, 104, 108, 110, 111, 115. — de Fleury near Orléans, IV, 149. — Boissée at Orléans, IV, 106, 110, 132. — Morin below Orléans, IV, 138, 155. — of Flavy at Compiègne, V, 373. SAINTE-CROIX, cathedral of Orléans, IV, 124, 156; V, 291, 296, 298, 300, 309, 311, 312. — de la Bretonnerie at Paris, IV, 454. CROIX (George de la), Burgundian captain, IV, 396. CROMWELL (the lord of), member of the grand council of England, III, 243. CROTAY (Geoffroy de or du), attends the condemnation trial, I, 40, 49, 59, 69, 81, 92, 196, 202, 382, 405, 460. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 426; his determination on Joan, I, 358; his sentence, I, 466. Witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 234, 353. See Croce. CROTOY (Le), fortress where Joan was imprisoned, I, 89; III, 121. Account of her stay at —, V, 361. CROY (Jean de), returns Château-Thierry to the French, IV, 381. Fights at Montépilloy, IV, 387, 433, 434. Lamed in that encounter, IV, 435. Fights before Compiègne, IV, 441. CROY (the lord of), IV, 444. CRUISY (Jean de), provisional clerk of the rehabilitation, II, 92, 120, 131; III, 375. CUGNOT or QUENAST (Jean), inhabitant of Marville, V, 322, 323. CUISE (forest of), or of Compiègne, V, 368. Joan enters Compiègne through the —, V, 176. CULAN (Louis de), admiral of France, at the defence of Orléans, IV, 108; which he leaves, IV, 130; to return there with Joan, III, 4, 93; IV, 41, 42. Present at the capture of the Tourelles, IV, 44; V, 56; at the expedition of the Loire banks, IV, 64, 242; V, 349. Besieges and takes Bonny, IV, 180. Attends the king\u0026rsquo;s coronation, IV, 46, 180, 185; V, 129. Left to defend Saint-Denis, IV, 89, 201. CUSQUEL (Pierre), saw Joan in prison, II, 346; warned her she was in danger of death, III, 179; heard her at Saint-Ouen, II, 346; III, 181; lacked the strength to attend the execution, III, 181. Deposes in 1452, II, 305, 345. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. Re-summoned, III, 45, 179. DACIER (Jean), abbot of Saint-Corneille of Compiègne, attends the condemnation trial, I, 399. DAIX and DAY, for d\u0026rsquo;Arc, IV, 205; V, 150, 219, 220. DAIX (Jehannin), called Petit, rants against the Maid at Abbeville, V, 142. DALIE and DAELIS, for Du Lys, II, 387, 434, 464; V, 246. See Lys. DAMMARTIN-EN-GOËLE, Charles VII and Joan at —, IV, 21, 46, 188; near —, IV, 80. DAMPIERRE (the lord of), ambassador of Charles VII to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 390 note. DAMPIERRE (Jean de), alderman of Paris, IV, 464. DARON (Pierre), lieutenant of the bailiff of Rouen, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 199. DAUPHIN, name given by Joan to Charles VII, II, 444, 447, 448, 450, 456; III, 3, 12, 103; IV, 167, 206, 208, 304; V, 100; why, III, 20, 300. Same designation used by others, IV, 284, 290, 295, 340, 348, 427, 451, 477, 500, 508; V, 179, 353; by the king himself in his acts, IV, 303, 382. Title given to Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s son, V, 106, 146. DAUPHINÉ. Charles VII on the point of withdrawing there, IV, 127, 309. Given to be governed by Prince Louis, IV, 303. Chamber of accounts of —. See Comptes. DAUPHINOIS, designation of the fighters of the French party, IV, 432. DAUVARGNE or DAUVERGNE (Jean), church notary at Rouen, II, 157, 310, 377. DAVID (the king), appears to Joan, IV, 430. DEBRION (Gillet and Jean), bourgeois of Tours, V, 155. DELAFONTAINE. See Fontaine (Jean de la). DELAPIERRE. See Pierre (Is. de la). DELORME (Nicaise), abbot of Saint-Victor of Paris, has the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trials transcribed, V, 399; communicates the manuscript to Valeran de Varanis, V, 89. DELPHINAL (register), cited, IV, 303, 312 note. DEMETRIADE (bishop of). See Fabri (Jean). SAINT DENIS, did not appear to Joan, I, 127. Why she offered him her arms, I, 179, 305. SAINT-DENIS EN FRANCE. The Maid goes to lodge there, IV, 25, 47, 479; distributes pennants to the men-at-arms there, I, 236; breaks her sword there, III, 99; inspired to stay there, I, 57, 259; brought back from Paris to —, IV, 28, 88; V, 71; offers her armour in the church of —, I, 179, 304; IV, 29, 88, 89; V, 71. Charles VII at —, IV, 26, 46, 86, 88, 197, 392, 436, 456; V, 70. Bridge established at —, IV, 28. The town of — left in the keeping of the count of Vendôme, IV, 88, 201; abandoned by the French, IV, 29, 89; pillaged by the English, IV, 89. Henry VI brought to —, V, 170. The abbey of — in litigation with Notre-Dame of Paris, III, 301. SAINT-DENIS of Reims, abbey, IV, 185; V, 141. DEPOUNCHE (L.), canon of Rouen, I, 354. DESCH (Geoffroi), Metz notable, V, 322, 324. DESCH (Jean), secretary of the town of Metz, V, 355. DESERT (Guillaume du), canon of Rouen, I, 354, 460; attends the abjuration, II, 338. His sentence, I, 465. Attends the execution, II, 339. Employed in the first rehabilitation works, V, 215. Deposes in 1452, II, 334. DESFRICHES, councillor of Orléans, has the Maid\u0026rsquo;s monument restored, V, 238. DESJARDINS. See Jardins. DESLANDES (Jean), called Bonami, canon at Tours, V, 154, 155. DIEL (Regnauld), witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 353. DIEPPE. Joan\u0026rsquo;s passage at —, V, 361. DIERREY (Pierre de), subscribes Joan\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. GOD, called messire and sovereign lord by Joan, I, 96; II, 449, 456; III, 103, 109, 124; IV, 128, 209, 218, 223, 232. The Maid daughter of —, I, 130, 340; III, 12; wife of —, III, 119; message of —, IV, 10, 30; V, 146. Suzerain of the king of France, in Joan\u0026rsquo;s opinion, I, 241; III, 91; IV, 140, 288, 486. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s prayer to —, I, 279. \u0026ldquo;En nom Dé\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;au nom de —\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Bon gré —\u0026rdquo;, Joan\u0026rsquo;s oath forms, I, 157; III, 5, 27, 30, 48, 98, 122, 124, 127, 199, 204, 205, 212; IV, 160, 206, 209, 362; V, 293; she disliked hearing the name of — sworn in vain, III, 206, 219; said she answered only to — for certain things, I, 393; III, 183. DIEULEWARD (Jean de), one of those who brought the Maid into France, II, 406. DINAN. See Beaumanoir. DOMAT (Gremond), French translator of the Dunfermline monk\u0026rsquo;s chronicle, IV, 482. DOMFRONT (bailiff of), V, 178. DOMINICANS. Prior of the — of Vienne, see Léonard; of Évreux, see Calciatoris; of Beauvais, see Morlaines. Convent of the — of Rouen, see Jacques (saint); of Nantes, II, 71. See Jacobins. DOMINICI (Dominique), ecclesiastical notary of Toul, II, 387, 465, 467. DOMPIERRE (Jean de), clerk of Argentan, V, 182, 190. DOMRÉMY, in the élection of Langres, IV, 204. Homeland of the Maid, I, 46, 209; II, 388, 393, 401, 403, 412, 417, 443, 449; III, 192, 198, 339; IV, 118, 205, 322, 325, 361; V, 113, 138, 150; where she was baptised, II, 388, 393, 395. Village of the French party, I, 65, 262. Hostile to those of Maxey, I, 66. Burned, II, 396. Exempted from taxes, V, 138, 139. Joan surnamed of —, V, 343; or the Maid of —, V, 248, 249, 251, 454. Obit of Joan\u0026rsquo;s parents founded at the church of —, II, 74 note. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s house at —, V, 244, 248. Priest of —. See Fronte, Colin, Minet. Witnesses questioned at —, II, 387, 401, 403, 405, 408, 410, 412, 465. DOVER. Proclamation at —, V, 163. Constable of the royal castle of —, V, 194. DOUX or DULCIS (Jean le), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 49, 59, 69, 81, 92, 196, 202, 382, 405, 460; at the abjuration, I, 444. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 426. His determination on Joan, I, 358. His opinion on the torture, I, 403. His sentence, I, 466. DRAPIER (Perrin le), questioned at Domrémy, II, 412. DREUX (count of). See Albret. DROUART (Jean), messenger of the town of Tours, V, 332. DRUGY. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s stay at the château of —, V, 358, 359. DUBEY (Alain), provost of Orléans, IV, 137. DUBOILLON (Olivier), bourgeois of Tours, V, 154. DUBOIS (Alexandre), architect of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s fountain at Rouen, V, 236. DUBOIS (Girard), notary of Orléans, V, 222, 224, 225. DUBOIS (M.), canon of Orléans, discusses a manuscript of the trial, IV, 256; V, 411. DUC or DUCIS (Laurent le), attends Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, I, 382. DUCHESNE (André), preserved Perceval de Cagny for us, IV, 1. DUCHESNE (Bertrand). See Chesne. DUCHESNE (Jean), designated to lodge Joan at Bourges, III, 86. DUFOUR. See Four. DUFRESNOY. See Lenglet. DUGUÉ (Jean), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 137. DUGUET (C.), alderman of Reims, V, 141. DUISY (Guillaume), Orléans engineer, IV, 104. DULCIS. See Doux. DULIS. See Lys (du). DUN in Lorraine (Saubelet de), V, 328, 329. DUNFERMLINE (Monk of), confused with William Elphinstone, author on the Maid, IV, 482; V, 339; accompanied her the whole time of her mission, IV, 484. DUNOIS (count of). See Orléans (Jean bâtard d\u0026rsquo;). DUPONT (Guillaume), inhabitant of Abbeville, V, 142. DUPUY (the brothers). See Puy (du). DUPUY (Jean), host of the Maid at Tours, III, 401. See Lapau. DUPUY (Jean), councillor of the queen of Sicily at Tours, V, 154. DUREMONT (Gilles de), abbot of Fécamp, attends the condemnation trial, I, 5, 27, 28, 29, 31, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 188, 195, 202, 404, 459; III, 137. Interrogates Joan, III, 51. Partial against her, III, 153. Attends the abjuration, I, 443. Has Nicolas de Houppeville released from prison, II, 326; III, 172. His opinion on the interrogatories, II, 358; on the procedure, I, 199, 423. His determination on Joan, I, 344. His sentence, I, 463. In danger of death from the English, III, 178. Subscribes the safeguard of the judges, III, 243. DURETAL. The garrison of — at the Patay expedition, IV, 316. DUVAL (Guillaume), vicar of the Inquisition, attends the condemnation trial, then deposes in 1450, II, 9. DUVAL (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 59. DU VAL (Jean), vicomte of Argentan, V, 180. SCOTS (the), at the defence of Orléans, IV, 119, 130, 141 note. At the battle of Patay, IV, 479. At the Reims journey, IV, 433. At the Montépilloy encounter, IV, 388. Joan\u0026rsquo;s anger against a —, III, 81. A — owner of a portrait of Joan, I, 100, 292. SCOTLAND. Charles VII on the point of withdrawing there, IV, 280; V, 339. King of —. See Jacques. Lords of — at the Reims journey, IV, 433. Constable of —. See Stuart. Fighters of the country of —, IV, 119, 130. SCOTLAND (Margaret of), married to the dauphin Louis, V, 32 note; what Joan says of her, II, 436. ÉCRIVAIN or SCRIPTORIS (Rolland l\u0026rsquo;), astrologer of Paris, IV, 536. Attends Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, I, 92. ÉDILE. See Barré. CHURCH. Terms of Joan\u0026rsquo;s submission to the —, I, 162, 166, 174, 175, 205, 313, 324, 336, 377, 379, 380, 392, 397, 401, 441, 445, 446, 456, 482; II, 333; III, 132, 169, 176, 181, 190. Explanation given to Joan about the —, I, 175; II, 13, 308. Joan did not understand this word at first, II, 351, 362; faithful to the —, I, 208; II, 22, 221, 253, 302, 358, 366. Deception of Joan\u0026rsquo;s judges about her submission to the —, II, 175; she is advised not to submit to the —, II, 327, 332; III, 162. Prophecy announcing the pacification of the — by the Maid, V, 16. ÉGREVILLE. See Aigreville. ELINCOURT, near Compiègne, V, 165. ELPHINSTONE (William). See Dunfermline. EMBRUN (archbishop of). See Gelu. EMENGART (Erard), attends the condemnation trial, I, 58, 69, 80, 92, 189, 195, 202, 381, 404, 459. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 424. His determination on Joan, I, 337. His sentence, I, 464. SWORD. Joan did not use one, III, 205; — of Fierbois, I, 76, 234; IV, 55, 93, 129, 212, 519; what Joan deposes about it, I, 76, 77; it was on a knight\u0026rsquo;s tomb, IV, 519; why decorated with crosses, I, 179, 236; what the enemies said of it, IV, 469; broken by Joan after the battle of Patay, IV, 79, 93; on the back of a loose woman, III, 73, 99; IV, 71; V, 60; cannot be mended, V, 93; found at Notre-Dame of Chartres, IV, 332. Another — given to Joan by Robert de Baudricourt, I, 54, 76; by the inhabitants of Vaucouleurs, II, 447. Taken from a Burgundian, I, 77, 237. Offered at Saint-Denis by the Maid, I, 77. Kept in the treasury of Saint-Denis, IV, 89. ÉPERNAY. The queen at —, V, 351. ÉPINAL (Gérardin d\u0026rsquo;), questioned at Domrémy, II, 421. Had been of the Burgundian party, II, 423. His wife. See Isabellette. ÉRARD or EVRARD (Guillaume), attends the condemnation trial, I, 92, 399, 430, 459. His opinion on the torture, I, 403; on the procedure, I, 429. Preaches on the day of the abjuration, I, 443; II, 15, 17, 303, 335, 345, 367, 383; III, 52, 61, 90, 156, 168, 194, 316; IV, 468; V, 254; not willingly, III, 113. Prevents the apparitor from enlightening Joan, II, 331. His sentence, I, 463. Paid for his participation in the trial, V, 205. ERAULT (Jean), examiner of the Maid at Poitiers, III, 74, 83. ERFURT. Necromancy experiment made at —, III, 460. University of —, III, 450. ESBAHY (Jacques or Jacquet l\u0026rsquo;), bourgeois of Orléans, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 26. Procurator of the town, V, 309, 326. ESCHART (Guillaume), present at one of the rehabilitation acts, III, 256. ESCOUCHIE (sergenterie of), in the vicomté of Argentan, V, 183. SPAIN. Charles VII on the point of retiring into —, IV, 280, 309. Help sent from — to the false Joan of Arc, V, 330. Sea of —, V, 122. SPANISH (knight), at the defence of Orléans. See Partada. Chronicle of the Maid in —, V, 374. ESTELLIN, inhabitant of Domrémy, II, 395, 410. His widow. See Beatrix. ESTIENNE the painter, Orléanais, V, 274, 308. ESTIVET (Jean d\u0026rsquo;), promoter of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, I, 7, 40, 43; enters into it willingly, III, 137. His letters of institution, I, 24, 135. Insults Joan, III, 49, 52, 162. Disguises himself to deceive her, III, 162. Offers to prove the authenticity of the interrogatories, I, 190. Relentless after the clerks of the cause, III, 162. His indictment, I, 197. Sends off the twelve articles to Paris without correcting them, III, 144. Visits Joan in prison, II, 18. Has her taken back to Rouen castle after the abjuration, III, 157. Declares his prosecution finished, I, 441. Pays the clerks, III, 196. Dies in a sewer, III, 162. ESTOUTEVILLE (Guillaume d\u0026rsquo;), legate in France, informs ex officio on Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, II, 157, 290; III, 370; in concert with Jean Bréhal, III, 334. Names himself a substitute, II, 309. Sends Charles VII the result of the inquiry, V, 365. Grants indulgences for the celebration of the 8 May festival at Orléans, V, 299. See Inquiry. ÉTAMPES. Falstolf passes through —, IV, 176, 239, 413; returns there, IV, 424. STANDARD. Joan used hers in place of a sword, III, 205. Description of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s —, I, 78, 117, 181, 300; III, 7, 103; IV, 5, 12, 129, 215, 362, 490; V, 34, 38. Painted at Tours, III, 103; V, 258; folded, V, 108; carried at Orléans, III, 68, 80, 216; IV, 6, 7, 161, 226, 228, 451; V, 294; at Jargeau, III, 95, 97; at Troyes, III, 117; at Reims, I, 104, 300; IV, 77, 186; V, 129; before Paris, IV, 26, 392, 436, 465; at Compiègne, IV, 439, 445. Questions on the paintings of the —, I, 180; on the virtue of the —, I, 182, 187, 301. Accusation about the —, I, 236, 300. See Banner. ÉTIENNE. See Estienne. EU. Joan at the château of —, V, 361. The county of — conquered by the Maid, IV, 337. Archdeacon of — at Rouen cathedral, I, 347, 423. EUDE (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 381. EUGÉLIDE, princess of Hungary, predicted the Maid, III, 340; text of her prediction, III, 344. EUGENE IV, pope. The false Joan of Arc in his service, V, 335, 336. SAINT EUVERTE, patron of Orléans, IV, 163; V, 300, 302, 314. His shrine, V, 297, 309, 311. His church at Orléans, IV, 106, 135; V, 296. ÉVREUX. The environs of — troubled by Richemond, IV, 377, 391. Chapter of —, III, 373. Bailiff of —. See Guehin. Dominicans of —. See Calciatoris. SAINT ÉVROUL, his shrine at Orléans, V, 311. EVURCIUS. See Euverte. EXETER (cardinal of), for Winchester, IV, 458. See Winchester. EXMES. The town and vicomté of — taxed for the Maid\u0026rsquo;s ransom, V, 180. Extent of the vicomté of —, V, 186. Bailiff of —, V, 178. FABRE (V.), secretary of the treasury of Normandy, V, 181, 182. FABRI (Guillaume), canon of Rouen, I, 354. FABRI (Jean), Augustinian friar, then bishop of Demetriade, attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 189, 196, 202, 281, 404, 459. Ill-treated by Cauchon, II, 367; III, 153, 175. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 425. Murmurs against the illegality of the imprisonment, III, 175. Attends the abjuration, I, 443. His determination on Joan, I, 337. Claims no longer to have been summoned since the abjuration, II, 369; III, 174, 176. His sentence, I, 465. Attends the execution as a mere onlooker, II, 369; as assessor, III, 186. Deposes in 1452, II, 367. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. Produced, II, 191. Re-summoned, III, 45, 174. Witness of the rehabilitation acts, II, 208, 384; III, 261, 353, 362. Sub-delegated judge of the rehabilitation, III, 376. Sits in that capacity, III, 222, 226, 230, 246, 248, 252. FABRI (Raoul), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. FACULTY of theology of Paris; its deliberation on the Maid, I, 414; its manner of proceeding in matters of faith, III, 144. Of canon law of Paris; its deliberation on the Maid, I, 417. Of theology of Poitiers, III, 202. FAGO (de). See Fay. FAGOU (Henri), Orléanais, III, 5. His wife. See Macée. FAILLY (Colard and Poinsette de), co-lords of Haraucourt, V, 328. FALCONBRIDGE or FAUQUEMBERGUE (lord), at the siege of Orléans, IV, 97. FALSTOLF or FASTOLF or FASTOT, English captain, at the battle of the Herrings, IV, 120, 125, 126. Sent to the relief of the Loire army, III, 212; to Orléans, IV, 9, 58, 62. Sent back from Paris with reinforcement, IV, 44, 67, 170, 239, 242, 318, 413, 452; V, 57. His advice ill-received by Talbot, IV, 375, 413, 416. Commands at Patay, IV, 15, 375. Flees, IV, 45, 178, 244, 341, 373. Dragged from the battlefield, IV, 423. Retreats to Étampes and Corbeil, IV, 69, 424, 453. Believed prisoner, V, 58, 120, 122, 125, 263. Stripped of the Order of the Garter, IV, 375, 432. His life written by William Wyrcester, IV, 475. FARQUIÈRES (Thomas de), witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 227, 353, 362. FARCIAULX (Robert de), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 31. SAINT-FARGEAU, near Auxerre, written Saint-Jargeau, surrenders to the French, IV, 377. FARINEAU (Guyon), judge of Touraine, V, 154, 155. FASCOT, FASTOT, FASTRE. See Falstolf. FATALES DOMINÆ. See Fairies. FAUQUEMBERGUE (Clément de), author on Joan of Arc, IV, 450. The lord of —. See Falconbridge. FAURE (Antoine). His name on a manuscript of the trial, V, 397. FAUVEAU (Étienne), Orléanais, IV, 133. FAUVEAU, culverin-maker of Orléans, V, 269. FAVE (Jean), master of requests of Charles VII, present at Joan\u0026rsquo;s execution, II, 377. Witness in 1452, II, 375. FAVIÈRE (Pressoir de la), at Orléans, IV, 97. FAVO (Jean de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 69. FAY (Geoffroy du), questioned at Vaucouleurs, II, 442. FAYETTE (Gilbert Motier de la), marshal of France, at the defence of Orléans, IV, 119. Revictuals the town, IV, 413. Fights at Patay, IV, 416. Named, V, 364. FÉCAMP (abbey of). See Duremont (Gilles de). FÉCARD or FECART (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 113, 405. FAIRIES. Traditions about the — at Domrémy, I, 67, 68, 187, 209, 212; II, 390, 404, 450. What Joan thinks of them, I, 178, 209, 211. A — appears to Catherine de la Rochelle, I, 106, 108, 297. Fairy fountain. See Fontaine des groseilliers. FERBECURIA. See Frebecourt. FERDINAND and ISABELLA of Castile, send to France an ambassador who wrote the history of the Maid, V, 374. FÉRON (the sieur du). See Chemyn. FÉROT (Le), lends Étienne Pasquier a treatise on the Maid, V, 467. FERREBOUC (François), notary of the University of Paris, II, 95, 112, 122, 131, 276, 284, 384; III, 39, 221, 229, 236, 252, 264, 363. Instituted clerk of the rehabilitation, II, 152. Reads the defence\u0026rsquo;s libel, II, 267. Absent from Paris at the final examination of the trial pieces, III, 332. His autograph signature, V, 448, 449, 457, 460. His redaction of the trial, V, 434. FERTÉ-HUBERT (la), abandoned by the English, IV, 370. Handed back to the French, IV, 46; V, 58. Château of —, IV, 239. FERTÉ-MILON (la). Charles VII and Joan at —, III, 14; IV, 21. FERTUT (Guillaume), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 270. FESTIVAL established at Orléans in memory of the town\u0026rsquo;s deliverance, V, 296; described, V, 298, 300, 308, 316, 317, 318. Indulgence for those who attended, V, 299, 302, 304, 306. Verses sung there in the fifteenth century, V, 313. Celebrated at Bourges, V, 297. FEUILLÉE (Alain de la), Breton of the Patay expedition, IV, 316. FEUILLET (Gérard), attends the condemnation trial, I, 30, 31, 34, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 113, 125, 134, 149, 150, 156, 161, 173, 188, 189, 190, 194, 195, 202, 323, 375. Interrogates the Maid, II, 16. Sent to fetch the University of Paris\u0026rsquo;s determination, V, 203. His opinion on the procedure, I, 200. His determination on Joan, I, 337. Exhorts her to submit, I, 380. Paid for his participation in the trial, V, 197, 200, 204. FIÈVRE (Gervaise le), culverin-maker of Orléans, V, 269. FIÈVRE (Guillaume, Jean, Raoul le). See Fabri. FIÈVRE DE SAINT-REMY (Jean le), author on the Maid, IV, 429. His testimony on the Shepherd, V, 170. FIEFVÉ (Thomas), attends the condemnation trial, I, 122, 125, 131. FILLEUL (Michelet), procurator of Orléans, V, 276, 277, 309. FISCIOLIS (Pierre de), priest of Maxey-sur-Vaise, II, 387, 465, 467. FLAMANDS (the Flemings), refuse to serve the duke of Burgundy outside their country, V, 334. Fight at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 441. FLAMBERT (la Rivière), at Orléans, IV, 107. FLAMERT (Jean le), chaplain of Beauvais cathedral, II, 278. FLANDRES DE BRUNVILLE (M. de), owner of a manuscript of the trial, V, 409, 460. FLAVY (Guillaume de), instituted captain of Compiègne, IV, 85, 195, 391, 394, 438; reduced to contenting himself with the lieutenancy of La Trémoille, V, 174. Arranges everything to favour the retreat of the sallied troops, V, 177. Has the town gate shut on the Maid, IV, 34, 92, 261, 273. Sells the Maid to the Burgundians, IV, 272. Origin of his quarrels with justice, V, 368. Pardoned by reason of the death of Marshal de Rochefort, V, 371. Murdered by his wife, IV, 274; V, 371. Buried at Compiègne, V, 373. FLAVY (Jeanne de), judgement rendered against her, V, 372. FLAVY (Louis de), hands back Choisy-sur-Aisne, IV, 397; V, 176. LA FLÈCHE. The garrison of — at the Patay expedition, IV, 316. FLEURY (Jean), clerk of the bailiff of Rouen, III, 159. FLEURY-AUX-CHOUX, village near Orléans, IV, 146, 148; V, 292. Cross of —. See Croix. FLO or FLOUE (saint). His head at Orléans, V, 311. FLOQUET or FLOSQUET (Julien), attends the condemnation trial, I, 454, 459. SAINT-FLORENT-LÈS-SAUMUR. The duke of Alençon learns of Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival there, III, 91. The Maid goes there, IV, 10. SAINT-FLORENTIN. Submission of the town of —, IV, 72, 181, 251, 377; V, 60. FOLEMPANT (Georges), condemned by the Inquisition, II, 8; III, 169. Led to Rouen prison, III, 188. FOLIE (Gérard), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. FONTAINE-DES-GROSEILLIERS, Fons ad Rannos, at Domrémy, I, 67, 210; II, 391, 394, 397, 414, 416, 418, 434. Called Bonne-Fontaine-aux-Fées-Nostre-Seigneur, IV, 468. Joan heard her voices there, I, 87, 211. Diverted to supply a monumental fountain, V, 248. Councillors of the —, I, 295. Sunday and festival of the fountains at Domrémy, II, 391, 394, 396, 399, 400, 404, 407, 409, 411, 413, 416, 418, 420, 422, 425, 430, 434, 440, 452, 462. FONTAINE (Étienne de La), the king\u0026rsquo;s mounted courier, V, 262. FONTAINE (Jean de La), or de Fonte, attends the condemnation trial, I, 7, 27, 28, 30, 39, 49, 59, 60, 81, 113, 134, 149, 156, 161, 173, 180, 188, 189, 190. His institution as commissioner-councillor at the trial, I, 26. Takes office as such, I, 31. Informs at Rouen against the Maid, I, 29, 31. Attends the trial, I, 194, 196, 202. Passes a note to the prisoner Houppeville, III, 172. Delegated by Pierre Cauchon to interrogate Joan, I, 113; III, 59. Interrogates, I, 114, 126, 131. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199. Advises Joan to submit to the Church, II, 341. Sent near her after the abjuration, II, 349. Flees from Rouen, II, 13, 252, 299; III, 139, 153. FONTAINE (Jean de La), French poet, describes the Maid\u0026rsquo;s monument, V, 222. FONTAINEBLEAU (library of). See Francis I. FONTAINES (Régnault de), at the defence of Orléans, IV, 119. Sent on embassy to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 390 note. Accompanies the Maid to the Pont-l\u0026rsquo;Évêque undertaking, IV, 398. FONTETTE (Fevret de), owner of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, V, 447. Cited, V, 394, 405, 410. FORAS (Marc de), delegated to receive the Parisians\u0026rsquo; oath of fidelity, IV, 455. FORDUN, Scottish chronicler, IV, 478, 482. FORMICARIUM. Extracts from the — of Jean Nider, IV, 502; V, 324. FORTIN (Guillaume), witness cited for the rehabilitation, II, 296. FOSSEUX (Jean de), at Montépilloy, IV, 387. FOUCAULT (Jean), commands at Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193. Left at Lagny, IV, 89, 201. Takes part in the fight against Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras, IV, 91; V, 72. FOUCHIER or FOUCHERII (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 381, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443. His opinion on the procedure, I, 427. FOUQUES (Jacques), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. Request presented by him, II, 136. FOUQUET (Jean). See Senlis (bishop of). FOUR (Antoine du), bishop of Marseille, author on the false Joan of Arc, IV, 522; V, 336. LE FOUREUR, clerk of the University of Paris, I, 43. FOURNIER (Bertault), Orléanais, V, 275, 277. FOURNIER or FURNERII (Jean), priest of Vaucouleurs, exorcises Joan, II, 446. FOURNON (Robert le), baron of Tournebu, descendant of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, V, 219. FOVILLE (Nicolas de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 60. FRANC (Martin le), author on the Maid, V, 44. FRANCE. State of — at the moment of Joan\u0026rsquo;s appearance, III, 399; V, 25. Joan comes to —, I, 54, 221; II, 419; circumstances of her journey, II, 457; III, 87, 199, 203; IV, 126, 207; V, 100. — recovered whole by the Maid, IV, 329, 527, 535. Sweet — or Île-de-France, IV, 301; V, 25. Joan called the Maid of —, V, 83, 322, 323, 402. FRANKFURT. Library of the Carmelites of —, V, 475. FRANCIÈRES (Agnès de), V, 373. FRANCIS I, had a manuscript of the trial in his Fontainebleau library, V, 388, 409. FRANÇOIS (Jean le), abbot of Sainte-Catherine of Rouen, II, 208, 276, 384. FRANQUET D\u0026rsquo;ARRAS; what Joan says of him, I, 158, 264. Encounter where he was beaten, IV, 32, 91, 399, 442; V, 72. FREBECOURT, near Domrémy, II, 429. FRINES or FRAXINIS (Martin des), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 120; III, 373. FRICON (Rémon), steward of the duke of Orléans, V, 214. FRIQUE (Thomas), abbot of Bec, present at the abjuration, I, 443. FROCOURT (Jean de), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. Executes the citations at Beauvais, II, 132; III, 375. Witness, II, 278. FRONTE (Guillaume), priest of Domrémy, II, 390, 402, 404, 427. His testimony on Joan, II, 402, 434. FRUCTUS TEMPORUM, English chronicle, cited, IV, 476. FULGOSE (Baptiste), author on the Maid, cited, IV, 520 note. FUMEUX (Jean Le), priest of Ugny, II, 387. Saw Joan at N.-D. of Vaucouleurs, II, 461. Questioned at Toul, II, 460. Witness of the inquiry made in Lorraine, II, 387, 465, 467. FURTIVOLUS, man-at-arms who insulted Joan, III, 102; V, 38. GABRIEL (the angel). Apparition of —, I, 328, 400. What Joan says of him, I, 85, 93, 283. GAGUIN (Robert), cited, IV, 520 note; V, 422. GALIER (Colin), Orléanais, V, 310. GAMACHES (Guillaume de), put on stage with the Maid, IV, 358. GAMACHES (Philippe de), abbot of Saint-Denis, present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 372. GARDINIS. See Jardins (des). GARIN. See Guérin. GARIVEL (François), general of the aides, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 19. GASQUET (Jean le), French man-at-arms at Orléans, IV, 107. GASTELIER (Le), Orléanais, IV, 111. GASTINEL (Denis), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 48, 59, 69, 81, 196, 202, 354, 382, 405, 459; at the abjuration, I, 444. His opinion on the procedure, I, 200, 425. His determination on Joan, I, 341. His opinion on the torture, I, 403. His sentence, I, 464. GÂTINAIS. Fighters of —, at Orléans, IV, 151, 222. GAUCHER (Mahiet), painter of Orléans, V, 310, 311. GAUCOURT (Raoul de), governor of Orléans, IV, 99, 117. Witness of Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival, III, 16. Sent to the relief of Orléans, III, 4; IV, 5, 215, 490. Attends the council at Jacques Boucher\u0026rsquo;s, IV, 57, 158. Opposes a sortie by Joan, III, 117. Commands at the capture of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc, III, 214. Testifies to Joan\u0026rsquo;s military science, III, 126. Fights at the attack on the Tourelles, IV, 43; V, 56. Writes the capture of the Tourelles to the king, V, 103. Leaves for the Jargeau expedition, V, 109. At Patay, IV, 319. Sent on embassy to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 390. Takes part in the attack on Paris, IV, 26, 27. Does not want Joan and the duke of Alençon to be together, IV, 30. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 16. GAUCOURT (the lady of), III, 102. GAUFFRIDUS. See Geffroy. GAUTIER (Pierre), procurator of the town of Poitiers, V, 196. GAVRE (the count of). See Albret (Charles d\u0026rsquo;). GAY (Pierre), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 120; III, 373. GEFFROY or GEOFFROY (Jean), canon of Rouen, I, 354; V, 373; procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. GEHE (Gérard), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 119; III, 373. GELAIS (Octavien de Saint-); his verses on the Maid, V, 91. GELU (Jacques), archbishop of Embrun, addresses to Charles VII a favourable memoir on the Maid, III, 393. Fragments of this memoir, III, 395, 404, 406, 407. Notice on the same work, V, 473. GEMIER (Étienne), bourgeois of Tours, V, 154. GENDRE or GENERI (Jean le), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. GENEVA. Prophecy on Joan made at —, IV, 536. Manuscript of the trial at the library of —, V, 405, 457. SAINTE-GENEVIÈVE (library of), in Paris; manuscripts it contains on Joan of Arc, IV, 344, 482; V, 83. GENIS (M. de Saint-), owner of a manuscript of the trial, V, 409, 461. GEOFFROY. See Geffroy. SAINT GEORGE, national standard of the English, IV, 142, 387. SAINT-GEORGE de Boscherville, abbey. See Labbé. GEPILLE (Philippe), schoolmaster of Toul, II, 467. GÉRARDIN (Nicolas), sells Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s house to the département of the Vosges, V, 246, 248. GÉRARDIN D\u0026rsquo;ÉPINAL. See Épinal. GERBEROY (Vidame of), V, 194. SAINT-GERMAIN-DES-PRÉS. Abbot of —. See Morillon. Library of —. See Harlay. SAINT-GERMAIN outside the walls of Speyer, III, 467. GERSON (Jean). His memoir on the Maid, III, 298; V, 464; produced at the trial, III, 376; V, 443. Praised, IV, 260. SAINT-GERVAIS, church of Orléans, IV, 106. GESTES (les) des nobles francoys, unpublished work, IV, 204. GÉVAUDAN. Shepherd of —, V, 168. GIEN. Joan passes through it on coming into France, III, 3, 21. Help sent from — to Orléans, IV, 222. Rendezvous given at —, V, 59; Charles VII decides to go there, IV, 11, 46, 368, 376. Payment made to the men-at-arms at —, IV, 71, 249. The queen brought to —, IV, 180, 247. The Maid at —, IV, 17, 245; V, 125; she leaves it out of pique without waiting for the king, IV, 18, 71. Return to — after the coronation, IV, 29, 48, 201; V, 71, 145, 267. GILEBERT (Robert), gives his sentence on Joan, I, 463. Attends the execution, I, 469. GILLES (Guillaume de Saint-), Breton of the Patay expedition, IV, 316. GIRAULT (Guillaume), author on the Maid, IV, 282. GIRESME (Nicole de), one of the defenders of Orléans, III, 6; IV, 44, 161, 229. GIRON (Alain de), Breton captain at the defence of Orléans, IV, 149, 156, 164. GLACIDAS. See Glasdale. GLASDALE (William), commander of the Tourelles fort, III, 9; IV, 8, 61, 100, 102, 105, 225, 454. Insults Joan, III, 108; IV, 155, 463; V, 290. Drowns in the Loire, III, 25, 110; IV, 9, 44, 62, 162, 230, 365, 431, 463, 479, 495; V, 294, 315. Wept for by Joan, III, 110. His body carried to Paris, IV, 463. GLOUCESTER (Humphrey of Lancaster, duke of), regent in England for Henry VI, V, 163, 164, 193. Confused with Bedford, IV, 515. GOMEZ (chronicle of), IV, 519. GOBELIN (Jean), editor of the memoirs of Pius II, IV, 507. GODART (Raoul), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 32. GODEFROY (Denis), consults the rehabilitation trial, V, 449. His edition of the Berry herald, IV, 40; of Jean Chartier, IV, 52; of Guillaume Gruel, IV, 315. His manuscript of the chronicle of the Maid, IV, 204. GODEURE (Colin le), Orléanais, V, 269. GODON, synonym for Englishman, III, 122, 125; IV, 227; V, 310. GOLDAST (Melchior). His collection on Joan of Arc, V, 464, 474, 475. GONDE (Pierre de), rector of the University of Paris at the time of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, I, 411, 419. GONDRECOURT-LE-CHÂTEAU or Gondricuria-Castrum, II, 458. GORYS (Jean de), employed in Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville\u0026rsquo;s inquiry, II, 310; V, 215, 218. Procurator of Pierre Cauchon\u0026rsquo;s heirs, II, 193. Witness at the trial acts, II, 208, 270, 276; III, 39, 353, 362. GORCUM (Henri de). His propositions in favour of the Maid, III, 413; against her, III, 417. Notice on this work, V, 474. GORIUS (H.), canon of Rouen, I, 354. GOBLITZ. See Luxembourg. GOUFFIER (Guillaume), lord of Boisy, confidant of the secret revealed to Charles VII by the Maid, IV, 279. GOURBAULT (Gilles), churchwarden of Beauvais cathedral, II, 135. GOUNAT (Nicolas), witness at one of the rehabilitation acts, II, 265. GOURNAY-SUR-ARONDE, in Beauvaisis, submits to the French, IV, 391; V, 178. Handed back to the Burgundians, IV, 395. GOURNAY in Normandy. French attempt on —, V, 172. GOUYE (Colin), called the Deaf, rants against the Maid at Abbeville, V, 143. GOZIE (Simonne), merchant of Orléans, V, 312. GRACT (Jean le), of Neufchâteau, signs the inquiry made in Lorraine, II, 467. GRANIER (Pierre), lord of Bourlemont, II, 404. See Bollemont and Bourlemont. GRANT (Guillaume le), attends the condemnation trial, I, 382. GRANVILLE (the bastard of), Englishman, III, 68. GRANVILLIER (Jean de), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. Church notary at Beauvais, II, 135. GRASSET or GRASSART (Perrinet), Burgundian captain, IV, 91. GRAVERENT (Jean), inquisitor of France, absent from Rouen during Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, I, 32. Writes to Pierre Cauchon, I, 36. Names Jean Magistri his substitute, I, 2, 35, 124, 471; III, 377. Proposal to submit the twelve articles to him, III, 240. Called to the council for the defence of Paris, IV, 454. Preaches at Paris on Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, IV, 472. GRAVESTAIN (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 421. GRAVILLE. See Malet. GRAY or GREZ (lord), at the siege of Orléans, IV, 97, 132. THE GREEKS refuse to believe Joan\u0026rsquo;s capture, IV, 532. Joan\u0026rsquo;s history disfigured by them, IV, 529. GRÉGOIRE (Pierre), owner of a manuscript of the trial, V, 388. SAINT GREGORY. His head at Orléans, V, 311. GRESLER (Jean), witness at the rehabilitation trial, II, 137. GRESEIER (Guillaume and Jean), Orléanais, I, 100 note. GREUX forms one with Domrémy, I, 46. Joan native of —, I, 208; went to mass there, II, 396. Exempted from taxes, V, 138, 139, note. Mentioned, II, 387, 408, 414, 416, 419, 421, 432, 461; IV, 118, 205. GREZ. See Gray. GRIS (John), Joan\u0026rsquo;s guard, I, 48, 135, 180, 253, 324, 454; III, 59. Joan\u0026rsquo;s word to —, I, 85. GROINGNAT (Nicole), Metz notable, V, 322, 323. GROS (Pierre des), Franciscan friar. His opinion on the Maid, IV, 533. GROSEILLIERS (Fontaine des). See Fontaine. GROSMENIL (Guillaume de), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 278. GROUCHET (Richard du), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 48, 69, 81, 92, 381, 404, 459; at the abjuration, I, 443. His determination on Joan, I, 369; not admitted, III, 173. His opinion on the procedure, I, 427. His sentence, I, 466; which he later retracts, II, 359. Deposes in 1452, II, 356. Cited for the rehabilitation, II, 161; III, 41. GRUEL (Guillaume), author on Joan of Arc, IV, 315. GRUENINGEN, near Halberstadt, III, 450. GRUMBACH (Pierre de), vicar-general of Speyer, III, 466. GUASCHO (Guillaume), eyewitness on the Maid, IV, 521, 526. GUÉRIN, alias Garin (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 196, 202, 354, 382, 405, 459; V, 271; at the abjuration, I, 444. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199. His determination on Joan, I, 352. His sentence, I, 464. GUEROULT (R.), secretary of the Rouen chapter, I, 23, 356. GUERRARD (Thomas), Englishman, captain of Montereau and of the Saint-Loup bastille at Orléans, IV, 43. GUESDON (Jacques), attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 189, 196, 202, 381, 404, 459. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 427. His determination on Joan, I, 345. GUESDON (Laurent), lieutenant of the bailiff of Rouen at the execution, cited for the rehabilitation, III, 45. Deposes, III, 166. GUEHIN (sir Richard), bailiff of Évreux, commands at the siege of Orléans, IV, 97, 365; at the battle of the Herrings, IV, 120. Defender of Beaugency, IV, 14, 45, 175, 241, 412. GUIENNE, Joan\u0026rsquo;s herald, held by the English, III, 27, 108; IV, 144, 150, 220; V, 54. Abandoned during their retreat, IV, 42. Handed back at the demand of the Bastard of Orléans, IV, 154, 221. GUERLAMBE (Pierre), master mason of Orléans, V, 224. GUILLEMETTE (Gérard), of Greux, questioned at Domrémy, II, 414. GUILLEMETTE (Jean), inhabitant of Greux, II, 461, 463. GUILLEMETTE de Coulons. See Coulons. GUILLOT (Auffroi), sent to the Maid, V, 264. GUIPUZCOA. Help sent from — to France, V, 330. GUISE (Jean de Luxembourg, count of), IV, 338; V, 194. See Luxembourg. GUITRY (Guillaume de Chaumont, lord of), at the defence of Orléans, IV, 98, 141 note; at the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 43; at Beaugency, IV, 317. GUYON (Symphorien), historian of Orléans, mentioned, IV, 277; V, 317, 321, 389. MEN\u0026rsquo;S CLOTHES taken by the Maid at Vaucouleurs, I, 94, 230; II, 437, 444, 447, 448, 457; IV, 125, 206; she refuses to say by whose advice, I, 54, 74, 94, 96, 132, 221, 222, 223, 225, 226; keeps them by God\u0026rsquo;s commandment, I, 161, 176, 332; IV, 503, 509; V, 117, 132; had taken them by His order, V, 117, 132, 415; wore them while doing her devotions, I, 104, 192, 227, 265; IV, 470; what she expected from them, I, 179, 193, 395; refuses to renounce them for ever, I, 177, 229, 247, 332; dares not leave them, II, 298, 306; IV, 211, 250, 274; explains why outside the trial, III, 147, 194; she leaves them, I, 453; II, 21; resumes them, I, 455; II, 18, 21; III, 53; fable on this subject, V, 472, 517; Joan justified on this point, II, 41, 180; III, 133, 269, 286, 304, 405, 440; V, 48. Description of the — worn by Joan, I, 220, 223, 254; II, 438; IV, 206, 304, 469; V, 48, 100, 113; the day she was taken at Compiègne, IV, 428, 439, 445. A woman\u0026rsquo;s dress offered to Joan, I, 68, 95, 96, 164, 165, 176, 225, 228, 230; how she means to wear it, I, 165, 176, 177, 191, 192, 228, 247, 394; resumes it, I, 453; II, 18, 305; III, 157; IV, 471; leaves it again, I, 455; why, II, 5, 8, 18, 204, 224, 300, 305, 333; III, 62, 149, 157, 168; offers to resume it, I, 458; puts it back on to go to the execution, III, 159. HABLOVILLE (sergenterie of), in the vicomté of Exmes, V, 190. HAENEL, cited, V, 404, 410. HAINAUT (le), handed to the English, IV, 304. HAITON (Guillaume), attends the condemnation trial, I, 27, 28, 30, 31, 39, 48, 58, 69, 81, 189, 196, 202, 323, 375, 381, 399, 404, 454, 459; at the abjuration, I, 443; at the execution, I, 469. His determination on Joan, I, 337. His opinion on the torture, I, 403. His sentence, I, 464. HALBERSTADT (the town and church of), III, 450, 451. HAN (Claude du), owner of a manuscript of the trial, V, 402, 403, 454, 455, 456. HANAGE (Gille), witness at the rehabilitation, II, 112. HANGEST (Raoul de), canon of Rouen, I, 354. HANNEQUIN (Jean), inhabitant of Greux, II, 463. HANTON (Jean de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 196, 202. HARAUCOURT, lordship partly possessed by the husband of the false Joan of Arc, V, 328. HARCOURT (Christophe de), confidant of Charles VII, III, 11; IV, 208. At Épernay, V, 354. His conversation with the Maid, III, 12. Sent on embassy to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 390. HARDIESSES des grands rois et empereurs, work cited, IV, 277. HARDOUIN (Michau), notary of Tours, V, 156. HERRINGS (day of the), IV, 4, 126; V, 51. Account of the —, IV, 121; V, 288. The — announced by the Maid to Robert de Baudricourt, IV, 125, 128, 206, 208. HARFLEUR, supposed to have been conquered by the Maid, IV, 337. HARLAY. Manuscripts of — concerning the Maid, in the old library of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, V, 401, 425, 428, 429, 456. HATTE (Jean), Orléanais, V, 275. HAUVIETTE. See Sionne (Gérard de). HAVET (Charlotte), helps Joan arm herself, III, 68. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 34. HAVET (Guillaume), Orléanais, III, 34. HAYE (Jean de la), made knight at Patay, IV, 376. See Coulonces. HAYE (Jean de la), priest of Rouen cathedral, I, 340. HAYE (Macé de la), lieutenant of the vicomte of Argentan, V, 178. HÉBERT (Michel), clerk of the University of Paris, I, 13, 16, 18, 408, 411, 422. HEIDELBERG (University of), III, 443. HÉLIOTE. See Polnoir. HELLANDE (Antoine de), captain of Reims, IV, 381; V, 141. HELLANDE (Guillaume de), bishop of Beauvais, cited for the rehabilitation, II, 133; III, 45, 228, 235, 253, 254. Included in the request against Pierre Cauchon, II, 213; III, 355. Refuses to appear in person, II, 267. Declines responsibility for Cauchon\u0026rsquo;s acts, II, 278. Declared contumacious, III, 261, 352. HENNUYERS (the men of Hainaut), at the siege of Paris, IV, 342. At the siege of Compiègne, IV, 441. HENRY II, king of France, confirms the nobility privilege of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, V, 219. HENRY IV, king of France, served by the du Lys family, V, 230. HENRY VI, king of England, summoned by the Maid, I, 240; IV, 139, 215, 306; V, 96. Devotion of the Parisians to his cause, IV, 455. Brought to France, IV, 475, 476. The duke of Burgundy summoned in his name to hand over the Maid, I, 4, 17, 18; IV, 428. At Rouen during the trial, III, 137, 243; IV, 351, 354; which is conducted at his expense, II, 348; III, 137, 154, 244; V, 195, 197, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 207, 209. Cauchon\u0026rsquo;s conversation before him, II, 325. Has an inquiry made in Lorraine against Joan, II, 451. Pensions the man who had taken the Maid, III, 134. His secretaries planted at the trial, III, 123, 135. Receives a copy of the trial, III, 135; V, 393. Takes the judges under his safeguard, III, 240. Led to Paris after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, V, 170. Pardons wrongdoers who had spoken ill of her, V, 142. Called a tyrant, IV, 484. Prophecy about him, III, 434. HENRI (Jean), present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 373. HENRIUS (?), English captain, V, 36. HERAULD, theologian apologist for Joan, V, 89. See Erault. HERALDS of the Maid. See Guienne, Ambleville. HERMINE, herald of Brittany, V, 264. HERMITE (Guillaume l\u0026rsquo;), attends the condemnation trial, I, 49, 59. HERMITE (Pierre l\u0026rsquo;), gives his opinion on the condemnation, V, 215, 431. HERMITE (Robinet l\u0026rsquo;), lieutenant of Guillaume de Flavy, V, 371. HERMOISES. See Armoises. HÉRON (Robin), English man-at-arms at Orléans, IV, 138. HERVIER (Jean), bourgeois of Tours, V, 155. HEUDICOURT, parish of the diocese of Évreux, II, 373; III, 188. HEUGALANT (Pierre), witness at the rehabilitation trial, II, 112. HEUTERUS (Pontus), author on the Maid, IV, 448. HILAIRE (Jean), bourgeois of Orléans, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 26. HILDEGARD (saint), German prophetess, III, 429. HIRE (Étienne de Vignolles, called La), defender of Orléans, III, 4, 7, 210, 301; IV, 101, 114, 117, 142, 154, 408; V, 290. Fights at the day of the Herrings, IV, 119, 121, 122, 123, 125, 130. Sent to Tours by the Orléanais, IV, 103. Admitted to the war councils, IV, 57, 158; and to the king\u0026rsquo;s, I, 396. The only captain who welcomed Joan well, IV, 327. Escorts the captains sent to Blois, III, 211; IV, 56, 156; V, 291. Joins in the capture of Saint-Jean-le-Blanc, III, 214; IV, 159; V, 292; of the Tourelles, IV, 44. Pursues the English in their retreat, IV, 63, 164, 233. Thanked by the king after Orléans\u0026rsquo; deliverance, V, 295. Goes to Jargeau, IV, 12, 64, 170; V, 111. Wants to parley with the English, III, 95. Prevented from repulsing the duke of Richemont, IV, 317. Commands the vanguard at Patay, III, 71, 120; IV, 68, 177, 371. Takes part in the Reims journey, IV, 180, 378. Fights at Thieux, IV, 80, 190; at Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193; at Paris, IV, 197; at the battle of the Shepherd, V, 171. Appointed bailiff of Vermandois, IV, 381. Confesses at Joan\u0026rsquo;s instigation, III, 32. Falls into the habit of swearing by his baton, III, 200. Renowned among the English, IV, 477. His memory celebrated at Orléans\u0026rsquo; deliverance festival, V, 316. Men of his company, III, 98; IV, 107, 117. HODIERNE (Guillaume), bailiff of Reims, IV, 292; V, 141. HOKNOT (Robert), English author, cited, III, 444. HOLLE (Gerolf), subscribes Joan\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. HONTECOURT (Jean de), accompanies the Maid into France, II, 457. HONFLEUR, supposed to have been conquered by the Maid, IV, 337. HORDAL (Jean), consults the rehabilitation trial, V, 449. His history of Joan of Arc, V, 389 note. HOTOT (Saturnin), printer of Orléans, subsidised to publish the Journal of the town\u0026rsquo;s siege, IV, 94. HOUDENC (Pierre), attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 189, 381, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443; at the execution, I, 469. His determination on Joan, I, 337. His opinion on the procedure, I, 425. His sentence, I, 465. HOUPPEVILLE (Nicolas de), refuses to give his opinion at the trial, II, 354; III, 139, 163, 183. Threatened with drowning, III, 50; with banishment, II, 252, 349, 356; III, 152. Braves Cauchon\u0026rsquo;s anger, III, 171. Driven from the hearing, II, 326. Imprisoned at Rouen, II, 326, 364, 370. Released from prison, III, 172. Sees Joan led to execution, III, 173. Deposes in the first inquiry, II, 324. Witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 290; III, 234. Cited as witness, II, 161; III, 41. Produced, II, 191. Récolé, III, 45, 170. HUBERT (Nicolas de), apostolic notary employed at the condemnation trial, I, 122, 125, 134, 150, 162. HUE (Pierre), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 30. HUGUES (Jean), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 287; III, 256. HUON. See Châtillon (Jean de). HUMIÈRES (the Liégeois of), at Montépilloy, IV, 387. HUNGERFORD (Gaultier or Walter de), English captain, IV, 68, 177, 248, 374; V, 120, 268. HUNTINGTON (the count of), besieges Compiègne, IV, 92; V, 175. HURÉ (Jean), Orléanais. Regnaulde, his widow, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 34. HURTAULT (C.), alderman of Reims, V, 141. HUSSITES of Bohemia. The letter Joan writes to them, V, 156. Joan staged in a play about the —, V, 82. See Bohemians. IGNACE (the father) or Jacques Samson, author on the Maid, V, 338. ÎLE (château de l\u0026rsquo;), opposite Domrémy, I, 66, 215. ÎLE-ADAM (Jean de Villiers, lord of), takes Paris by treason in 1418, IV, 533. Sent to defend Reims, IV, 294. Fights at Montépilloy, IV, 387. Defends Paris against Joan, IV, 25, 393, 436. ÎLE-AUX-BOEUFS (l\u0026rsquo;), above Orléans, given to Pierre d\u0026rsquo;Arc, V, 212, 214. ÎLE-AUX-BOURDONS (l\u0026rsquo;), the same as the preceding, V, 290. ÎLE CHARLEMAGNE, SAINT-LAURENT (l\u0026rsquo;). See Charlemagne, Laurent (saint). ILLIERS (Florent or Florentin d\u0026rsquo;), captain of Châteaudun, at the deliverance of Orléans, III, 94; IV, 44, 56, 150, 154, 156, 158, 164, 165; V, 291. At Jargeau, IV, 170. IMBEGUIN, nickname of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s page, IV, 211. See Contes (Louis de). TAX voted by the Estates of Normandy for the Maid\u0026rsquo;s ransom, V, 178. INQUIRY. How the — against Joan was made, II, 441, 451, 458; III, 192; in her country by agents of the English party, I, 28; II, 88; III, 180, 192; by Franciscans, IV, 394, 397; found too favourable, II, 453; III, 193; not inserted into the trial, II, 200; III, 192; unknown to the trial clerks, II, 379; III, 136, 161; fruitless inquiry to recover it, II, 380; III, 82, 205, 392. Another — made at Rouen by Jean de la Fontaine, I, 29; at Rouen after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, I, 477; II, 14; III, 273. Another — by the French party for Joan in 1429, III, 82, 205, 392. At Rouen by order of Charles VII in 1450, II, 1. By Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville at Rouen in 1452, II, 34, 157, 294; formulas after which it was made, II, 293, 311. In Joan\u0026rsquo;s country in 1455, II, 378. At Orléans, III, 1. At Paris, III, 47. For the rehabilitation produced at the trial, II, 286, 289; III, 237. INNOCENTS (les), church and cemetery of Paris, IV, 474. INQUISITOR of the faith in France. See Bréhal, Graverent. In Germany, IV, 502; V, 324, 431. INSCRIPTION on the mitre and on Joan\u0026rsquo;s pyre, IV, 459. Expiatory, demanded by the rehabilitation advocates, II, 190, 260. On Joan\u0026rsquo;s house at Domrémy, V, 245, 247. On the procession banner at Orléans, V, 316. On the first monument of the Maid at Orléans, IV, 448; on the second, V, 367; on the third, V, 238. On the Maid\u0026rsquo;s fountain at Rouen, V, 236. On the Maison Rouge at Reims, V, 266. INTERROGATORIES of Joan, taken down sometimes in Latin, sometimes in French, II, 319; in French, and unfaithfully rendered into Latin, II, 260; V, 445. Put on too difficult matters, II, 4, 318, 327, 329, 350; III, 64, 163. Conducted in an illegal manner, II, 13, 218, 332, 342, 357, 368; III, 51, 142, 155, 193, 375. Too long, II, 350, 365; III, 167. Taken down by planted clerks, II, 12, 232, 300; III, 132, 135, 146; by Jean Monnet, III, 63. Truncated, II, 13, 304, 349. The clerks refuse to falsify them, II, 13, 331, 344, 371. JACOB (Dominique), witness for the rehabilitation, II, 392. Had seen Joan at the village, II, 393. JACOB (le P.), scholar. Anecdote about him, IV, 277. JACOBINS. Church of the — at Orléans, IV, 102; at Bourges, V, 298 note. Prior of the — of Paris, IV, 454; of Rouen, V, 202. See Dominicans. JACQUEMINOT. See Lescot. JAMES I, king of Scotland, V, 339. What Joan says of him, II, 436. See Scotland. JACQUES (frère), Franciscan friar, V, 269. SAINT-JACQUES, convent of the Dominicans at Rouen, II, 7, 9. SAINT-JACQUES, church of Compiègne. See Compiègne. SAINT JAMES OF COMPOSTELA. Adventure of a pilgrim of —, III, 432. See Compostella. SAINT-JACQUES-DE-L\u0026rsquo;HÔPITAL, at Paris. Its treasurer, IV, 454. JAGOT, Orléanais, V, 310. ISABELLA THE CATHOLIC. See Ferdinand. ISABELLETTE or ZABILLET, name of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s mother at Domrémy, II, 74, 388, 398, 400, 403. See Arc (Isabelle d\u0026rsquo;). ISABELLETTE, wife of Gérardin d\u0026rsquo;Épinal, questioned at Domrémy, II, 426. ISLAN (Thomas d\u0026rsquo;), owner of the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, V, 447. ITALY (infantry of), at the defence of Orléans, IV, 101. IVOT (Chauvin and Thomas d\u0026rsquo;), at the Jargeau expedition, V, 262. JAILLE (the lord of la), sent to Richemont, IV, 316. JAMBIN (Geoffroi), mason of Poitiers, V, 196. JAQUARD (Jean), questioned at Toul, II, 461. JAQUIER (Guillot), questioned at Toul, II, 454. JARDINS (Guillaume des), de Gardinis, attends the condemnation trial, I, 49, 69, 92, 196, 202, 354, 382, 459; III, 48. Treats Joan as physician, III, 51. His sentence, I, 466. JARGEAU. Reinforcement sent by the English to —, IV, 102. English booty at —, IV, 111. English come to Orléans from —, IV, 134. First attempt on — after the siege of Orléans, IV, 167. Expedition of —, III, 10, 72, 80, 94, 110; IV, 11, 64, 170; V, 261, 262. Capture of —, IV, 65, 172, 234, 313, 340, 348, 369, 431, 452, 479; V, 56, 119, 121, 295, 350. Joan\u0026rsquo;s deposition on the surrender of —, I, 79, 234. Capture of the suburbs of —, III, 95; of the bridge, IV, 45, 172. Joan at —, I, 99, 106; III, 76, 97; IV, 12, 171; takes communion there, IV, 174. Church of — pillaged, IV, 173, 235. Captain of —. See Biset. SAINT-JARGEAU. See Saint-Fargeau. JAUER (Nicolas), doctor of Heidelberg, III, 443. JOHN XXIII, antipope, III, 462. JOHN or JUAN II, king of Castile. See Castille. JEAN (Maître) the gunner or the culverinier, at the defence of Orléans, III, 213; IV, 105, 109, 112; at Jargeau, IV, 172, 237. SAINT JOHN. \u0026ldquo;Bon gré —\u0026rdquo;, the Maid\u0026rsquo;s oath, I, 157, 273. Herb of —, II, 438. SAINT JOHN OF JERUSALEM (order of). Grand prior of —, III, 6. Commander of —, V, 98, 99. SAINT-JEAN-DE-LA-RUELLE, church at Orléans, IV, 116, 133. SAINT-JEAN-LE-BLANC, church of one of the suburbs of Orléans, III, 119; IV, 98, 112. Bastille near this church, III, 69, 79, 213; IV, 159; V, 292, 348; built, IV, 148; abandoned, IV, 217, 225; Joan wanted to attack it first, III, 78. TURCHIE of —. See Loire. JOAN, the Maid, called d\u0026rsquo;Arc or d\u0026rsquo;Ay, from her father\u0026rsquo;s name, I, 191, 244, 252; II, 140; V, 150, 219, 220, 226, 227, 229, 244, 249, 252, 343, 424. See Arc, Daix; Rommée, from her mother\u0026rsquo;s name. See Rommée. Surnamed of Lorraine, of Vaucouleurs, of Domrémy, of Orléans, of France. See France, Pucelle, Vaucouleurs. Her age, I, 46; II, 417; III, 131, 170, 174, 179, 182, 189, 209; IV, 41, 52, 213, 300, 330, 426, 430, 468, 522; V, 14, 40, 52, 99. Her birth, V, 27, 116. Had no sisters, II, 428, 433, 439. Occupied in her childhood with field and house work, I, 51, 66; II, 389, 396, 400, 404, 409, 410, 415, 422, 424, 433; IV, 41, 118, 205, 430; V, 40, 342. Called Bergerette (little shepherdess), III, 17, 20. Raised in religion, I, 47; II, 389, 395. Devout, II, 393, 402, 417, 422, 430, 433; III, 14, 82, 86, 104, 124, 218; IV, 352. See Mass, Virgin (the Holy). Confessed and communicated often, II, 390, 404, 407, 409, 420; III, 34, 76, 81, 104, 118, 125, 199, 219, 406, 432; IV, 78, 234, 249, 322; V, 32. See Communion, Confession. Good Catholic, II, 299, 301, 320; III, 81, 129, 173, 209, 219, 464. See Church, Pope. Seemed to converse with God, II, 420. Contemplated the sky at night, III, 433. Sought solitude, I, 211; V, 27, 120. See Bois Chenu. Loved the sound of bells. See Bells. Reputed to draw the birds of the sky to her, IV, 463, 495. Seemed inspired, II, 304, 327, 368, 458; III, 12; IV, 169, 236. Called herself sent by God, I, 101, 240, 394. Considered as such, III, 3, 7, 23, 26, 27, 75, 85, 94, 111, 118, 120, 125, 170, 198, 205, 218, 338, 392, 400, 403, 431; IV, 10, 30, 64, 66, 70, 169, 189, 214, 248, 251, 282, 309, 348, 427, 429, 444, 508; V, 10, 40, 45, 135, 146, 341. See Angels, God, Mission, Revelations. Probability of this opinion established, II, 22, 168, 177, 239; IV, 356; combated, I, 328; V, 47, 171. Whether she was in a state of grace, I, 263; III, 153, 163, 175. Pitiful to the sick, II, 424; to the wounded, III, 213; to enemies, III, 72, 81, 106, 407; IV, 224. Urged the king to clemency, IV, 486; V, 21. Charitable to the poor, II, 427, 438; III, 88, 464. Wept easily, III, 100; V, 120. Sober, III, 9, 15, 18, 22, 69, 407; IV, 219, 231; V, 32, 120. Loathed gambling, III, 87. Chaste, III, 15, 18, 34, 70, 81, 118, 124, 407; IV, 250. See Virginity. Slept fully dressed, II, 438, 457; III, 70; V, 120; on straw, III, 100. Pursued loose women, III, 73, 81, 99, 126; IV, 71, 217. Disliked hearing swearing, III, 33, 34, 73, 76, 81, 99, 126, 200. Her manner of affirming, I, 273; II, 404; IV, 4. See God, Saint John, Martin (par mon). Respect she inspired, II, 438, 457; III, 15, 76, 81, 87, 100, 219, 250; V, 100. Reformed the morals of soldiers, III, 33, 104; IV, 217; and of justice, III, 427. Was blameless in conduct, II, 389, 393, 404, 407, 412, 415, 430, 450, 452; III, 84, 392, 406, 422; IV, 70. Indulged in no superstition, III, 464. Simple in bearing, II, 332; in language, II, 318; III, 87. Well-spoken, II, 318, 346, 450. Answered her judges like a doctor, II, 371, 374; III, 48, 89, 190; IV, 352; V, 133. Spoke little, IV, 213, 306; V, 32, 120. Had a soft voice, IV, 523; V, 108, 120. The pleasure felt in conversing with her, III, 34. Simple and credulous, II, 361; III, 129, 131, 300. Ignorant, II, 254, 365; III, 74, 87, 123, 128, 166; IV, 249; V, 340. Insufficient to stand up to the doctors who judged her, III, 135, 170. Intelligent, II, 350. Had a prodigious memory, III, 89, 142, 161, 176, 178, 201. Skilled in matters of war, III, 32, 87, 100, 116, 119, 120, 126, 128, 422; IV, 3, 53, 70, 248, 348; V, 32, 133; by the fact of her voices, III, 219. Thwarted the captains\u0026rsquo; plans, IV, 59, 227, 278; hated by them, IV, 260, 327, 346. Fought like a man-at-arms, IV, 426, 427; without being assured she would not be wounded, III, 86. Of fine bearing under arms, III, 88, 92; IV, 60, 153, 155, 212, 306, 443; V, 14. See Armour, Banner, Sword, Standard. More feared by the English than the whole French army, II, 324; than a hundred men-at-arms, III, 130; than five hundred fighters, IV, 402. See the English. Mylord wishing she had been English, III, 48. Considered a saint, III, 84; IV, 312. Adored by her own party, I, 290; IV, 442, 444, 449, 468; despite herself, I, 101, 206; III, 82, 84, 87. Attributed her works to God alone, I, 74, 78, 250, 261, 324, 393, 401; III, 31; IV, 470; V, 120. Heard herself called daughter of God by her voices. See God, Catherine (Saint), Saint Margaret, Voices. Called the saints her brothers of paradise, II, 437. Was beautiful and well-formed, III, 219; IV, 205, 268; V, 99, 120. See Portrait. Tall and strong, IV, 330, 523. Tireless, V, 120. Had a fair bosom, IV, 523; a laughing face, V, 120; black hair, IV, 523. Did not have women\u0026rsquo;s infirmity, III, 219. Hurt by the habit of riding, III, 63. Wounded in the foot at Orléans, IV, 227; in the shoulder at the same place, I, 79; III, 8, 109, 114; IV, 61, 160, 228, 494; V, 42; in the thigh before Paris, I, 57, 260; IV, 27, 87, 199, 321, 393, 457, 480, 515; V, 70, 145. Struck down at Jargeau, III, 97; IV, 172. Ill in prison, I, 377; III, 49, 244. Foresaw having to last one year in her glory, III, 99. Obstinate in her opinion, II, 354, 361, 368; III, 129, 183. Varied in her answers, I, 54; II, 318. Feigned, II, 304. See Saint Michael. Dissembling, I, 305. Perjured, I, 318. Subtle, II, 21, 338, 358; III, 182. Presumptuous, I, 219, 251, 257; V, 49, 168, 169. Sumptuous, I, 294; IV, 449, 472; V, 169. Prophesied, I, 206, 251; IV, 462. See Predictions. Boasted she could make it thunder, IV, 470. Called a lady, I, 245; IV, 470; a princess, IV, 505; a captainess, IV, 481; V, 40; a war-leader, I, 55, 293; IV, 437, 510, 526; V, 97, 117. Called a monstrous woman, IV, 406; a slut, IV, 290; a whore, III, 49, 52, 162; IV, 465; a p\u0026hellip;, III, 52, 108; IV, 463. Reviled by Bedford, IV, 382; V, 136. Considered mad, IV, 290, 297, 305, 362; inspired by the devil, I, 249, 266; IV, 444, 470, 472. Witch. See Sorcery. Idolatress, I, 276, 436, 471; IV, 459. Schismatic and heretic, I, 208, 320, 322, 416, 417, 432, 437, 471, 474; IV, 460, 470. Blasphemer, I, 224, 272, 415, 433, 474; IV, 459. Instrument of a political intrigue, IV, 407, 518; V, 46. Doubts about her nature, IV, 464, 503. Had been an innkeeper\u0026rsquo;s daughter, I, 214; IV, 361; a captain\u0026rsquo;s page, V, 46. Had grown used in childhood to arms and the horse, I, 214; IV, 361, 523. See Horse. Raises a child at Lagny, I, 105. Holds several children at baptism, I, 103; II, 427; whom she sprinkles with hot wax, I, 304. Dresses as a man. See Men\u0026rsquo;s Clothes. Invested by the king with the right of grace, IV, 240. Ennobled, V, 150. See Armoiries. Expresses the wish to return to her village, III, 14; IV, 189. Displeased with Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s government, IV, 32; V, 140. See La Trémouille. Is abandoned by him, IV, 37; V, 168. Captured, see Compiègne. Bought by the English government, I, 13; III, 54; V, 178. Locked in a cage at Rouen castle, II, 201, 306, 348, 371; III, 155, 180. Put in irons, II, 18, 298, 301, 302, 306, 307, 318; III, 48, 59, 140, 154, 167, 189, 200. See Prison, Violences. Put on trial. See Accusation, Condemnation. Asks for a woman\u0026rsquo;s chemise, I, 176, 227; a head-covering, I, 176, 229. Abjures. See Abjuration. Dies devoutly, II, 6, 9, 19; III, 90; IV, 460. Wept on the way to the pyre, II, 3, 328, 363; III, 53. See Bûcher, Execution. Shown dead to the people, III, 191; IV, 471. Dove seen above her pyre, II, 63, 352. Reputed pregnant by the English, IV, 476, 477. Her heart and intestines do not burn, II, 7; III, 159. Her ashes thrown to the wind, IV, 275, 346; to the sea, IV, 535; to the river. See Seine. Held a martyr, I, 155; IV, 471; V, 49. Rehabilitated. See Rehabilitation. Doubts about the reality of her death, IV, 322, 323, 344, 474; V, 90, 322, 335. Her story treated as a fable, IV, 448. Put on stage in a French mystery, V, 80; in a German performance, V, 82. Letters signed with her name, I, 245, 448; V, 148, 160. Her name given to a cannon, V, 243. See Rings, Charles VII, Inquiry, Inscription, Jeannette, Jesus Maria, Letter, Secret, Statues, and the names of the places where she was. JOAN OF ARC (false), native of Le Mans, V, 336. Shows herself at Metz, V, 321, 323, 325; at Cologne, V, 323, 325; in the duchy of Luxembourg, V, 322, 324, 327; in Italy, V, 335, 336. Corresponds with the town of Orléans, V, 326, 327; with the king of Castile, V, 330. Makes war in Poitou, V, 333. Is received at Orléans, V, 331. Her interview with the king, IV, 281. Her exhibition at Paris, V, 335. Her end, V, 336. See Armoises, Claude, Lys (Jeanne du). JEANNE, wife Boyleaue, of Orléans, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 33. JEANNE, wife Le Maire Aubery, godmother of the Maid, I, 46, 67, 177, 210, 211, 212. JEANNE, wife Thévenin Le Royer, godmother of the Maid, II, 403, 410. See Jeannette. JEANNE, wife Laxart, of Domrémy, II, 443. JEANNE, wife Saint-Mesmin, of Orléans, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 33. JEANNE, widow of Mouchy, of Orléans, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 34. JEANNETTE, familiar name of the Maid in her country, I, 46; II, 388, 400, 402, 403; in the rehabilitation instrument, III, 370; in the summary of Théodore de Leliis, V, 426. JEANNETTE, wife Thévenin, godmother of the Maid, II, 397, 408, 412, 415. JEANNETTE, widow Thiesselin, godmother of the Maid, II, 389, 398, 402, 412, 415. See Viteau. JESUS, watchword of the men-at-arms commanded by Joan, V, 38. Joan\u0026rsquo;s last cry, II, 7, 20, 303, 352, 377; III, 53, 90, 114, 177, 182, 186, 191. The name of — appears written in the flame of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s pyre, II, 372. JESUS MARIA. Inscription of Joan\u0026rsquo;s standard, I, 78, 300; IV, 129, 463. Superscription of her letters, I, 83, 183, 239, 240, 242, 250, 333; III, 107; IV, 139, 215, 287. Inscription on one of her rings, I, 87, 185, 237. TOKENS struck by the town of Orléans in honour of Joan of Arc, V, 365. JEUNE or JUVENIS (Regnauld le), attends the condemnation trial, I, 382. JOACHIM (François), Orléans envoy to the Maid, V, 262. JOLIVET (Robert), abbot of Mont Saint-Michel, attends the abjuration, I, 443. Subscribes the judges\u0026rsquo; safeguard, III, 243. JONGAULT (Pierre), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 30. JOURNAL of a Bourgeois of Paris, of the Siege of Orléans, etc. See Orléans, Paris. JOUSSE, Orléanais scholar, cited, IV, 94. JOUVENEL DES URSINS (Jean), archbishop of Reims, II, 72; III, 368. Born legate of the holy see, II, 139. Delegated by Calixtus III as judge of the rehabilitation, II, 95; V, 86; sits in that capacity, II, 82, 136, 137, 206, 281, 284; III, 47, 255, 256, 258, 329, 351; V, 77. His words to the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 87, 92. Goes to Orléans during the trial, II, 283. Inquiry he makes there, III, 1. Questions the witnesses at Paris, III, 47, 77, 118; at Rouen, III, 128; V, 77. His letter to Jean d\u0026rsquo;Aulon, III, 208. Consults the bishop of Avranches, III, 318. Sets his seal to the last citation, III, 354; and to the sentence, III, 362. JOYART (Jean and Mengette), inhabitants of Domrémy, II, 429. JULIEN, one of those who brought the Maid into France, II, 442, 457. JUMIÈGES (abbot of). See Roux (Nicolas le). JUVENIS. See Jeune (le). KERVYN (A. de), author of extracts on the Maid, V, 473. KALTYSEREN (Henri), inquisitor at Cologne, V, 324. KENNEDY (sir Hugh de), Scottish captain in French service, at the battle of the Herrings, IV, 121; at the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 158; at the encounter with Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras, V, 81. KENT (vicomte of) in England. Order given to —, V, 192. KERMOISAN (Tugdual de), called le Bourgeois, Breton knight, at the Jargeau expedition, IV, 170, 316; at the Reims journey, IV, 180. KIRKMICHAEL (John), IV, 479. See Saint-Michel (Jean de). LABBÉ (Jean), abbot of Saint-George de Boscherville, attends the condemnation trial, I, 59, 92. LABBÉ (Jean), Reims man, accused of conspiring against the French, IV, 299. LACLOPPE (Bertrand), questioned at Domrémy, II, 409. SAINT-LADRE, church at Orléans, IV, 116, 132, 133, 137, 145. SAINT-LADRE or LAZARE, parish near Paris, IV, 466. LADVENU (Martin), attends the condemnation trial, I, 34, 405, 460. Seeks to enlighten Joan, II, 13, 341; III, 139. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. His sentence, I, 466. Visits Joan before her execution, I, 481; II, 3; confesses and administers to her, I, 482; II, 3, 7, 14, 19, 308, 334, 366; III, 158, 168. Deposes after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, I, 478. Sent to the bailiff of Rouen, II, 9; III, 169. Deposes in 1450, II, 7; and in 1452, II, 307, 363. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. Produced, II, 191. Récolé, III, 45, 165. Witness of the rehabilitation sentence, III, 362. LAGNY-SUR-MARNE. Submission of —, IV, 88; V, 70. Charles VII passes to —, IV, 48, 89, 201. Joan goes there the following year, IV, 32, 91; I, 105, 106; leaves it to go to Compiègne, IV, 92, 346. Raid of Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras in the environs of —, I, 158; IV, 399, 441. Siege of —, IV, 299. The prior of —, IV, 88. Notre-Dame of —, I, 105. LAGNY-LE-SEC. Charles VII and the Maid pass through —, IV, 21, 46. LALAIN (Simon de), fights at Montépilloy, IV, 387. LALLIER (Jean), bourgeois of Tours, V, 155. LAMBERT (Jean), examiner of Joan, III, 19. See Lombart. LAMBERT (Nicolas), witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 261, 353. LAMI, Italian scholar, V, 131. LANCASTRE (Jean de). See Bedford. LANDREY (Jean), inhabitant of Serqueux, V, 211. LANGART (Jean le), godfather of Joan, II, 395. See Lingué. LANGLOIS. See the English. LANGRES (élection of), IV, 204, 213. LANGUEDOC (le), remains faithful to Charles VII, IV, 127. LANNOY (le Bègue de), at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 441. LANNOY (Hue de), at Montépilloy, IV, 387, 438. Sent by Bedford to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 390. LANNOY (Jean de), at Montépilloy, IV, 387. LANNOY (Simon de), defends Paris, IV, 393. LAON. The duke of Burgundy\u0026rsquo;s stay at —, V, 130. The town of — sends its keys to Charles VII, IV, 20, 78, 187, 381; V, 68. Joan goes there with the king, IV, 515. LAPAU or LA PAUX (?), Joan\u0026rsquo;s hostess at Tours, III, 66. See Dupuy. LAPICIDA (Jean), organist of Merseburg, III, 461. LAUDAVA, town in Germany, III, 433; V, 476. LAUDEE (Jean), bourgeois of Abbeville, V, 144. LAUDUS (Sanctus). See Saint-Lo and Saint-Loup. LAURENT (M.), of Orléans, owner of a manuscript of the trial, V, 406. SAINT-LAURENT, near Paris, IV, 454. SAINT-LAURENT-DES-ORGERILZ, church under the walls of Orléans, IV, 103, 106. Boulevard —, IV, 109, 116, 131. Bastille —, IV, 106, 107, 110, 113, 131, 137, 138, 142, 144, 163, 283; commanded by Talbot, III, 26; IV, 62, 224, 227; V, 292. The two islands —, IV, 143. LAVAL (André de), sire de Lohéac, comes to France, IV, 174, 238. Takes part in the Patay expedition, IV, 239, 242, 317, 319; in the Reims journey, IV, 69, 180, 248. His name at the foot of his brother\u0026rsquo;s letter, V, 111. LAVAL (Anne de), receives a gold ring from the Maid, V, 109. LAVAL (Gilles de), lord of Rais. See Rais. LAVAL (Gui de), comes to France, IV, 174, 238. His first interview with Joan, V, 107. Takes part in the Patay expedition, IV, 239, 242, 317, 319; despite his mother, V, 109. Accompanies the king to Reims, IV, 69, 180, 248. Is made count at Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s coronation, IV, 20, 46, 77, 186; where he fills the office of peer, V, 128. Displeased with the too-prompt return from Reims, IV, 79, 188. Fights at the attack on Paris, IV, 197. Letter written by him, V, 111. LAVAL (Jeanne de), informed of her sons\u0026rsquo; journey to France, V, 105. LAVAL (Louis de), mentioned, V, 111. LAXART (Durand), the Maid\u0026rsquo;s uncle, takes her to Vaucouleurs, I, 53, 221; II, 399, 411, 414, 416, 428, 430, 434, 444, 456; then to Saint-Nicolas-du-Port, II, 444, 447. Questioned at Vaucouleurs, II, 443. His wife. See Jeanne. LEBATEUR, LEBAUT, LEBRUN, etc. See Bateur, Baut, Brun, etc. LEBRET for Albret. See Albret. LEGUISÉ (Jean), bishop of Troyes, brings about the town\u0026rsquo;s submission, III, 12; IV, 76, 183, 252, 296. Goes to find Charles VII, IV, 295. LEIPZIG (University of), III, 450. LELIIS (Théodore or Theodoricus de), Roman jurisconsult, discusses the judgement rendered against Joan, II, 22. Description of his work\u0026rsquo;s manuscripts, V, 423. Author of a summary of the trial, V, 426. LENGLET-DUFRESNOY (the abbé), was planning a second edition of his history of Joan of Arc, V, 390, 468, 473. What he published of the trial, V, 420, 468. His bibliographical researches on the Maid, IV, 267; V, 374. Cited, IV, 277, 409, 432. LENOZOLOS (Jean de), servant of Guillaume Érard, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 113. LÉONARD (frère), prior of the Dominicans of Vienne, II, 70; V, 425, 429, 431. L\u0026rsquo;HERMITE. See Hermite. LESCOT (G.), Reims notable, V, 141. LESCOT (Hector), called Jacqueminot, founder of Orléans, V, 223. LESGOT (Jean de), lord of Verduzan, one of the defenders of Orléans, IV, 117. Killed at the battle of the Herrings, IV, 119, 124. LESPAILLART (Jean), witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 265. LESTOURNEL (Jean), present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 373. LESTRÉ. See Bussy-Lettre. LETTER from Baudricourt to Charles VII on the Maid, III, 115. From the Maid to her parents, I, 129; to the king, I, 75, 222, 248; to the clergy of Fierbois, I, 76; to the English, I, 240; III, 24, 27, 74, 126; IV, 139, 215, 306; V, 95; the same otherwise worded, III, 107. Joan\u0026rsquo;s explanations about her — to the English, I, 55, 84, 239. From the Maid to the inhabitants of Troyes, IV, 288, 290; V, 145; to those of Tours, V, 154; to the count of Armagnac, I, 246; to the king of Navarre, V, 253. From the duke of Bedford to the king of France, IV, 382. From the English government to the princes of Europe, I, 485; to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 403; to the prelates and lords of France, I, 489; for the guarantee of Joan\u0026rsquo;s judges, III, 56, 161, 166, 233. From the false Joan of Arc to the king of France, V, 327; to the king of Castile, V, 330. From Charles VII to pope Calixtus, V, 84. From Jean Bréhal to the Dominicans of Vienne, II, 70. From the archbishop of Reims to Jean d\u0026rsquo;Aulon, III, 208. See the Table of contents of volume 5. LINGUÉ (Jean), godfather of the Maid, I, 46. See Langart. LIGNY (the count of). See Luxembourg (Jean de). LIÉGEOIS (the), fight with the French before Paris, IV, 342. LIHONS EN SANTERRE, Lehunum in Sanguine terso. Dean of —, I, 429. LILLE in Flanders. Jean Beaupère learns of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s condemnation there, II, 21. LISIEUX, supposed reconquered by the Maid, IV, 337. Bishop of —. See Basin, Castiglione. Dean of the chapter of —. See Coquerel. LISLE (Lancelot de), English captain at the siege of Orléans, IV, 97, 106, 109. Killed, IV, 115. LIVET (Guillaume de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 382, 405, 460. His determination on Joan, I, 358. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. His sentence, I, 466. SAINT-LÔ. The abbot of —, in the town of the same name, witness at the rehabilitation demand, III, 372. SAINT-LÔ of Rouen, priory. See Foure (le). LOCHES. The dauphin at —, V, 106. Joan goes there, III, 9, 11, 80, 84. Charles VII learns there of the appearance of the false Joan of Arc, V, 327. LOGOVERIS. See Louviers. LOIRE (De la), the king\u0026rsquo;s secretary, V, 212. LOGES-LES-DAMES, Lohiæ dominarum, name of the fairies\u0026rsquo; tree of Domrémy, II, 427, 430, 434, 440, 459. See the Fairies\u0026rsquo; Tree, Fairies. LOHÉAC (the lord of). See Laval (André de). LOHIER (Jean), his opinion on the trial, II, 11, 341; III, 58, 138. Refuses to attend it, II, 380. Threatened with drowning, III, 50. Flees to Rome, II, 11, 203, 252, 300; III, 138. LOIRE (the), boundary of the two parties dividing France, V, 35. Joan crosses the — before Orléans, III, 18, 67, 78; IV, 218; above Saint-Loup, III, 6; between Orléans and Jargeau, III, 78; at Checy, IV, 152; V, 290, 344; by ford, IV, 332. Charles VII regains the — despite the Maid, IV, 29, 79; crosses it again, IV, 89, 201. Mills on the — at Orléans, IV, 98, 104, 132. Islands of the —, III, 79, 213, 214; IV, 109, 112, 143, 226; V, 212, 214, 290, 292. See Charlemagne, Île-aux-bœufs, Laurent des Orgerilz (Saint). Turchie or levee of the —, facing Orléans, IV, 97, 112. Val de —, IV, 102, 145, 148. LOISELEUR or AUCUPIS (Nicolas), helps lift the siege of Chartres, II, 10. Testifies to the English fear of the Maid, III, 189. Attends the condemnation trial, I, 6, 27, 28, 30, 31, 58, 70, 81, 93, 113, 189, 194, 354, 399, 405, 452, 459; III, 137. False clerk at the first hearings, II, 12; III, 145. Disguises himself, II, 332, 362; III, 60, 133, 141, 156, 162, 173, 181. Betrays Joan\u0026rsquo;s confessions, II, 10, 342. Given to Joan as counsellor, II, 17, 204; III, 141, 146; as confessor, III, 136, 141. His determination on her, I, 338. His opinion on the torture, I, 403; on the procedure, I, 428. Attends the abjuration, II, 14; III, 146. Gives Joan a woman\u0026rsquo;s dress, III, 113. His sentence, I, 466. Ill-regarded by many of the assessors, III, 162. Visits Joan before her execution, I, 478. Weeps seeing her die, II, 320; III, 162. Is threatened by the English, III, 178. Deposes after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, I, 483. Dies at Basel, III, 162. LOISELLEUR or AUCUIS (Nicolas), contributes to lifting the siege of Chartres for the French, II, 10. Witnesses the fear the English have of the Maid, III, 189. Attends the condemnation trial, I, 6, 27, 28, 30, 31, 58, 70, 81, 93, 113, 189, 194, 354, 399, 405, 452, 459; III, 137. False clerk at the first hearings, II, 12; III, 145. Disguises himself, II, 332, 362; III, 60, 133, 141, 156, 162, 173, 181. Betrays Joan\u0026rsquo;s confessions, II, 10, 342. Given as counsellor to Joan, II, 17, 204; III, 141, 146; as confessor, III, 136, 141. His determination on her, I, 338. His opinion on the torture, I, 403; on the procedure, I, 428. Attends the abjuration, II, 14; III, 146. Gives Joan a woman\u0026rsquo;s dress, III, 113. His sentence, I, 466. Ill-regarded by many of the assessors, III, 162. Visits Joan before her execution, I, 478. Weeps on seeing her die, II, 320; III, 162. Threatened by the English, III, 178. Deposes after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, I, 483. Dies at Bâle, III, 162. LOMBART (Jean), examiner of Joan at Poitiers, III, 203, 204. See Lambert. LONDON. Proclamations made at —, V, 162, 194. Joan executed at — (fabulous), IV, 535. LONDON or TOUR DE LONDRES, bastille before Orléans on the Blois side, IV, 56, 62, 283; V, 292, 349. Plan to attack it, IV, 57, 58. LONG (Charlotte), Orléanais, V, 260. LONGUEUIL (Richard de), bishop of Coutances, II, 73; III, 368. Delegated by Calixtus III as judge of the rehabilitation, II, 95; V, 86. Sits in that capacity, III, 255, 256, 258, 329, 351. Sets his seal to the last citation, III, 354; and to the sentence, III, 362. Executes the rehabilitation sentence at Orléans, V, 277, 278. LONGUEVAL (Regnauld de), captain of Pont-Sainte-Maxence, IV, 395. LONGUEVILLE-GIFFARD (priory of). See Migeon (Pierre). LORÉ (Ambroise de), at the deliverance of Orléans, III, 4, 93, 94; IV, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61; V, 53. Sent to fetch help from Blois, IV, 55, 152, 213, 221. Worries the English in their retreat from Orléans, IV, 63, 233. Attends the Jargeau expedition, IV, 64; the capture of Beaugency, IV, 67; the battle of Patay, IV, 68, 177. Obtains the command of the army before Troyes, IV, 76, 184, 253. Sent to reconnoitre at Montépilloy, IV, 81, 191. Appointed captain of Lagny, IV, 88, 89, 201; fights against Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras, V, 72. LORRAINE. Joan native of —, IV, 300, 304, 426, 478, 486, 508, 522; V, 91, 359; of the marches of —, IV, 3; V, 289; surnamed of —, V, 83. Chronicle of —, IV, 329. Gentleman of —, charged by the English to inform against Joan, III, 192. LORRAINE, name of a pursuivant-at-arms, V, 356. LORRAINE (Charles, duke of), has Joan brought to Nancy, I, 54, 222; II, 391, 406, 437, 444, 457; counsel he received from her, III, 87. Receives Joan and Baudricourt together (fabulous), IV, 331. Besieges Metz, V, 355. LORRAINE (Jean de). See Calabre. LOSTE (Pierre), priest of Chailly, III, 223. SAINT LOUIS, considered by Joan as the protector of France, III, 6, 7; IV, 208, 219. Charles VII promises to imitate —, IV, 295; is inferior to —, IV, 325. LOUIS XI, as dauphin, at Loches, V, 106. Prophecy about him attributed to the Maid, III, 434, 465. Charged with pacifying Poitou, V, 333. As king, prosecutes the Maid\u0026rsquo;s judges, IV, 521, 528. Appoints a nephew of the Maid to the échevinage of Arras, V, 228. Has Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial put into the Trésor des chartes, V, 254. His name engraved on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s house, V, 245. Pensions the Maid\u0026rsquo;s great-nephew, V, 280, 281; and Philippe d\u0026rsquo;Aulon, III, 207. Mentioned, IV, 338; V, 146. LOUIS XII, has Joan\u0026rsquo;s trials translated into French, IV, 254, 257, 266; V, 411. LOUIS XIII, allows the Du Lys cadets to take the Maid\u0026rsquo;s arms, V, 225, 231. Reduces the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family\u0026rsquo;s nobility privilege, V, 233. LOUIS XV, confirms the franchise of the parishes of Greux and Domrémy, V, 137. Monuments raised to the Maid under his reign, V, 236, 238. LOUIS XVIII, authorises the purchase of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s house by the département of the Vosges, V, 251. LOUDUN. The count of Richemont at —, IV, 316. SAINT-LOUP, church near Orléans, III, 5, 6, 124; IV, 106, 158, 223; V, 288, 297. Bastille —, I, 78, 293; III, 5, 69, 79, 106, 126, 127, 212, 213; IV, 7, 43, 57, 157, 222, 224, 282, 348, 365, 492; V, 54, 101, 291, 348, 290. Port —, IV, 108, 112. LOUVAIN (Pierre de), accomplice in the murder of Guillaume de Flavy, IV, 273; V, 373. LOUVEL (Jean), abbot of Saint-Magloire of Paris, present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 372. LOUVET (Pierre), historian of Beauvais, cited, V, 450. LOUVIERS (siege of), resumed after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, II, 3, 344, 348, 373; III, 189; V, 169; money voted for that purpose, V, 179, 181. LOUVRES, in Parisis, IV, 47. LOWÉ (Nicole), Metz notable, V, 322, 323. LOYSEUX (Jean), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. LOYSON (Martin), advocate of Rouen, V, 272. LUÇON (the bishop of), informs on prodigies that occurred in Poitou, V, 122. LUCRATOIS (Richard), attends the condemnation trial, I, 59. LUDE (the sire du), killed at Jargeau, III, 96, 174, 237. LUDEWIGE, inspired woman of Brabant, III, 466. LUILLIER (Jean), bourgeois of Orléans, sells cloth to dress the Maid, V, 112, 113. Dines at Orléans with the false Joan of Arc, V, 331. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 23. LUILLIER (Jean), councillor of Orléans, obtains indulgences for the celebration of the 8 May festival, V, 307. LUILLIER (Jean), clerk of the Normandy treasury, V, 191, 196. LUNA (Alvaro de), constable of Castile, sends help to France at the false Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s request, V, 330. His chronicle, V, 329. LUREUX (Laurent), witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 234. LUSSI (N. de), signatory of a letter on Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s coronation, V, 130. LUTERA (Boemond de), subscribes Joan\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. LUXEMBOURG (the demoiselle of), in relation with the Maid, I, 95, 231. LUXEMBOURG (Élisabeth de Gorlitz, duchess of), V, 322, 324. LUXEMBOURG (Jean de), count of Ligny, receives an embassy from the besieged Orléanais, IV, 130. Negotiates with Charles VII returning from Reims, IV, 47, 390. Besieges Choisy-sur-Aisne, IV, 49. Has Soissons handed to him, IV, 50. Commands at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 324, 399, 400, 439, 441, 445, 467. The Maid handed into his hands, II, 298; IV, 34, 402, 428, 447, 516; V, 177. Announces the news, IV, 458. Holds her in his château of Beaurevoir. See Beaurevoir. Required to hand her over, I, 3, 4, 10, 20; II, 293, 360; diverted from this by his aunt, I, 231; refuses for a long time, IV, 262; sells her, IV, 35, 50, 92, 346, 517; V, 74; visits her in her prison at Rouen, III, 122. LUXEMBOURG (Louis de), bishop of Thérouanne, chancellor of Henry VI, charged with the defence of Paris, IV, 85, 197, 392, 436, 454. Has the Maid\u0026rsquo;s armour carried off from Saint-Denis, IV, 89. Negotiates Joan\u0026rsquo;s sale to the English, IV, 35; visits her in prison, III, 122; attends her trial, I, 429; her abjuration, I, 443; her execution, I, 469; weeps, II, 355; III, 130, 169, 177, 184. Created archbishop of Reims, II, 9. Joan\u0026rsquo;s death imputed to him, IV, 35. LYON. News of the Maid sent from —, IV, 426. Gerson writes his treatise on the Maid there, III, 298; V, 464. Deposition taken at —, III, 206. LYONNAIS (le), remains faithful to Charles VII, IV, 127. LYS. The fleurs-de-lys miraculously given to the kings of France, IV, 534. Fleur de —, denomination of the kings of France, V, 7, 28; of a pursuivant-at-arms, V, 326. The —, cry of the house of Lys, V, 231. Court of —. See Cœur. LYS (du), name of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s ennobled brothers, V, 210, 213, 276, 278, 279, 280, 326. See Arc (Jean et Pierre d\u0026rsquo;), Dalie. LYS (Catherine du), daughter of Pierre d\u0026rsquo;Arc, V, 219 note. LYS (Charles du), advocate-general at the cour des aides, V, 226, 230, 342. His papers at Carpentras, V, 342. His manuscript of the trial, V, 409, 460. LYS (Claude du), V, 245. LYS (Jean du), called la Pucelle or le Vieux, V, 212, 229, 278, 280, 281, 316. LYS (Jean du), surnamed le Jeune, V, 228, 230. LYS (Jean du), son of Jean le Jeune, V, 228. LYS (Jeanne du), name usurped by the false Joan of Arc, V, 328. LYS (Luc du), sieur de Reinemoulin, V, 226, 231. LYS (Michel du), grandson of Jean le Jeune, V, 228. MACÉE, wife Fagoue, of Orléans, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 35. MACÉE (la), woman of Poitiers, III, 203. MACHET (Gérard), bishop of Castres, confessor of Charles VII, III, 11, 75, 76; IV, 509; V, 340. Confidant of the secret revealed by the Maid, IV, 128, 208. MACHOIRE (Guillaume le), canon of Rouen, I, 354. MÂCON (Jean de), words Joan said to him at Orléans, V, 291. MÂCON (Jean), examiner of Joan at Poitiers, III, 27, 29. MÂCON (Robert le), lord of Trèves, III, 11; IV, 208. Presents the young Laval lords to the king, V, 106, 109. Advice he gives at the council before Troyes, IV, 74, 182. Commission of the inhabitants of Tours and Angers to him, IV, 473 note. Present at Joan\u0026rsquo;s ennoblement, V, 153. His wife. See Trèves. MACY (Aimond de), present at the abjuration, III, 122. Saw Joan at Beaurevoir, III, 121. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 120. SAINTE-MADELEINE, church of Orléans, IV, 106, 117. MADER, French captain at the defence of Orléans, IV, 141 note. MAGISTRI or LEMAISTRE (Jean), vicar of the inquisitor of France in the diocese of Rouen, I, 2. Called to Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, asks time to reflect, I, 33, 34; figures there as assistant, I, 35, 37, 39, 48, 50, 58, 69, 81. Constituted judge by the inquisitor of France, I, 123; II, 202; and despite himself, II, 340; III, 139, 153, 167, 172. Sits as such, I, 134, 150, 156, 161, 173, 180, 188, 189, 190, 194, 195. Instituted a clerk, I, 148. Threatened by Pierre Cauchon, II, 13, 326. Speaks of the trial\u0026rsquo;s irregularities, II, 325; III, 153, 171. His opinion on the torture, I, 404. The sentences rendered in his name and in that of the bishop of Beauvais, I, 450. Makes Joan leave off the men\u0026rsquo;s clothes, I, 453; visits her the morning of her death, I, 481. Receives reparation for an insult about her, I, 493. Condemns the man who insulted him, I, 495. Paid for Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 57; V, 202. Receives a copy of the instrument, III, 135. Considered as vice-inquisitor of Beauvais, II, 100, 141; as excommunicated, II, 216. MAGISTRI (Guillaume), attends the condemnation trial, I, 59, 92. SAINT-MAGLOIRE. Abbot of — of Paris. See Louvel. Prior of —, of Orléans. See Bonnart. MAGUELONNE (the bishop of), examiner of the Maid, III, 92. MAHORIET (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 382. MAHY (Jean), Orléanais, V, 263. MAIGNELAIS (Tristan de), hands back Gournay-sur-Aronde, IV, 395; V, 176. MALLÉ (the lord of), performs the office of peer at the coronation, IV, 380. MAILLY (Jean de), bishop of Noyon, attends the condemnation trial, I, 429; III, 54; at the abjuration, I, 443; III, 54; at the execution, I, 469; III, 55. Subscribes the judges\u0026rsquo; safeguard, III, 243. Cited for the rehabilitation, III, 43. Deposes, III, 53. MAILLY (Nicolas or Colart de), bailiff of Vermandois for the English, seeks to encourage the inhabitants of Reims, IV, 294. Replaced by La Hire, IV, 381. Present at Joan\u0026rsquo;s extradition demand, I, 13. MAINE (le), conquered by the English, IV, 301. Count of —, IV, 338. See Anjou (Charles d\u0026rsquo;). MAIRE (Le), historian of Orléans, cited, V, 253. MAIRE (Guillaume Le), examiner of Joan at Poitiers, III, 203. See Marié (Le). MAIRE (Jean Le), priest of Saint-Vincent of Rouen, present at Joan\u0026rsquo;s abjuration, III, 177. Cited for the rehabilitation, III, 45. Deposes, III, 177. MAIRE-AUBERY (Le), inhabitant of Domrémy, I, 67. His wife. See Jeanne. MAISTRE (Husson Le), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 197. Had seen Joan at Reims, III, 199. MAISTRE (Jean le). See Magistri. MALADERETE (La), near Beaugency, IV, 317. MALEDON (Jacques), examiner of Joan at Poitiers, III, 203. MALET (Anne), daughter of Louis de Graville, V, 446. MALET (Jean), sire de Graville, at the defence of Orléans, IV, 6, 43, 57, 141, 142, 158, 164. At the battle of the Herrings, IV, 119, 125. At the capture of Saint-Loup, IV, 157. At the Jargeau expedition, IV, 64, 167. At Reims, IV, 46, 185; V, 129. At Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193. MALET (Louis), de Graville, brings about the translation of Joan\u0026rsquo;s trials, IV, 254, 257, 266; V, 411, 446. MALLIÈRE, secretary of Charles VII, V, 153. SAINT MAMERT, one of the patrons of Orléans, V, 315. His shrine, V, 309, 311. MAMINES (the lord of), at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 441. MANCHON (Guillaume), church notary, I, 8, 37, 113, 138, 149, 340, 475. Clerk despite himself at the condemnation trial, II, 340; III, 137; principally charged with the writings, III, 195. His institution, I, 25; III, 134, 137. Takes office, I, 31. His place at the hearings, III, 146. Does not record Joan\u0026rsquo;s appeal to the council, II, 349. Forced to spy on Joan, II, 11; III, 140. Refuses to alter the interrogatories, II, 13, 331, 341; reads them, I, 190. Reprimanded by Joan, III, 176. Complains of false clerks planted at the hearings, III, 132, 136. Threatened by the English, II, 376; III, 148. Intercedes for Massieu, II, 16. Records the determination of twenty-two assessors, I, 340. Attends the abjuration, III, 147; the execution, II, 14. Signs the trial, I, 475; V, 397; and the abridgement of the trial, III, 145, 386. Refuses to sign the posthumous inquiry, II, 14. Translates the trial into Latin, II, 156; III, 135; makes three transcriptions of it, III, 135; V, 387. His grief, II, 15; III, 150. Buys a prayer-book with the trial money, II, 15; III, 150. Deposes in 1450, II, 10; in 1452, II, 297, 339; III, 150. Declines responsibility for the judgement, II, 155. Delivers the minute, II, 156; III, 135, 160, 376. Witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 270. Recognises the authenticity of the 1452 inquiry, II, 157; and of the trial instrument delivered by him, III, 135; as well as of the draft of the twelve articles, III, 143; written by his hand, III, 196, 231. Summoned as witness, II, 161; III, 41. Produced, II, 191. Récolé, III, 45, 133. MANCHON (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 156. MANDRAKE. Joan accused of superstition relative to the —, I, 89, 213. LE MANS. Homeland of the false Joan of Arc, V, 336. Plans of the sire de Rais against —, V, 333. Bishop of —. See Berruyer. MANTES, town, V, 169. The bailiff of — killed at the siege of Orléans, IV, 162. MANUEL (Pierre), advocate of the king of England, speaks to the Maid, III, 200. MANUSCRIPTS. History of the — of the condemnation trial, V, 388; their description, V, 392. Description of the — of the rehabilitation, V, 438, 447. See Library. MARO (Rémond), échevin of Paris, IV, 464. SAINT-MARC, church of Orléans, IV, 106, 136. SAINT-MARCEAU, parish near Orléans, IV, 145. Shrine of —, V, 311. MARCEL (Jean), Parisian, present at the Maid\u0026rsquo;s abjuration, III, 88; at the execution, III, 90. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 88. SAINT-MARCEL, lès Paris. Dean of —, IV, 454. MARCEY. See Maxey. LA MARCHE (the lord of). See Armagnac (Bernard d\u0026rsquo;). VIEUX-MARCHÉ. See Rouen. MARCHENOIR. The tower of —, IV, 419. English treason at —, IV, 179. MARCONNET (Louis de), at Patay, IV, 376. MARGOUT (Philippin), master-échevin of Metz, V, 321, 323. SAINT-MARCOUL. See Corbeny. MARE (Simon de La), subscribes Joan\u0026rsquo;s condemnation, I, 421. SAINTE-MAREGLISE (Richard de), executor at the rehabilitation trial, II, 191, 193; III, 42, 46, 376. MARESCAL (Philippe), attends the condemnation trial, I, 81. MARGNY, before Compiègne, post of the Burgundians, IV, 399, 400, 441, 446, 447; V, 176. The Maid visited at — by the duke of Burgundy, IV, 402, 447. MARGUERIE (André), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 49, 59, 81, 194, 202, 354, 382, 399, 405, 430, 459. Disapproves of the lay prison, III, 183. Bullied for having asked for clarifications, III, 180. Present at the abjuration, I, 444; at the execution, I, 469. Threatened by the English, II, 330; III, 158, 184. His opinion on the procedure, I, 200, 424; on the torture, I, 403. His sentence, I, 464. Deposes in 1452, II, 353. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. Produced, II, 191. Récolé, III, 45, 162. SAINT MARGARET, how she appears to Joan, I, 71, 72, 74, 85, 93, 153, 177, 255, 268, 329; IV, 469; speaks to her, I, 85, 107, 117, 181, 218; in French, not in English, I, 86. Joan promises her the secret, I, 90; makes a vow of virginity to her, I, 127, 269. She comes without Joan calling her, I, 127. Announced to Joan by Saint Michael, I, 170, 256. Embraced by Joan, I, 186; reverenced by her, I, 186, 187, 335, 395; reproaches her for her abjuration, I, 456. Joan deceived by the demon under the figure of —, IV, 472. MARIANA, consults the Notre-Dame manuscript, V, 451. MARY (the Virgin). See Virgin (the Holy). MARIS (Thomas), deposes in 1452, II, 370. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. MARIÉ (Guillaume Le), examiner of Joan, III, 19. MARNE (la), crossed by the French, IV, 433. French retreat beyond the —, IV, 50. GODMOTHERS of the Maid. See Jeanne, Jeannette, Sibylle. MARTIGNET (Louis de), questioned for the rehabilitation, II, 405. MARTIN (par mon), the Maid\u0026rsquo;s oath, IV, 4, 5, 8, 11, 18, 24, 27, 33. See God, Saint John. MARTIN V, pope, I, 5, 245. MARTIN (Jean), present at the Orléans inquiry, III, 23. SAINT-MARTIN of Tours, V, 154, 155, 216. SAINT-MARTIN-DES-CHAMPS, in Paris. Preaching on Joan\u0026rsquo;s death at —, IV, 471. MARTROY (le). See Orléans. MARVILLE, in Lorraine, V, 322, 323, 328. MARY (Artus de Saint-), hands Lagny back to the French, IV, 88. MASQUERAN (le Bourg de), at the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 44, 149. MASSÉE. See Macée. MASSIEU (Jean), attends the trial, I, 8, 27, 31, 113, 135, 173, 399. His institution as usher-executor, I, 26, 138. Executes against the Maid, I, 42, 44; III, 151; his consideration for her, II, 16; III, 151; assists her during the abjuration, II, 15, 17; III, 156, 197. Blamed by Warwick, III, 154. Threatened by Cauchon, II, 16, 330. Summons Joan to the place of execution, I, 468; brings her there, I, 470; II, 14; III, 159; and attends, II, 20, 334. Deposes in 1450, II, 15; in 1452, II, 329. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 164; III, 44. Produced, II, 191. Récolé, III, 45, 150. MASSON (Jean), historian of Joan of Arc, V, 389 note. MATHAGO or MATHE-GOUGH, English captain, IV, 44, 412. MATHIAS (messire), Aragonese, at the defence of Orléans, IV, 98. SAINT-MATHURIN, at Orléans, IV, 103, 142. MATHURINS (Grange des), near Paris, IV, 466. MAUBOUDET (Martin de), Orléanais, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 28. Lodges the rehabilitation judges, V, 277. MAUGIER (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 354, 384, 405, 459. His determination on Joan, I, 345. His opinion on the procedure, I, 427. His sentence, I, 467. MAUGIER or MAUGERIT (Pierre), advocate of the rehabilitation, II, 93; III, 351. Sets out the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family\u0026rsquo;s petition, II, 98; III, 374. Pleads in French, II, 139. MAULIN (Nicolas), attends the condemnation trial, I, 59, 70, 81, 92. MAURICE (Pierre), summoned to the condemnation trial, III, 62; attends it, I, 29, 31, 34, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 113, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 195, 202, 323, 384, 404, 430, 459. Questions the Maid, II, 16; hears her confession, III, 50; counsels her at the end of the trial, II, 343; teaches her what the Church is, II, 351. Threatened by the English, II, 356; III, 178. Present at the abjuration, I, 443; gives Joan a woman\u0026rsquo;s dress, III, 143; grief at her relapse, III, 164. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 428. His determination on Joan, I, 337; admonishes her, I, 430; III, 60; condemns, I, 466; visits her before her execution, I, 478, 484; his conversation with her, III, 194. Attends the execution, I, 469. Deposes after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, I, 479. Testifies to the English fear of the Maid, III, 189. Paid for his participation in the trial, V, 197, 200, 208. MAXEY-SUR-MEUSE, village of the Burgundian party, I, 65. Children of — fighting with those of Domrémy, I, 66. MAXEY-SUR-VAISE, near Vaucouleurs. Joan goes there, II, 442. MAXEY-SUR-VAISE (Messire Pierre de), that is, Pierre, priest of —, II, 387. See Fisciolis. MAZIER (Simon or Simonnet le), Orléanais, V, 278. MEAUX. Siege of —, IV, 299. Bishop of —. See Vaulx (Pasquier de); Versailles (Pierre de). MÉDAILLES, in honour of the Maid, I, 291. See Tokens. SAINT-MÉDARD, church near Paris. Priest of —, IV, 454. MEDICI, perhaps Le Mire (Nicolas), attends the condemnation trial, I, 58, 69. MEERMAN (Gérard and Jean), possessors of a trial manuscript, V, 408. MEINIÈRES (Duret de), possessor of a trial manuscript, V, 409. MEINZEBERG (Jean de), communicates to Goldast a treatise on the Maid, V, 475. MELUN. Joan at —, I, 145, 253. The duke of Bedford at —, IV, 78. MENDE (bishopric of), V, 168. MENDIANTS (moines), sought out by Joan, III, 14, 104. SAINTE-MENEHOULD (the town of), besieged, V, 354. MÉNESTRIER (le P.), mentioned, V, 127. MÉNÉTRIERS, lent to the English by the French, IV, 105. MENGETTE, wife Joyart, questioned at Domrémy, II, 429. MERLE (Jean), fourrier of the dauphin, V, 146, 149. MERLIN (prophecy of), III, 133, 340; IV, 305, 480; V, 12. Reported and commented on, III, 341. MERAT (Jean), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. MERLERAULT (sergenterie du), in the vicomté d\u0026rsquo;Exmes, V, 190. MERPELLE (Guillaume), witness at one of the rehabilitation acts, II, 284. SAINT-MERRY, church of Paris, IV, 463. MERSEBOURG (bishop of), III, 461. MÉSARD (Guillaume), church notary, II, 157. Another, surnamed le Jeune, church notary, V, 301. MESLE (Guillaume du), abbot of Saint-Ouen of Rouen, attends the condemnation trial, I, 59, 80, 381, 459; at the abjuration, I, 443. His sentence, I, 463. MESMIN (Gilles de Saint-), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 26. His wife, see Jeanne. MESMIN (Aignan de Saint-), procurator of Orléans, V, 275; deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 29. MESNAGE (Matthieu), examiner of Joan at Poitiers, III, 10. MESNART (Pierre), author of an authentic copy of the rehabilitation, V, 457. MESNIL (sergenterie du), in the vicomté d\u0026rsquo;Exmes, V, 187. MESNIL (Jean du), present at the Orléans inquiry, III, 24. MASS. Joan often attended it at the village, II, 408, 413; her desire to hear it on journey, II, 438, 457; wept at it, III, 32; missed it only when impossible, III, 72, 81, 218; as prisoner asks to hear it, I, 165, 192, 227, 456; III, 136. Promised and not granted, I, 455; II, 202. Celebrated by Joan\u0026rsquo;s order after the deliverance of Orléans, III, 29; IV, 232. Sung for the king and for Joan, V, 165. METZ. The town of — besieged by the duke of Lorraine, V, 355. The false Joan of Arc at —, V, 321, 323, 324, 325. Chronicle of —, IV, 321; V, 321, 323, 324 note. Official of —. See Saint-Thibaud. Grange-aux-Ormes near —, V, 321, 323. Porte Muzele, at —, V, 324. METZ (Jean de). See Novelompont. MEUN or MEHUN-SUR-LOIRE. Death of Salisbury at —, IV, 101; V, 288. Looting at — during the siege of Orléans, IV, 144. The English of Orléans withdraw there, III, 71, 97, 110; IV, 10, 44, 63, 102, 164, 232, 479, 496; as do those of Beaugency, IV, 176. English army sent to —, III, 10. Joan\u0026rsquo;s expedition to —, IV, 13, 65, 481; V, 296. The English garrison of — taken to Janville, IV, 14, 67, 176, 318; returns the eve of the battle of Patay, IV, 417. Bridge of — won, IV, 65, 174, 240; and held, IV, 176, 242, 417. Breton help at the bridge of —, IV, 318. Capture of —, IV, 17, 46, 244; V, 58, 120, 122. MEUN (Jean de), astrologer. See Buillons. MEUN-SUR-YÈVRE. The king at —, III, 217; V, 153. Collegiate church of —. See Thierry. MEYZEAU (Paul), gives the Maid\u0026rsquo;s hat to the Oratorians of Orléans, V, 234. MEUSE, river, I, 209; IV, 41, 326; V, 115. SAINT MICHAEL, his apparitions to Joan, I, 72, 73, 169, 170, 218, 256, 328; in what form, I, 89, 93, 171, 173, 218, 249, 268; IV, 469; when they ceased, I, 89, 319. Joan\u0026rsquo;s reverences towards him, I, 130, 167, 335; she implores him in her last moments, II, 324; III, 53, 159. Apparition of — at Chinon, I, 282, 330, 396; IV, 469; acknowledged fictitious by Joan, I, 479, 480, 481, 484; she is justified in this by her defenders, II, 182, 248. Charles VII required to have faith in —, IV, 326. Joan deceived by the demon in the form of —, IV, 472, 504. SAINT-MICHEL, church of Orléans, IV, 102; of Rouen, IV, 274. SAINT-MICHEL (abbey of Mont —). See Jolivet (Robert). SAINT-MICHEL (priory of), near Rouen, II, 370. SAINT-MICHEL (Jean de), Scot, bishop of Orléans, IV, 130, 479; V, 296. Present at the coronation, V, 129. See Kirkmichael. MIDI (Nicolas), attends the condemnation trial, I, 29, 34, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 113, 125, 131, 134, 149, 150, 151, 161, 173, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 195, 202, 323, 375, 404, 420, 430, 452. Summoned from Paris to attend, III, 57. Questions the Maid, II, 16. Extracts the twelve articles, III, 60. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 425. His determination on Joan, I, 337; exhorts her to submit, I, 380; II, 21. Sent back to Paris, I, 407, 409. Attends the abjuration, I, 443. Preaches on the day of the execution, I, 470; II, 334; III, 53, 144, 159; substance of his sermon, III, 194. Sent to confirm Joan\u0026rsquo;s relapse, is threatened by the English, II, 21. Biased against Joan, III, 140. Paid for his participation in the trial, V, 197, 200, 204, 208. Exerts himself for two imprisoned canons of Rouen, V, 372. Struck with leprosy, III, 165. Was dead by 1456, III, 60. MIGEON or MIGIET (Pierre), prior of Longueville, attends the condemnation trial, I, 6, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 188, 189, 195, 202, 381, 404, 459. Complains of the manner of collecting the interrogatories, III, 132. Present at the abjuration, I, 443; at the execution, I, 469; weeps there, III, 129. Denounced as a supporter of Joan, II, 364; III, 131. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 424; on the revelations, II, 302; III, 129. His determination on Joan, I, 337. His sentence, I, 464. Deposes as witness in 1452, II, 300, 360. Declares the sentence unjust, IV, 362. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41; produced, II, 191; récolé, III, 45, 129. Witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 290 note; III, 255. MIGNON (Berthault and Étienne), Orléanais, IV, 137; V, 213 note. SAINT-MIHIEL, in Barrois, V, 212. MILAN. See Visconti. MILBEAU (Yves), confessor of the duke of Brittany, deputed to the Maid, IV, 498; V, 264. MILET (Adam), secretary of the king of England, assistant at the condemnation trial, I, 193. MILET (Guillaume), king\u0026rsquo;s procurator at Argentan, V, 178. MILET (N.), secretary of the duke of Burgundy, V, 167. MILET (Pierre), clerk of the élection of Paris, III, 123. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 125. Colette, his wife, deposes also, III, 123. MINET (Jean), priest of Domrémy, I, 46. MINIER (Pierre), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 48, 69, 81, 92, 381, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443. His determination on Joan, I, 369; II, 359; for which he receives reproaches, II, 325, 356; III, 171. His opinion on the procedure, I, 427; not received at the trial, III, 173. MINUTE of the trial. See Condemnation, Manchon (Guillaume). MIRAMBEAU, in Saintonge, V, 535. MINLY (Jacques de), fights at Patay, IV, 376. MIRE (le). See Medici. MIROIR (le) des femmes vertueuses, IV, 267. MISSION of Joan, set forth, I, 52, 133, 216, 231, 394; III, 16, 20, 74, 99, 115, 205; V, 15, 28, 120, 132. Within what term it was to be accomplished, I, 134; II, 436; III, 99; IV, 214. Delayed by unbelief, IV, 326. Joan\u0026rsquo;s remark on her —, III, 110; IV, 311. MITRY-EN-FRANCE, village, IV, 46, 80, 189, 433. MOEN (Jean), of Coussey, questioned at Domrémy, II, 399. MOLAIN or MOULART (Philibert de), Burgundian captain, IV, 286, 297. MOLYNS (lord), at the siege of Orléans, IV, 44, 61, 62, 97, 162, 365; V, 294. MONDIDIER, town of Picardy, IV, 395, 397, 400. MONNET (Jean), wrote several of Joan\u0026rsquo;s interrogatories, III, 63. His place at the hearings, III, 146. Present at the abjuration, III, 64. Cited for the rehabilitation, III, 44. Deposes, III, 62. MONSTRELET (Enguerran de), author on the Maid, IV, 360. Present at the interview of the duke of Burgundy and the Maid, IV, 402. What he says of the Shepherd, V, 172. MONTAIGNE (Michel de), describes the Maid\u0026rsquo;s house, V, 246. MONTAGNE (sergenterie de la), in the vicomté d\u0026rsquo;Exmes, V, 188. MONTAIGU, in Poitou, V, 333. MONTARGIS. Passage of Charles VII and the Maid at —, IV, 286. Return of Charles VII and Joan via —, IV, 89, 201. Name of an artillery piece at Orléans, IV, 104. Garrison of —, at Orléans, IV, 222. Captain of —. See Villars. MONTAUBAN (Robert de), Breton of the Patay expedition, IV, 316. MONTBAZON (Guillaume and Colas de), bourgeois of Tours, V, 155, 271. MONTE-ALCINO (Jean or Pierre de), Sienese astrologer, predicts the Maid\u0026rsquo;s advent, III, 344. MONTECLAIRE, near Andelot, I, 209; II, 453. MONTÉPILLOY or MONTESPILLOUY. Skirmishes of —, IV, 21, 22, 47, 82, 83, 84, 193, 194, 195, 324, 386, 387, 388, 434, 435. Battle refused at —, against Joan\u0026rsquo;s advice, IV, 23; she changes her opinion several times, IV, 388. Richemont missed at —, IV, 320. Tower of —, IV, 433. MONTEREAU-OU-FAUT-YONNE. Bedford at —, IV, 382. Captain of —. See Guerrard. MONTFAUCON, in Berry; the Maid stays there, I, 106. MONTFAULCON (Pierre de), notable of Reims, V, 144. MONTFORT (lord of the house of), V, 106. MONTGOMMERY (the lord of), at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 397, 399, 444; V, 175. MONTIER-SUR-SAULX, parish of the diocese of Toul, II, 392. MONTIGNY, in Champagne, V, 210. MONTIGNY (Jean de), his opinion on Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 319; notice of this work, V, 466. MONTJAY, place handed back to the French, IV, 391. MONTJEU (Philibert de), bishop of Coutances; his determination on Joan, I, 361. MONTJOIE, herald-at-arms, IV, 298. MONTMARTRE. The French lodged at —, IV, 342, 392. MONTMIRAIL, in Brie. Charles VII is received at —, IV, 20. MONTMORENCY (the baron of), comes to the Maid, IV, 28. Brings about his submission, IV, 391. Made knight before Paris, IV, 87. MONTPENSIER (the count of), at the siege of La Charité, V, 149. MONTPINÇON (sergenterie de), in the vicomté d\u0026rsquo;Exmes, V, 189. MONTEREAU, abandoned by the English, IV, 178, 244. Lord of —. See Rochechouart. MONTREUIL (Raymond de), killed at the siege of La Charité, IV, 49. MONTREUIL-SUR-MER, V, 144. MORA (Simon de), witness at one of the rehabilitation acts, II, 284. MORAINVILLIER (Jean de), married to Jeanne de Flavy, V, 372. MORCHOISNE (Jean), procurator of the town of Orléans, V, 260, 263, 270. MORCHOISNE (Gilet), Orléanais, V, 274. MOREAL (Montréal?), signatory of a letter on Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s coronation, V, 130. MOREAU (Jean), of Domrémy, attends the two public scenes of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 194. Questioned on the fate of the first inquiry made in Joan\u0026rsquo;s country, II, 381. Deposes for the rehabilitation, II, 194. MOREAU (Jean), bookseller of Orléans, I, 99. MOREL (Aubert), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 49, 59, 69, 81, 92, 196, 382, 399, 405, 460; at the abjuration, I, 444. His opinion on the procedure, I, 200, 426. His determination on Joan, I, 356. His opinion on the torture, I, 403. His sentence, I, 466. MOREL (Jean), godfather of the Maid, II, 395, 398, 408, 415, 419, 422, 426. Flees at the same time as she to Neufchâteau, II, 392. Saw her again at Châlons in 1429, II, 391. Questioned in the inquiry made by the English, II, 463; does not admit it, II, 392. Deposes for the rehabilitation, II, 387. MORELLES (Goliard), German magician, III, 463. MORELLET or MOREUL (Robert), attends the condemnation trial, I, 49, 60, 70, 81. MORET (Jean), abbot of Préaux, attends the condemnation trial, I, 49, 59, 69, 81, 92, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443. MORHIER (Simon), provost of Paris, commanded at the day of the Herrings, IV, 120. Charged with the defence of Paris, IV, 85, 197, 454. MORIAU (Alix), hostess of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s father at Reims, V, 266. MORILLON (Hervé), abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 372. MORIN (Jourdain), examiner of the Maid at Poitiers, III, 92, 102. MORINENSIS episcopus, bishop of Thérouanne. See Luxembourg (Louis de). MORISSE. See Maurice. MORLAIRES or MORLAIES (Germer de), prior of the Dominicans of Beauvais, II, 133, 279. MORTEMART (the lord of), at Orléans, V, 270. MORTEMER (abbey of). See Theroule (Guillaume). MORVILLIERS (Philippe de), president at the parlement of Paris, IV, 456. LA MOTHE-EN-BASSIGNY, III, 192, 198. LA MOTTE-DE-NANGIS, in Brie, IV, 79, 187. MOTTIER. See Fayette (La). MOUCHY (Jean de), Orléanais, III, 34. His wife. See Jeanne. MOULINS, in Bourbonnais. The Maid at —, V, 148, 150. MOUTON or MUTOINS (Guillaume), attends the condemnation trial, I, 324. MOUY (the lord of), makes his submission, IV, 394. MOYNET (Jean), Orléanais, V, 274, 308. MUGOT, surname of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s page, III, 124. See Contes (Louis de). MUSNIER (Simonin), witness questioned at Domrémy, II, 423. MYSTÈRES, represented at the festival of the deliverance of Orléans, V, 79, 309, 344. NAILHAC (Jean de), lord of Châteaubrun and viscount of Bridiers, killed at the day of the Herrings, IV, 123, 124, 136. NANCY. Joan\u0026rsquo;s journey to —, IV, 331. See Lorraine (Charles de). NANGIS (Guillaume de). Continuator of the chronicle of —, IV, 313. NANGIS (La Motte de). See Motte. NANTES. Dissension among the Dominicans of —, II, 71. NARBONNE. The deliverance of Orléans announced to the inhabitants of —, V, 104. NAVARRE (king of). Letter written by the Maid to —, V, 253. NECROMANCY. Dissertation on —, III, 430. NEEL (Jean), witness at a rehabilitation act, II, 284. NEF DES DAMES (la), cited, IV, 344 note. NEMOURS. English garrison at —, IV, 413. NESLE-en-Tardenois (château de), IV, 274; V, 371. NESLE (Gui de), gives asylum to Guillaume de Flavy, V, 370. NEUFCHÂTEAU, in Lorraine. The Maid takes refuge there, I, 54, 244; II, 392, 395, 397, 399, 402, 409, 414, 416, 419, 424, 425, 435, 441, 454. Mentioned, II, 389, 396, 398, 401, 403; IV, 326. NEUVILLE (Colin de), échevin of Paris, IV, 464. LA NEUVILLE-EN-HEZ, submits to the French, IV, 391. NIBAT (Jean de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 189, 196, 202, 381, 404, 459. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199. His determination on Joan, I, 337. His sentence, I, 465. NICOLAS, godson of the Maid, II, 427. SAINT-NICOLAS-DES-CHAMPS, in Paris. Priest of —, IV, 454. SAINT-NICOLAS-LE-PEINTEUR, parish of Rouen, II, 11, 339; III, 134. SAINT-NICOLAS-DU-PORT, near Nancy. Joan goes there on pilgrimage, II, 447, 457. NIDER (Jean), author on the Maid, IV, 502; on the false Joan of Arc, V, 324. NOGENT-LE-ROI, taken by Salisbury, V, 286. NOGENT-SUR-SEINE, IV, 286. NONETTE (la), river, IV, 22, 82, 83, 192. NORFOLK (county of), V, 194. NORMANDY. Conquest of — counselled, IV, 168, 235. Joan refuses to go there at the beginning, III, 12; the king does not want her to go after the coronation, IV, 30, 48; induced to this by La Trémouille, V, 71. The garrison of Beaugency withdraws there, IV, 45. Put in a state of defence by Bedford, IV, 85, 394, 436. Subsidy voted by the Estates of —, V, 179. Supposedly conquered by the Maid, IV, 336. Chronicles of —, IV, 339, 345. NORWICH (bishop of). See Alnwick. NOTRE-DAME or the Blessed Virgin. See Virgin (the Holy). NOTRE-DAME of Bermont, of Paris, of Reims, of Rouen, of the Victory, etc. See Bermont, Paris, Reims, Rouen, Victoire, etc. NOTRE-DAME-DE-LIESSE, V, 322, 324. NOTRE-DAME-DE-SAINT-POL or DES-MIRACLES-SAINT-PAUL, church of Orléans, V, 298, 343. NOURRICIER. See Nutritoris. NOVELOMPONT (Jean de) or de Metz, sees Joan at Vaucouleurs, II, 436. Exhorts her to dress as a man, II, 457. Leads her to Chinon, II, 406, 432, 437, 442, 445, 447, 448, 450; III, 115, 209; IV, 125, 127, 206. Rewarded by the king, V, 257, 258. Friend of Gobert Thibault, III, 75. Lodged at Jacques Boucher\u0026rsquo;s in Orléans, IV, 153. Ennobled, V, 361. Questioned as witness at Vaucouleurs, II, 435. NOUYON, land of the Orléanais, III, 65. See Contes (Louis le). NOYELLES (Baudot de), Burgundian captain, at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 399, 400, 439, 441, 445; V, 176. NOYON, guarded by the English, IV, 437. Stay of the duke of Burgundy at —, IV, 397. Bishop of —. See Mailly. NUTRITORIS (Jacques), or Le Nourricier, subscribes the Maid\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. OFFEMONT (château d\u0026rsquo;), V, 370. OGIER (Nicolas), ecclesiastical notary of the diocese of Coutances, I, 125, 136. OGIER (Pierre), clerk of the diocese of Nantes, II, 196, 265; III, 236, 252. OISE, river, IV, 49, 92, 437; V, 176. Bridge thrown over the — by the Burgundians, IV, 397; by the inhabitants of Compiègne, V, 177. The prée or meadow of the —, before Compiègne, IV, 399, 401, 402, 441. OLIVET, near Orléans; the Maid passes by it, V, 290. OLIVIER (Alain), witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 261, 353, 362. OLON (Jean d\u0026rsquo;). See Aulon. OR (madame d\u0026rsquo;), IV, 297. ORAISONS in honour of Joan, I, 101. Text of one —, V, 104. ORANGE (the prince of), enemy of the king of France, V, 339. ORATOIRE (l\u0026rsquo;) d\u0026rsquo;Orléans, gifted a hat of the Maid, V, 234. ORBEC (the captain of), Englishman, killed at Montépilloy, IV, 22. ORBETTE (l\u0026rsquo;), near Orléans, IV, 146. ORIENT (Pierre), attends the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, I, 193. ORIFLAMME (l\u0026rsquo;), name given to Charles VII by the Maid, IV, 304. Standard, IV, 534. ORLAND or ROLLAND (Charles), son of Charles VIII, raised at Amboise, IV, 279. ORLÉANAIS. The communities of —, hostile to the English, IV, 413. ORLÉANS. The town of — prepares for vigorous resistance, V, 341. Siege laid before —, IV, 96, 345; V, 37, 287. The enclosure of — completely blocked since the day of the Herrings, IV, 4, 408. First news of the Maid at —, III, 3, 21, 23; IV, 125, 126. Joan lands there by boat, III, 6, 18, 67, 78, 105, 210; IV, 5, 218, 364, 409, 479, 511; V, 290; makes her entry, III, 24, 27, 105; IV, 152, 491; V, 41, 134; walks through the streets, IV, 155. Arrival of the relief prepared at Blois for —, III, 78, 105, 211; IV, 6, 56, 156, 215, 222, 492; V, 104. Deliverance of —, III, 9, 25, 29, 76, 80, 110, 127, 217; IV, 10, 44, 62, 164, 232, 313, 323, 327, 340, 366, 451, 496, 511, 526; V, 13, 43, 295, 343. Fabulous account of this deliverance, IV, 333. Joan at — before the capture of Jargeau, IV, 169; after this capture, III, 97; IV, 13, 65, 173, 235, 238; after the battle of Patay, IV, 16, 178, 244, 374, 424; before the Reims journey, IV, 17, 245; after this journey, I, 106; IV, 474; V, 272. Charles VII refuses to pass through on his way to Reims, IV, 178, 244. The town of — contributes for the siege of Jargeau, V, 295; and of La Charité-sur-Loire, V, 269; for the false Joan, V, 326, 331, 335. The bourgeois of — send the fugitives of the Herrings day away from their town, V, 289; carry torches before Joan, IV, 153; second the Maid\u0026rsquo;s plans despite the captains, III, 117; IV, 227; V, 293; attend the rehabilitation trial, III, 352, 374. Joan takes leave of the inhabitants of —, IV, 166. Schoolboys of — at the town\u0026rsquo;s defence, IV, 345; and the women too, IV, 99. Commissioners sent to — for Joan\u0026rsquo;s rehabilitation, II, 282. Inquiry made at —, III, 1. The rehabilitation sentence executed at —, V, 277. Journal of the siege of —, transcribed and printed at the town\u0026rsquo;s expense, IV, 94. Mystery play of the siege of —, V, 79. Anniversary of Joan\u0026rsquo;s death at —, V, 274. Annual procession of —, IV, 166; V, 296, 300. Monument of the Maid at —, IV, 448; V, 222, 223, 224, 238, 367; destroyed at the Revolution, V, 241, 242, 243; raised again under the Consulate, V, 243, 244. Provost of —. See Dubey. The twelve procurators of —, V, 296, 308, 326. Town chamber at —, V, 260, 276, 326. Suburbs of — destroyed, IV, 103, 106; V, 288. See Portereau. Churches of —. See under the names of those churches. The seven gates of —, V, 35, 37; Porte Bannier, III, 68; IV, 110, 114, 133; Porte de Bourgogne, III, 70, 212; IV, 6, 102, 135; Porte Dunoise, V, 313, 314; Porte Parisis, IV, 134; Porte Regnart, IV, 107, 108, 110, 113; V, 290. Postern Chesneau. See Chesneau. Tour Notre-Dame at —, IV, 100, 113; V, 287; Grosse Tour, III, 70; Tour Neuve, IV, 98, 159. Château des Tourelles. See Tourelles. Bridge of — broken, III, 80; IV, 44, 99, 100, 495; V, 56, 294; and repaired, IV, 9, 161, 228, 229. Bastille of the bridge of —, I, 78, 251, 252; III, 70; other bastilles. See Jean-le-Blanc (Saint), Loup (Saint), etc. Châtelet of —, IV, 282; V, 222, 224. Belfry of —, IV, 104, 108, 133, 135. Town hall of —, V, 225, 291, 312. Hôtel de la Tête Noire, IV, 126; de l\u0026rsquo;Ange, V, 278. Aumône or Hôtel-Dieu of —, IV, 134. La Grève of —, IV, 107. Le Martroy, IV, 102. La Grand\u0026rsquo;Rue, III, 124; the rue de la Charpenterie, IV, 141; the rue aux Petits Souliers, IV, 104; the rue des Hôtelleries, IV, 126, 134. Islands of the Loire before —. See Loire. Belle Croix, Croix Boisée. See Croix. Colombier and Champ Turpin at —, IV, 111, 131, 138, 142. Grange Guyveret near —, IV, 138, 142, 150. Forest of —, V, 291. ORLÉANS, herald-at-arms, V, 262. ORLÉANS (Charles, duke of), father-in-law of the duke of Alençon, IV, 10. Receives from Salisbury the promise that his domains will be spared, IV, 102; V, 80, 286. Approaches made in his name by the Orléanais, IV, 130, 146. Joan\u0026rsquo;s revelation about him, I, 55, 254, 257; she had a mission to deliver him, III, 99, 205; IV, 10; how she had been led to it, I, 133, 254; V, 121. Has a suit of clothes furnished to the Maid, V, 112. Gives Pierre d\u0026rsquo;Arc the Île-aux-Bœufs, V, 213; money, V, 214, 280. Manuscript executed for him, IV, 204. Verses addressed to him, V, 22. ORLÉANS (Jean, bastard of), count of Dunois, at the defence of Orléans, IV, 101, 105, 106, 110, 130, 131, 135, 142; V, 317. Commands at the battle of the Herrings, IV, 119, 122, 125; V, 288. Learns at Orléans of Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival, III, 3. Urges the king to make use of her, IV, 350; goes to meet her, III, 119, 210; IV, 152; his first interview with her, III, 5, 68; IV, 218. Demands Joan\u0026rsquo;s heralds back from the English, IV, 154, 220. Joan\u0026rsquo;s words to him, III, 212; IV, 59. Goes to meet the convoy prepared at Blois, IV, 5, 55, 155, 221, 222; V, 291. Attends the war council at Jacques Boucher\u0026rsquo;s, IV, 59, 158. Fights at the capture of Saint-Loup, IV, 43, 157; of the Augustins, IV, 61; of the Tourelles, IV, 43, 160, 228. Contributes to the establishment of the 8 May festival, V, 296. Makes the Loire campaign with Joan, III, 10, 94; IV, 12, 64, 66, 67, 170, 317, 319, 371, 419; V, 109. Attends the coronation, IV, 46. His conversation with Joan at Crépy, III, 14; IV, 189. Commands at Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193. Questioned for the rehabilitation, III, 2. His deposition inserted in the chronicles, IV, 203. His praise sung at the annual deliverance festival of Orléans, V, 315. ORLÉANS (Louis, duke of), father of the two preceding, V, 22. ORLÉANS (Philippot d\u0026rsquo;), Orléanais, I, 99 note. ORME (De l\u0026rsquo;). See Delorme. ORSEL (Louis), attends the condemnation trial, I, 442. ORTIE, ornament in the duke of Orléans\u0026rsquo;s livery, V, 270. ORTIE (Jean), chevaucheur of the duke of Orléans, V, 264. ORVAL (the lord of). See Albret (Guillaume d\u0026rsquo;). OSCOHART (Guillaume), subscribes Joan\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. SAINT-OUEN, church of Rouen. Joan preached to in the cemetery of —, I, 443; II, 14, 15, 323, 338, 344, 367; III, 54, 61, 90, 122, 385; IV, 346. Expiatory ceremony in the cemetery of —, III, 361. Abbey of —. See Corguilleray, Mesle. OURCHES (Aubert d\u0026rsquo;), witness questioned at Toul, II, 449. Had seen Joan at Vaucouleurs and at Senlis, II, 450. OURS (the lord of l\u0026rsquo;), innkeeper of Paris, I, 158, 264; V, 392. OXFORD (University of), III, 450. PAIRS DE FRANCE. Their absence publicly noted at Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s coronation, IV, 380. By whom replaced, V, 128. PALÉOLOGUE (the emperor John), informed about the Maid, IV, 532. PANISCOLA, residence of the antipope Clement VII, I, 245. PANNONCEAUX, in imitation of Joan\u0026rsquo;s, I, 96, 98, 236, 238. POPE. What Joan says of him, I, 82, 83, 205, 244, 246, 325, 393; II, 203; she asks to be taken to the —, I, 185, 394, 445; II, 4, 304, 308, 349, 351, 358, 365; III, 52; which has the value of an appeal, II, 204, 226, 232; she positively appeals to the —, II, 13; is condemned as not having submitted, I, 475; II, 354; III, 184; did submit, II, 34; III, 131, 155, 167, 181, 273. See Callixtus III, Martin V, Pie II, Rome. PAPE (Gui), jurist, contemporary of the Maid, IV, 534. PAPILLONS, seen around the Maid\u0026rsquo;s standard, I, 103; IV, 254. PAILLIÈRE (Jean), archdeacon of the chapter of Orléans, V, 309. PAGLIÈRE (Girard de la), Gascon captain, IV, 317, 318. PARADISE. Joan sure of going to —, I, 155, 156, 269, 334; II, 47. Called the saints her brothers of —, II, 437. Reputed to be in —, III, 123. PARIS. The Maid announces her entry into —, I, 240, 246; III, 425, 427; IV, 140, 216, 288, 323, 436, 466, 500; V, 97, 107, 130, 140; which she counted on seizing, I, 246, 298; her voices having guaranteed it to her, V, 132; public expectation in this regard, III, 425, 427; IV, 233; V, 19. The duke of Bedford makes the inhabitants swear to defend —, IV, 455. Session at the parlement for the defence of —, IV, 454. Deposits and consignments taken in the churches of —, IV, 456. Joan urges the king to go there, IV, 24. The English withdraw there after the day of Montépilloy, IV, 23, 84, 197, 436. The duke of Burgundy goes there to renew his alliance with the English, IV, 48; V, 130; after having promised the king to hand it to him, V, 140. Abandoned by the English, IV, 25, 85. Summoned by the duke of Alençon, IV, 464. Rumours spread at — against Charles VII, IV, 458, 466. Skirmishes below —, IV, 25. Fruitless attack on —, I, 147, 298; IV, 26, 47, 86, 197, 324, 342, 392, 436, 457, 465, 466, 479, 515; V, 70, 268; through the fault of the courtiers, IV, 28, 48, 200, 323; through the resistance of the inhabitants, IV, 393. Joan\u0026rsquo;s words before —, IV, 464; she wants to return there, IV, 27; she did not go there by revelation, I, 146, 169, 262; what she says of this attempt, I, 57, 147, 148, 230, 260. Supposedly conquered by the Maid, IV, 336. Emotion at — on Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival at Lagny, IV, 32; she hoped to be taken there for her trial, I, 154. Inhabitants of — present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 273. Commissioners sent to — for the rehabilitation, II, 282. Witnesses heard at —, III, 46. Provost of —. See Loré, Morhier. Quarteniers of —, IV, 463. Bishop of — in 1429, IV, 454; in 1455. See Chartier. Official of —, I, 295. Notre-Dame of —, theatre of the rehabilitation trial, II, 82, 87, 91; its library, V, 78, 219; description of the manuscript kept in this repository, V, 449. Episcopal court of —, II, 120, 122, 134; III, 362. Episcopal palace of —, II, 19; III, 38, 374. Grand\u0026rsquo;salle or upper hall of the bishop, II, 92, 130; III, 255. Cloister of Notre-Dame, II, 112; III, 328. Puy Notre-Dame, IV, 467. Sainte-Chapelle of —, III, 47; IV, 455. Other churches of —. See their names. Palace of —, V, 335. The Hôtel-Neuf at —, III, 77. Porte Saint-Denis at —, IV, 25, 87, 198, 463, 466; V, 170. Porte Saint-Honoré, IV, 26, 86, 198, 392, 456, 465. Marché or Place aux pourceaux, IV, 26, 86, 198, 457, 515; V, 70. Rue des Noyers at —, II, 265; V, 459. Windmill between La Chapelle and —, IV, 25; V, 70. Journal of — falsely attributed to a bourgeois of that town, IV, 464; his testimony on the Maid, IV, 462; on the Shepherd, V, 169. University of —. See Faculty, Université. PARIS, bastille before Orléans, IV, 143, 283; V, 291, 292, 349. PARIS (Martial de). See Auvergne (Martial d\u0026rsquo;). PARLEMENT (le), transferred to Poitiers, IV, 128, 209, 211; counsels the king to emigrate, V, 340. Joan is taken there, V, 119. The — sitting at Paris provides for the defence of the town, IV, 454; has the false Joan of Arc brought before it, V, 335. Register of the —, IV, 451; V, 232. Clerk of the —. See Fauquembergue. Manuscript of the trial coming from the —, V, 394. PARMENTIER (Mauger le), called to apply the torture to Joan, III, 185. Witness for the rehabilitation, III, 45, 185. GODFATHERS of the Maid. See Barré, Langart, Morel, Rainguesson. PARTADA (Alfonse de), Spaniard, at the deliverance of Orléans, III, 214. PARTENAY (château de), belonging to the count of Richemond, IV, 16, 320. PASQUEREL (Jean), the Maid\u0026rsquo;s chaplain, III, 102, 104. His opinion of Joan\u0026rsquo;s judges, III, 114. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 100. PASQUIER (Étienne), cited, V, 212, 388, 409. PASSE-VOLANT, name of a cannon at the defence of Orléans, IV, 97. PASTOUR or PASTOUREL (le), V, 168, 172. See Berger. PATARIN (Jean), church notary, attests a copy of the trial, V, 407. PATAY, village of Beauce, III, 99, 110, 120; IV, 242, 374, 421. Battle of —, III, 11, 71, 98; IV, 15, 68, 177, 243, 314, 319, 341, 348, 371, 421, 422, 423, 424, 432, 452, 479, 499, 512; V, 58, 120, 122, 262, 296. Joan\u0026rsquo;s words at —, III, 11, 99; IV, 243, 371, 420. PATER NOSTER. Joan hardly knew her —, II, 8, 365; III, 166; refuses to say it, I, 47, 131. PATIN (Jean), present at the Orléans inquiry, III, 2. PAU or PAULY (La). See Lapau. PAUL-ÉMILE, cited, IV, 449 note. PAULMY (the marquis of); his manuscript on Joan of Arc, V, 422. PEINTRES. See Gaucher, Polnoir, Estienne. PEIRAT (Christophe du), eyewitness on the Maid, IV, 537. PEIRESC. Collection on Joan of Arc among the papers of — at Carpentras, V, 342. Cited, V, 405. PERÉ (André), subscribes Joan\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. PEPENSAC (the lord of), at Patay, IV, 348. PEYNOT (Louis), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. PARDIAC. See Armagnac (Bernard d\u0026rsquo;). PÉRIGUEUX (bishop of). See Bourdeille. PERRIER (Gilles), his name on a trial manuscript, V, 402, 454. PESTEUR (Jean), bourgeois of Tours, V, 155. PESTREMOL (Jean), church sergeant at Rouen, III, 265. PETAU (Alexandre); his name on a ms. of the trial, V, 404, 456. PETAU (Paul), his paraph on a trial manuscript, V, 404. PETIT (Gérard), provost of Andelot, II, 454. PÉTRONILLE. See Beauharnais. PHARES (Simon de), astrologer, cited, IV, 536; V, 32 note. PICARDS (les), take the English into hatred after the deliverance of Orléans, IV, 233. Refuse to serve the duke of Burgundy outside their country, V, 354. Gathered by Bedford to resist Charles VII, IV, 433. Congratulated by him at the day of Montépilloy, IV, 388. Serve at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 441. PICART (Jean Le), commissioned by the town of Tours to the Maid, V, 155. PICART (Pierre Le), secretary of Charles VII, V, 212, 268, 346. PICHON (Jean), valet of the town of Orléans, V, 277, 310, 332. PIE II (the pope), author on the Maid, IV, 507; sends commissioners to France to pursue those who had condemned her, IV, 522, 528. PIERRE (messire), priest of Rouen, attends the Maid\u0026rsquo;s execution, II, 334. PIERRE (N.), prophesies about the Maid at the king\u0026rsquo;s council, V, 32. See Valérien (Pierre de Saint). PIERRE (Isambard de la), Dominican, attends the condemnation trial, I, 122, 134, 150, 156, 162, 173, 189, 196, 382, 405, 442, 452, 454, 460; II, 348. Counsels Joan to submit to the council, II, 4, 13, 341; III, 139, 171. Threatened, II, 5, 10, 325, 343, 349; III, 167, 171. Sent to the bishop of Avranches, II, 6. His determination on Joan, I, 337. His opinion on the torture, I, 403; on the procedure, I, 428. His sentence, I, 466. Attends the execution, II, 6, 352. Deposes in 1450, II, 4; then in 1452, II, 348. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. SAINT-PIERRE (the lord of), councillor of the king of England, III, 243. SAINT-PIERRE-EMPORT, church of Orléans, IV, 99; V, 312. SAINT-PIERRE-LE-MOUSTIER. The siege of — resolved, III, 217; V, 71. Joan\u0026rsquo;s hallucination before —, III, 217. Capture of —, IV, 91; V, 147, 148. Joan protects its church, III, 23. SAINT-PIERRE-LE-PUELLIER, church of Orléans, V, 223. PIERREFONDS, near Compiègne, V, 367. PIERRELOT. See Prerelo. PIERRES (Jean de), king\u0026rsquo;s advocate at Argentan, V, 178. PIERRONNE LA BRETONNE, testifies in Joan\u0026rsquo;s favour, IV, 467, 473, 474, 504. PIGACHE (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 48, 81, 92, 381, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443. His determination on Joan, I, 369; II, 359. His opinion on the procedure, I, 427; not admitted to the trial, III, 173. His sentence, I, 466. Threatened by the English, II, 356. PILLAS (Jean), keeper of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s horses at Orléans, V, 259. PINCHON (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 49, 59, 69, 81, 196, 202, 354, 382, 405, 459; V, 271; at the abjuration, I, 444. His opinion on the procedure, I, 198, 424. His sentence, I, 463. Exerts himself for two imprisoned canons, V, 272. PISAN (Christine de), writes verses on Joan of Arc, IV, 310; V, 3; being in a convent, V, 4. Date of these verses, V, 3, 21. PITHOU, paraphes a trial manuscript, V, 401, 456. Copy that belonged to him, V, 408. PLARCY (the lord of), defender of Troyes, IV, 296. PLESSIS-LÈS-TOURS (château and park of), IV, 279. LATIN POEM on the Maid, V, 24, 83. POISIEUX or PUISIEUX (Aymard de), called Capdorat, page at the siege of Orléans, IV, 143. POITEVIN (Jean), Orléanais, IV, 162 note. POITIERS. The king withdraws to —, V, 340. Joan lodged at —, at Jean Rabateau\u0026rsquo;s, III, 19, 203; IV, 209; at the hôtel de la Rose, IV, 537. Questioned at —, I, 71, 75, 94; III, 17, 22, 74, 82, 93, 116, 209; IV, 128, 210; by whom, III, 19, 74, 92, 102, 203; V, 110, 471. Register of her interrogatories at —, I, 71, 72, 73, 94, 171. Summary of the opinion of the doctors assembled at —, III, 391; IV, 306, 487; V, 471. She is offered the judgement of the church of —, I, 397. Commissioners sent to — for the rehabilitation, II, 282. Meeting of the king\u0026rsquo;s council at —, III, 203. Monuments of the Maid at —, IV, 537; V, 196. Bishop of —. See Combarel. University of —, III, 202. Bourgeoises and ladies of — visiting the Maid, IV, 211. Rue Saint-Étienne at —, IV, 537. Tour Tranchepied surnamed of the Maid at —, V, 196. POITOU. Nobles of — at the Patay expedition, IV, 316. Prodigies seen in — after the deliverance of Orléans, V, 122. — pacified, V, 333. POL (Jean de Hautbourdin, bastard of Saint-), fights with the English at Montépilloy, IV, 83, 194, 387, 433, 435. POLE or LA POULE (William), count of Suffolk, commands at Orléans, III, 26; IV, 58, 82, 96, 106, 131, 230. Summoned by the Maid, I, 240; III, 74; IV, 140, 216, 307; V, 96. Sent to Jargeau by Talbot, IV, 44, 170, 233, 313, 368, 452; V, 295. Tries to parley with the French, III, 96, 97. Taken, III, 15, 72; IV, 13, 45, 65, 173, 234, 369, 479; V, 57, 119, 122, 125. Fights at Montépilloy, IV, 83; at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 49; V, 73. POLE (John), brother of the count of Suffolk, commands at Orléans, IV, 97, 106. Taken at Jargeau, III, 72; IV, 13, 65, 369; IV, 173, 234; V, 120, 122, 125. POLE (Alexandre), brother of the count of Suffolk, dies at Jargeau, IV, 13, 45, 65, 172, 234, 369; V, 120, 122, 125. PONCHON, corruption of the name Poulengy, III, 75. See Poulengy. POLNOIR (Heuves), painter of Tours, V, 154, 155, 258, 271. Héliote, his daughter, V, 154. POMMIERS or POMUS. See Poynings. PONT (Du). See Dupont. PONT-À-CHOISY. See Choisy-sur-Aisne. PONTANUS (Paul), works on the revision of the trial, II, 59, 61; V, 427, 428. Subscribes the indulgences of cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville for the 8 May festival at Orléans, V, 301. His consultation sent to Thomas Basin, III, 319. Error on his name, V, 428. PORCHIER (Jean de), commissioned by the town of Tours to the Maid, V, 155. PONT-L\u0026rsquo;ÉVÊQUE, near Noyon, guarded by the English, IV, 397, 437. Joan makes a raid there, I, 147, 298; IV, 398, 437. PONTOISE. Siege of —, IV, 299. PONT-SAINTE-MAXENCE, submits to the French, IV, 391. Handed back by agreement to the Burgundians, IV, 392; V, 175. PORCHERONS (les), near Paris, IV, 466. PORTEREAU, suburb of Orléans, IV, 96, 97, 108, 226; V, 287, 292, 348. PORTES of Orléans, of Paris, etc. See Orléans, Paris, etc. PORTRAIT of Joan of Arc, at Arras, I, 100, 291, 292. Shown in Germany, V, 270. Carried at the 8 May procession at Orléans, V, 316. Fanciful, IV, 451; V, 396, 452. See Statues. PORTUGAIS (des), fight at the siege of Compiègne, V, 75. POSTEL (Guérould), church advocate, attends the condemnation trial, I, 382, 405. His determination on Joan, I, 358. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. POSTIAU (Guillaume), bourgeois of Orléans, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 28. POTON le Bourguignon, taken at the sortie of Compiègne, IV, 402, 447; V, 177. POTON de Saintrailles. See Saintrailles. POTREL (Laurent), witness at one of the rehabilitation acts, II, 285. POUAINS. See Poynings. SAINT-POUAYÉ, church of Orléans, IV, 103, 138. The Aumône or Hospice —, IV, 106, 138, 145. Bastille —, IV, 157, 164, 283; V, 349. POULENGY (Bertrand de), leads the Maid into France, II, 406, 432, 437, 442, 445, 447, 448, 450, 456; III, 209; IV, 125, 127, 206; exhorts her to dress as a man, II, 457. Armed at the king\u0026rsquo;s expense, V, 258. Friend of Gobert Thibault, III, 75. Lodged at Jacques Boucher\u0026rsquo;s in Orléans, IV, 153. Questioned at Toul for the rehabilitation, II, 455. SAINT-POURÇAIN, in Bourbonnais, III, 208. POYNINGS, alias POMUS, POMMIERS or POUAINS (lord), at the siege of Orléans, IV, 44, 61, 62, 162, 230; V, 294. PRAT or PRATI (Richard du), attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 381. His determination on Joan, I, 337. PRÉAUX (abbey of). See Moret. PRÉS or PRATIS (Jean des), vice-inquisitor general of France, questions Jean d\u0026rsquo;Aulon at Lyon, III, 207. PREDICTIONS, on the coming of the Maid, III, 341; IV, 536. Applied to Joan, II, 444, 447; III, 15, 75, 83, 133, 338, 340, 344; IV, 303, 323, 434, 480; V, 12. On the Bois-Chenu, I, 68, 213. Joan made many —, I, 254; IV, 462, 503; only on France, III, 435; several of this kind, I, 84, 85, 174, 334; III, 424, 425; others in favour of Charles VII, I, 232; III, 424, 426, 464; against the English, I, 179, 241, 252; V, 76; against the Burgundians, I, 66, 254; on the swift deliverance of Orléans, IV, 410; on the taking of the Tourelles, III, 125, 127; IV, 161, 228; on the death of Glasdale, V, 290, 294; on the victory of Patay, III, 120; on Compiègne and the other reconquered towns, IV, 35; on the death of a man who had insulted Joan, III, 102; V, 38; on her entry into Paris, III, 425, 427; on her wound at Orléans, III, 109, 127; IV, 231, 426, 494; on her being betrayed, IV, 272; on her end, III, 426; V, 32; on her execution, IV, 520, 527; on her pacifying the Church and conquering the Holy Land, V, 16; on the duke of Alençon, IV, 39; on the pacification of Bohemia by a woman, III, 436; on the death of Salisbury, IV, 435; on the future greatness of Charles VII, V, 8; and of the dauphin his son, III, 434, 463; on Henry VI king of England, III, 434. PROPHECIES, on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s advent, III, 341; IV, 536. Applied to Joan, II, 444, 447; III, 15, 75, 83, 133, 338, 340, 344; IV, 305, 323, 431, 480; V, 12. On the Bois-Chenu, I, 68, 213. Joan made many —, I, 251; IV, 462, 503; only about France, III, 435; several of that number, I, 84, 85, 174, 334; III, 424, 425; others in favour of Charles VII, I, 232; III, 424, 426, 464; against the English, I, 179, 241, 252; V, 76; against the Burgundians, I, 66, 251; on the prompt deliverance of Orléans, IV, 410; on the capture of the Tourelles, III, 125, 127; IV, 161, 228; on Glasdale\u0026rsquo;s death, V, 290, 294; on the victory of Patay, III, 120; on Compiègne and the other retaken places, IV, 35; on the death of a man who had insulted Joan, III, 102; V, 38; on her entry into Paris, III, 425, 427; on her wound at Orléans, III, 109, 127; IV, 231, 426, 494; on her being betrayed, IV, 272; on her end, III, 426; V, 32; on her execution, IV, 520, 527; on her pacifying the Church and conquering the Holy Land, V, 16; on the duke of Alençon, IV, 39; on the pacification of Bohemia by a woman, III, 436; on Salisbury\u0026rsquo;s death, IV, 435; on the future greatness of Charles VII, V, 8; and of the dauphin his son, III, 434, 465; on Henry VI king of England, III, 434. PRÉMONTRÉ. Testimony of a religious of the order of — on the Maid, III, 433; V, 476. PRERELO or PIERRELOT, surname of Pierre d\u0026rsquo;Arc, V, 151, 220. See Arc (Pierre d\u0026rsquo;). PRESSOIR-ARS. Boulevard and bastille of — or of Rouen, before Orléans, IV, 145, 283; V, 292. Locality of this name, IV, 150. PRESSY (Jean de), knight, I, 15. In relation with Joan at Arras, I, 95, 234. PRESTRE (Jean le), provost of Orléans, IV, 141 note. PRESTRE (Jacquet le), varlet of the town of Orléans, V, 259, 270, 274, 275, 308, 309, 327, 313. PRÉVOST (Jean le), advocate of Rouen, V, 272. PRÉVOSTEAU (Guillaume), promoter of the rehabilitation in 1452, II, 310. Procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109, 138, 155, 159, 191, 197, 262, 266, 285, 286, 287; III, 37, 222, 226, 252, 253, 256, 258, 351, 352. Presents a written petition for his party, II, 163; III, 375. Asks for a copy of the rehabilitation sentence, III, 362. PRIE (the lord of), at the Reims journey, IV, 180. PRISON of Joan, after her capture. See Beaulieu, Beaurevoir, Crotoy (le), Drugy, Eu. In the château of Rouen, I, 18, 113; II, 18, 303, 306, 317, 343, 360; III, 48, 121, 137, 154, 166, 172, 180, 183, 186, 200; IV, 35, 351; how she was guarded there, II, 318, 319; III, 131, 140, 148, 154, 161; IV, 353. See Violences. It was not the ordinary prison, III, 187. Illegality of this —, II, 218, 217, 224; III, 130, 152, 175. The ecclesiastical — asked for by Joan, II, 4, 5, 8, 14, 17, 303; III, 137, 149; desired by several of her judges, III, 59; IV, 265. SAINT-PRIVÉ, field and boulevard before Orléans, IV, 109, 226, 227; V, 292, 293. SAINT-PRIVÉ, church near Metz, V, 321. TRIAL. See Condemnation, Rehabilitation. PROCESSION, at Orléans to obtain the besieged town\u0026rsquo;s deliverance, V, 259; after the deliverance, IV, 166; V, 296, 298, 300; annual at Bourges for the same subject, V, 297; at Tours for the Maid\u0026rsquo;s deliverance, V, 253; proposed at Rouen for her conversion, I, 381; held at Paris for her death, IV, 471. PROVINS. Submission of —, IV, 46, 78. Charles VII and the Maid at —, IV, 21, 78, 187, 201, 381. René d\u0026rsquo;Anjou joins the French there, IV, 23. PRUENECKE, in the diocese of Brixen, III, 457. PUCEAU (le), at the annual procession of Orléans, V, 317, 318. PUCELETTE, denomination applied to Joan, V, 18. PUCELLE (la), surname Joan had given herself, III, 103; given her without her knowledge, I, 46; her voices called her, I, 130; she offers to justify it, III, 175; she signed thus, III, 107. Jeannette la —, II, 387, 400, 402, 403, 407. Joan, — of God, IV, 475, 477; of Domrémy, II, 108, 112; V, 343, 454; of Vaucouleurs, V, 336; of Lorraine, V, 83; of France, V, 83, 322, 323, 328, 402; Pulcela Gallica, IV, 522; of Orléans, V, 219, 226, 229, 234, 246, 374, 389, 395, 401, 403, 404. See Joan. Chronicle of —, IV, 205; from what sources drawn, IV, 203. The book of —, IV, 255. Chronicle of —, in Spanish, V, 331, 374. Procession of —, in various places. See Procession. Cry of the house of Lys, V, 231. The village of Domrémy, surnamed —, V, 248, 249, 251. Tower of —, at Poitiers, V, 196. PUCELLE (Jean de la), Joan\u0026rsquo;s nephew, V, 212, 280. See Lys (Jean du). PUIS (Yvon du), French captain, IV, 396. PUITS (Douot du), present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 373. PULCHRIPATRIS. See Beaupère. PUNEREY, parish of the Barrois, V, 454. PUY (Claude and Pierre du). Manuscripts of —, concerning the Maid, V, 323, 395, 474. PUY (Jean du). See Dupuy. PYTHON. Dissertation on —, III, 456, 457. QUEMIN (Jean du), attends the condemnation trial, I, 59, 69, 81, 92, 196, 202, 382, 405; at the abjuration, I, 444. His opinion on the procedure, I, 200, 426. His determination on Joan, I, 356. QUENAST (Jean). See Cugnot. QUENIVET (Gilles), attends the condemnation trial, I, 92. QUENNEDE. See Kennedy. SAINT-QUENTIN (the town of), disposed to submit to the French, IV, 391. Informed by the duke of Burgundy of Joan\u0026rsquo;s capture, V, 166. QUERCU (de). See Chesne. QUESNEVET (Guillaume), witness at one of the rehabilitation acts, III, 255. QUESNEY (Maurice du), attends the condemnation trial, I, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 189, 196, 202, 375, 381, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443. Exhorts Joan to submit, I, 380. His opinion on the procedure, I, 199, 425. His determination on Joan, I, 337. QUESNOY (Jean du), advocate of Rouen, V, 272. QUEUVILLE (Nicolas de), chancellor of the church of Amiens, prisoner at Crotoy, III, 121; V, 361. QUEVAL (Jacques), deputy of Tournay to Charles VII, V, 124. QUIGNON (Jean), canon of Beauvais, II, 278. QUOQUEREL. See Coquerel. RABAN, bishop of Speyer, III, 467. RABATEAU (Jean), host of the Maid at Poitiers, III, 19, 74, 203; IV, 209; was with her at Orléans, V, 270. Testimony of his wife, III, 82. RADLEY (sir), charged with the defence of Paris, IV, 85, 197. RAGUIER (Hémon), treasurer of Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s wars, V, 257, 265, 266, 267. RAINGUESSON (Jean), godfather of the Maid, II, 395. RAIS (Gilles de Laval, sire de), present at Joan\u0026rsquo;s arrival at Chinon, IV, 363, 407; accompanies her to Orléans, III, 4; IV, 5, 41, 53, 213, 491; V, 290; returns to Blois, IV, 54, 56, 152, 155, 221, 222; V, 290. Attends the council at Jacques Boucher\u0026rsquo;s, IV, 57, 158. Fights at the capture of Saint-Loup, IV, 6, 43; at the capture of the Augustins, IV, 61, 158, 226; at the capture of the Tourelles, IV, 44; V, 261. Leaves Orléans with the Maid, IV, 165. Takes part in the Jargeau expedition, IV, 12; V, 108, 261. Fights at Patay, IV, 238, 239, 319, 371, 419. Goes to Reims, IV, 69, 180, 248, 378; escorts the holy ampulla there, IV, 77, 185; V, 129. Created marshal at the coronation, V, 129. Commands at Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193. Sent to Senlis, IV, 24. Figures at the attack on Paris, IV, 26, 86, 87, 197, 199. Makes war with the false Joan of Arc, V, 333. RAMÉE (Charles de la), Breton captain, IV, 318. RAMESTON (sir Thomas de), commands at the battle of the Herrings, IV, 125. Sent to Talbot\u0026rsquo;s aid, IV, 369, 413. Taken at Patay, IV, 177, 243, 374, 452; V, 263. RAOUL (Mathelin), clerk of the Maid, V, 265, 267. RAOULIN (Robin), advocate of Rouen, V, 272. RATISBONNE. Joan\u0026rsquo;s portrait shown at —, V, 270. Joan represented on stage at —, V, 82. RAULIN (Nicolas), chancellor of Burgundy, I, 15. See Rolin. RAVER (Firmin), canon of Beauvais, II, 135. RAYMOND, the Maid\u0026rsquo;s page, III, 67. RAYMOND le Convers, witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 290; III, 227. REBOURS (Jean le), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 120; III, 373. Created substitute of the promoter, II, 263; acts in that capacity, II, 266; III, 37. RECOUNT (Raoulet de), Orléanais, V, 259. REGIS or LE ROY (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 49, 60; V, 271. Imprisoned because of Joan, V, 272, 273. REGNART (Porte), at Orléans. See Orléans. REGNAULDE. See Huré. REGNAULT (Guillaume), made knight at Jargeau, IV, 44, 65, 173, 238. REHABILITATION of the Maid. Legendary account of —, IV, 521, 528. Trial of —, II, 72; V, 77; its primitive drafting, III, 367; V, 434. Order in which it was definitively drawn up, II, 79; V, 433; negligence of that drafting, V, 436. Conjecture on the minutes of —, V, 433. Inquiries for —. See Inquiry. Sentence of —, III, 355. Summary of the procedure followed for —, III, 277. Description of the manuscripts of —, V, 438, 447. A copy of the trial given to the church of Paris, V, 78, 218; the original put into the Trésor des Chartes, V, 254; the text translated and abridged by order of Louis XII, IV, 257. REIMS. Conspiracy at — in favour of the French, IV, 285, 290, 379. Attitude of — at the French approach, IV, 286. The people of — induced to submit by the neighbouring towns, IV, 296, 298; consulted by quarters, IV, 292; summoned by the king, IV, 291; makes its submission, IV, 298, 379, 514. Arrival of the French at —, III, 72, 76, 118; IV, 77, 184. Coronation of Charles VII at —, I, 94; III, 110; IV, 19, 46, 77, 186, 314, 322, 335, 380, 453, 499; V, 18, 65, 123. Embassy sent to — by the duke of Burgundy, IV, 315; V, 130, 140; by the town of Tournay, V, 124. Stay of the Maid at —, I, 102, 104, 300; III, 199; V, 127; with her father, V, 141, 266. Joan\u0026rsquo;s letters to the inhabitants of —, V, 140, 160, 161; deliberation to answer her, V, 141. Burgundian conspiracy at —, IV, 299; V, 161. Joan\u0026rsquo;s capture announced at —, V, 168. Bailiff of —, IV, 292. Captain of —. See Cauchon (Jean). Archbishop of —. See Chartres, Jouvenel. Notre-Dame or cathedral of —, I, 187, 300; IV, 77, 186, 380; V, 129. Saint-Denis, Saint-Remy, etc. of —. See Saint Denis, Saint-Remy, etc. Château de Porte-Mars at —, IV, 293. Hôtel de l\u0026rsquo;Âne Rayé at —, V, 266. REINEMOULIN. See Lys (Luc de). REMONET, men-at-arms at the siege of Orléans, IV, 112. REMY, near Compiègne, submits to the French, IV, 391. SAINT REMY, patron of Reims, IV, 513; and of Domrémy, II, 393, 400, 403, 407, 410, 412, 422, 443. SAINT-REMY, abbey and church of Reims where the holy ampulla was kept, III, 464; IV, 77, 185, 514; V, 129. REMY (Jean le Fèvre de Saint-). See Fièvre. REQUÊTES (maître des) of the king\u0026rsquo;s hôtel. Joan\u0026rsquo;s words to a —, IV, 212. RESSONS, in Picardy, V, 165. RETHEL (county of), IV, 293. REVELLERS, land of the Orléanais, III, 65. REUILLY (Philippe de), treasurer of the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris, IV, 455. REVELATIONS, of the king about the Maid, I, 56, 75. Of the Maid, when they began, I, 52, 72, 216; II, 437; III, 204; V, 116. Joan\u0026rsquo;s various answers concerning her —, I, 45, 60, 71, 128, 251, 379, 395. On the battle of the Herrings, IV, 125, 128, 206, 208; on the lifting of the siege of Orléans, I, 79, 84, 216, 251; V, 344; on the total expulsion of the English, I, 84, 88, 258; on the complete pacification of France, IV, 437; on Joan\u0026rsquo;s wound before Orléans, I, 79, 251; III, 109; on Boussac\u0026rsquo;s arrival at Orléans, III, 79; on the attack of Saint-Loup of Orléans, III, 68, 79, 106, 124, 126, 212, 223; on the king\u0026rsquo;s coronation, IV, 168, 235; on the siege of Paris, I, 57; on the sortie of Compiègne, IV, 438, 444; on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s captivity, I, 115, 147, 207, 253; on her deliverance from prison, I, 88, 94, 154, 155, 253, 478, 481, 483; on the deliverance of Compiègne, I, 110, 267; on Charles VII, I, 55, 63, 64, 71, 73, 87, 88, 248; on the duke of Orléans, I, 55, 257; on Pierre Cauchon, I, 279; on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s abjuration, I, 456. Several — not fulfilled, I, 298. Accusation concerning the —, I, 247, 294, 250, 328; regarded as heterodox, I, 317; II, 302; as feigned, I, 339, 414, 431, 447. Joan revokes her —, I, 446; upholds them again, I, 457; and to the end, I, 478, 480, 483; III, 150, 170. Defence of the —, II, 22, 62, 240; III, 271, 285, 337. See Voices. RHÔNE (le), confused with the Loire, IV, 526. RICARDI (Bibliothèque), at Florence. Piece on the Maid drawn from —, V, 131. RICHARD the archer, one of those who brought the Maid into France, II, 437, 445, 448, 457. RICHARD (Frère), Augustinian religious; what Joan says of him, I, 99, 102, 291. Predicts the Maid\u0026rsquo;s advent at Troyes, IV, 482. Carries Joan\u0026rsquo;s summons into that town, IV, 290, 296; accompanies her on the Reims journey, IV, 376. Holds the standard at Reims, I, 104. Displeased with Joan, I, 107; hears her confession, II, 450. Indoctrinator of visionaries, IV, 474. Apostate, IV, 382. Sorcerer, IV, 290. Liberalities of the town of Orléans towards him, I, 99 note. RICHARVILLE (Guillaume de), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 21. RICHEMOND (Artus de Bretagne, count of), disgraced constable of Charles VII; warned of the Jargeau expedition by the duke of Alençon, IV, 14. Arrives during the siege of Beaugency, IV, 66, 175, 240; V, 296; despite the king, IV, 316. Welcomed by the Maid, III, 98; whom he implores, IV, 240; who wants to fight him and whom he defies, IV, 317. Besieges Jargeau, IV, 45. Fights at Patay, IV, 16, 67, 242, 319, 419; V, 57. Returns to Beaugency, IV, 245. Withdraws after the battle, IV, 16; by the king\u0026rsquo;s order, IV, 46, 70, 178, 243; despite his supplications, IV, 320. Attempts an expedition on Marchenoir, IV, 179, 246. Expected at Épernay, V, 354. Goes to trouble Normandy, IV, 377, 391. His quarrels with Guillaume de Flavy, V, 369. RICHER (Edmond), historian of the Maid, cited, II, 2, 390; V, 389, 469. Manuscripts he used, V, 395, 452, 460, 465. RIEUX (Pierre de), count of Rochefort, marshal of France, sequestered by Guillaume de Flavy, V, 371, 372. RIFFLART, name of a cannon at Orléans, IV, 105. RIOM. The Maid and the sire d\u0026rsquo;Albret ask for help from the inhabitants of —, V, 147, 148. RIQUIER (Jean), present at Joan\u0026rsquo;s execution, II, 375. Deposes in 1452, II, 373. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. Produced, II, 191. Récolé, III, 45, 188. SAINT-RIQUIER (abbey of). Chronicle of —, V, 357. RIVEL (Jacques de), heir of Pierre Cauchon, II, 193. His petition to the rehabilitation judges, II, 194. RIVEL (Jean de), clerk of the Grand Council of England, I, 19; II, 194; V, 145, 206. Goes to fetch the Paris doctors for Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 57. ROCHE (Jean de La), Poitevin lord, V, 108. ROCHE (Catherine de La), lady of Bourlemont, II, 398. See Bourlemont. ROCHE or DE RUPE (Pierre de La), church notary, II, 92, 122, 132, 244. See Roque. ROCHECHOUART (Louis de), lord of Montpipeau, killed at the battle of the Herrings, IV, 123, 124. See Mortemart. ROCHEFORT (the count of). See Rieux. ROCHEFORT (the lord of), defender of Troyes, IV, 296. Questions the Maid, IV, 297. LA ROCHELLE. Charles VII plans to withdraw there, V, 340. The deliverance of Orléans announced to the inhabitants of —, V, 104 note. The town of — besieged and taken by the false Joan of Arc, V, 329, 330. LA ROCHELLE (Catherine de), what Joan says of her, I, 106, 119, 296. Her visions, I, 106, 108, 297; IV, 473. Accuses the inhabitants of Tours and Angers, IV, 473 note. Deposes against Joan before the official of Paris, I, 295. RODEMACK (the lord of), joins the French, IV, 47. ROGER (Denis), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 28. ROGIER (Hugues), keeper of the seal of the bishop of Beauvais, II, 135. ROGIER (Jean), author on the Maid, IV, 284. ROI (le). See Regis. ROLIN (Jean), cardinal, bishop of Autun, V, 306. ROMAIN (Henri), deputy of Tournay to Charles VII, V, 124. ROME. Inspired woman of — revealed by the Maid, III, 436. Joan believes in the pope, who is at —, I, 83, 244; asks that her trial be sent there, I, 445. Execution of a heretical Carmelite at —, V, 46. Journey of the false Joan of Arc to —, V, 335. ROMMÉE. One of the names of the Maid, I, 191. Family name of her mother, II, 74 note. ROMMÉE (Nicolas), first cousin of the Maid, V, 252. ROMORANTIN, departure place of the Jargeau expedition, IV, 12. Joan goes there, V, 107. RONCESSEY, parish dependent on Neufchâteau, II, 401. ROQUE (Jean), witness at one of the rehabilitation acts, III, 265. ROQUE (Pierre), witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 234, 255, 262, 353. See Roche. ROSAY (Jean de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 382. ROSE (Philippe de La), elected by the Rouen chapter to second Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, V, 218; informs at Rouen on Joan of Arc, II, 157; as substitute of the same cardinal, II, 309, 310; III, 150. ROSIÈRE, instituted at Orléans for the anniversary of the lifting of the siege, V, 317. ROSIÈRES (E. de), provisional clerk of the condemnation trial, I, 24. ROSTOCK (University of), III, 450. ROSTRENEN (the lord of), Breton of the Patay expedition, IV, 316, 318, 320. Sent to the Maid, V, 264. Commanding at Compiègne, V, 370. ROTARIUS. See Royer. ROTSELAËR (the lord of), Fleming, writes news of the Maid, IV, 425. ROTTEBOU (Jean), agent of a German power in France, V, 352. ROUEN. Plan to send Joan against —, V, 71. Supposedly besieged by the Maid, IV, 337. Estates of Normandy assembled at — to vote the money needed for the Maid\u0026rsquo;s purchase, V, 179. Preferred to Paris for conducting her trial, III, 136. Joan taken to —, I, 21; V, 363; sewed as well as any woman of —, I, 51; imprisoned in the château of —. See Prison. Rumours at — during the trial, III, 165, 173, 178, 180, 182, 186, 189, 202. Joan\u0026rsquo;s apostrophe to the town of —, II, 355; III, 53, 185, 202. The Shepherd taken to —, V, 170, 171. Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s letters patent issued at — for the revision of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, II, 1. Citations executed at — for the rehabilitation, II, 123; III, 42, 46, 236, 252, 265. Inquiries made at —. See Inquiry. Cross erected at — in the Maid\u0026rsquo;s honour, III, 361; IV, 528; replaced by a fountain, V, 235, 236. Cathedral or Notre-Dame of —, II, 124, 284, 290; III, 38, 189, 354. Archiepiscopal court of —, III, 183, 195. Archiepiscopal palace of —, II, 118, 136, 158, 282; III, 42, 228, 251, 256, 258, 351, 367. Chapel of the archbishopric of —, I, 404, 459. Chapter of —, I, 5, 20; its deliberations during Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, I, 354; V, 272; its determination on her, I, 353; consulted for the rehabilitation, V, 215, 218. Churches Saint-Michel, Saint-Ouen, etc. of —. See Saint-Michel, Saint-Ouen, etc. Grand\u0026rsquo;salle of the château of —, III, 200. Chambre de parement at the end of the grand\u0026rsquo;salle of the château of —, I, 48, 58, 69, 195, 381; III, 47, 136. Royal chapel of the château of —, I, 38; II, 16; III, 135, 151. Gaol of the château of —, V, 272. House of the royal council at —, I, 5. Grosse tour of —, I, 399. Vieux-Marché of —, I, 468, 469; II, 19, 352; III, 53, 62, 114, 385; IV, 274, 346. Colombier of —, III, 162. Archbishop of —, II, 287; V, 86. The bailiff of — at the Maid\u0026rsquo;s execution, II, 6, 9, 324, 339, 344, 366; III, 150, 187, 197. Lieutenant of the bailiff of —. See Daron, Guesdon. Cohue of —, III, 188. ROUEN, English bastille before Orléans. See Pressoir-ars. ROUILLART (Guillaume), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 30. LA ROUSSE, hostess of Joan at Neufchâteau, I, 51, 214; II, 402, 417, 435, 454; III, 199. ROUSSEAU (Jean-Jacques), gives a manuscript of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial to the Geneva library, V, 403. ROUSSEL (Guillaume), elected to second Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, V, 218. Witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 270; III, 39, 353, 362. ROUSSEL (Jean), witness at the rehabilitation acts, III, 234, 353, 362. ROUSSEL (N.), paraphes a copy of the trial, V, 405. ROUSSEL (Raoul), attends the condemnation trial, I, 6, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 188, 189, 194, 196, 202, 354, 381, 405; V, 271; at the abjuration, I, 444. His determination on Joan, I, 369. His opinion on the torture, I, 403; on the procedure, I, 422. ROUVRAY-SAINT-DENIS, in Beauce, IV, 120, 126, 208; V, 288. ROUX or DE GEMETICIS (Nicolas Le), abbot of Jumièges, attends the condemnation trial, I, 6, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 381, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443. His determination on Joan, I, 367. ROY (Le). See Regis. ROYE (Jeannette de), for le Royer, II, 408. See Roze and Jeannette wife Thévenin. ROYER (Catherine le), questioned at Vaucouleurs, II, 445. Had received Joan at her home, II, 446. ROYER or ROTARIUS (Étienne or Thévenin le), of Domrémy, II, 388, 395, 397, 403, 412. Questioned for the rehabilitation, II, 406. ROYER (Henri le), host of Joan at Vaucouleurs, II, 436, 445, 457. Questioned for the rehabilitation, II, 448. ROYER (Jeannette le). See the following. ROZE, corruption of the name Royer, II, 415, 419, 422, 426, 433. See Jeannette wife Thévenin, Roye. ROZMITAL (Lion de), lord of Blatna, informed about the Maid, IV, 534. RUBE (Jean), canon of Rouen, I, 24, 354. RUEL (Jean de), summoned from Paris to attend Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 57. RULLY, château near Orléans where the Maid stayed, V, 344. RUPE (de). See Roche, Roque. RUPELLA. See Rochelle (Catherine de la). RYEMERSDORF (Albert), bishop of Halberstadt, III, 450. RYS (Jean), attends the Maid\u0026rsquo;s condemnation, I, 459. SABRUVAS (Denis de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 58, 69, 80, 92. SABLÉ. The garrison of — at the Patay expedition, IV, 316. SAINTIGNY, church notary at Coutances, I, 365. SAILLIÈRES, place handed back to the French, IV, 391; retaken by the Burgundians, V, 176. SAINTRAILLES (Jean or the sire de), fights at Orléans, IV, 98, 114, 158, 164; V, 287; at the day of the Herrings, IV, 119; at Montépilloy, IV, 81, 194. SAINTRAILLES (Poton de), brother of the preceding, fights at the defence of Orléans, IV, 98, 114, 116, 117, 141, 142; at the day of the Herrings, IV, 119, 121, 123, 125. Sent as ambassador to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 130, 146; to the rescue of Orléans, IV, 5. Fights at the Tourelles, IV, 44; at Jargeau, IV, 167; at Patay, IV, 68, 177, 371, 419; where Talbot is taken by his archers, IV, 319. Makes the Reims journey, IV, 180, 378. Takes part in the attack on Paris, IV, 197. Holds garrison at Château-Thierry, V, 141. Strips the Burgundians at Choisy-sur-Aisne, IV, 49. Makes with the Maid a raid on Pont-l\u0026rsquo;Évêque, IV, 398. Seizes the person of Jean de Brimeu, IV, 399. Delivers Compiègne, V, 74. Prisoner at the battle of the Shepherd, V, 171, 172, 173. Renowned in England, IV, 477. His praise sung at the annual festival of Orléans, V, 316. SALA (Pierre), author on the secret revealed to Charles VII by the Maid, IV, 277; and on the false Joan of Arc, IV, 281. SALE (Géraud de), church notary, II, 123, 211. SALICIBUS. See Saulx. SALISBURY (the count of), comes to France, V, 79, 117, 285. Commands at the siege of Orléans, IV, 96. Promises the duke of Orléans not to touch his lands, IV, 102; V, 80, 286. Killed by a cannonball, IV, 8, 100, 323, 327, 345, 347, 506; V, 136, 287, 315. Dies at Meun, IV, 101; V, 288. His death predicted, IV, 345 note. Represented in the mystery play of the siege of Orléans, V, 79. SALLE (Guillaume De La), clerk of the Orléans inquiry, III, 2, 35; of Paris, III, 118. SALMON (Robert), provincial of the Carmelites, V, 312. SAMSON (Jacques). See Ignace (le Père). SAINT-SAMSON or SANXON, parish of Orléans, III, 33; V, 274, 278. Shrine of —, V, 311. SANDILLON, village near Orléans, IV, 111. SANDWICH. Proclamation at —, V, 163. SANGUIN (Guillaume), prévôt des marchands of Paris, IV, 464. SANMINIATO (Annales de), cited, IV, 505. SANTÉS (the lord of), at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 441. SARMAIZE or SERMAIZE, birthplace of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s father, II, 388. SARACENS. Prediction of a victory of the Maid over the —, V, 16. The Maid urges the duke of Burgundy to war against the —, V, 126; gives the name of — to the Hussites, V, 157; is threatened by her judges with being abandoned like a Saracen woman, I, 380. SAULTON de Mercadieu, Gascon captain, at the battle of the Herrings, IV, 121. SAULX or SALICIBUS (Richard de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 59, 81, 382, 405. His determination on Joan, I, 358. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. SAUSSART (Nicolas), witness on the Maid, III, 192. SAUSSAYE (collégiale de la), in the diocese of Évreux, II, 356. SAUVAGE and SILVESTRIS (Raoul Le), attends the condemnation trial, I, 39, 48, 58, 81, 92, 381, 404; at the abjuration, I, 443. His determinations on Joan, I, 337, 370. His opinion on the procedure, I, 427. Did not like to speak of this affair, III, 89. SAINT-SAUVEUR, church of Rouen, I, 469; II, 20; III, 385. SAVEUSES (the lord of), defender of Reims, IV, 184; forced to leave it, IV, 294, 379. Fights at Montépilloy, IV, 387. Appointed to the defence of Noyon, IV, 397, 398, 437. SAVOY (the duke of), enemy of the king of France, V, 339. SCALES (Thomas sire de), English captain, before Orléans, I, 240; III, 26, 97; IV, 9, 58, 62, 103, 106, 131. Summoned by Joan, I, 240; IV, 140, 216, 307; V, 96. Commands on the Loire, IV, 67, 176, 233, 239, 318. Taken at Patay, IV, 16, 68, 177, 243, 319, 340, 374, 452, 479; V, 58, 122, 125, 263. SCOT (Thomas), chevaucheur of the king of France, V, 265. SCOTICHRONICON, work of Fordun, IV, 478. SCRIPTORIS. See Ecrivain (l\u0026rsquo;). SECRET revealed by the Maid to Charles VII, III, 103, 112, 209; IV, 128, 278, 312, 350, 355, 426; V, 133; what it was, IV, 258, 271, 280; served to unmask the false Joan of Arc, IV, 281. SÉEZ (bishop of), IV, 473 note; V, 153, 346. Present at the coronation, V, 129. Diocese of —, II, 265. SEFOND, birthplace of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s father, II, 388 note. SAINTE-SEGOLÈNE, church of Metz, V, 323. SEGRÉ (Constantin), abbot of Cormeilles, present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 372. SEGUIN (Pierre or Séguin), examiner of Joan at Poitiers, III, 19, 203; IV, 210. Had the Limousin accent, III, 204. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 202. His deposition introduced into the Chronicle of the Maid, IV, 263. SEINE, river. Bridge established over — at the Paris attack, IV, 28, 343. French retreat beyond —, IV, 50, 89. Trial assessor threatened with drowning in —, II, 10; III, 167, 171. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s remains thrown into —, III, 160, 182, 185, 188, 202, 354; IV, 474, 518. The Shepherd drowned in —, V, 172. SÉJOUR D\u0026rsquo;HONNEUR (le), cited, V, 91. SELLE-GUENAULT (the lord of la), IV, 279. SELLES-en-Berry. Arrival of the French princes and captains at —, V, 108; where the Maid was, V, 107, 262; who stays there again returning from Reims, III, 86. SENEBIER, Genevan bibliographer, cited, V, 405. SENLIS. The English at —, IV, 23, 47, 81, 192, 435. Day of — or of Montépilloy. See Montépilloy. Handed back to the French, IV, 24, 85; to the Maid, IV, 32, 479. Charles VII goes there, IV, 25, 47, 197, 391; V, 69; gives a horse to the Maid there, V, 267. Joan receives communion there, II, 450; has herself adored there, IV, 468. Hackney taken from the bishop of —, I, 104, 160, 264. The bailiff of — condemns Franquet d\u0026rsquo;Arras to death, I, 158. Retreat of the count of Vendôme to —, IV, 50. SENS, refuses passage to the French going to Reims, IV, 286; likewise at their return, IV, 48, 89, 201. Charles VII takes his way towards —, IV, 394; stays there at the end of 1430, IV, 473 note. SEPTSAULX, in Champagne. The French at —, IV, 184, 298. SÉRILLY. Manuscripts of — concerning the Maid, V, 401, 456. SERMAIZE. See Sarmaize. SERNAY (messire), Aragonese, captain of Vendôme, employed at the defence of Orléans, IV, 101, 114, 116, 141 note. SERQUEUX, in Champagne. Riot at —, V, 210. SAINTE-SÉVÈRE (the lord of). See Boussac. SÉVIN (Pierre), Orléanais, V, 331. SICILY (queen of). See Aragon (Yolande d\u0026rsquo;). King of —. See Anjou (Louis d\u0026rsquo;). SIBYLLA FRANCICA, treatise in favour of the Maid, III, 422; notice of this work, V, 475. SIBYL (the), predicted the Maid, V, 12. Parallel of Joan of Arc with the —, III, 424. SIBYLLE, godmother of Joan, I, 46. SIGISMUND, emperor of Germany, III, 395, 465. Officially informed of Joan\u0026rsquo;s exploits, IV, 485; of her death, I, 496; IV, 504. SAINT-SIGISMOND, in Beauce, abandoned by the English, IV, 178, 244. SIGY (the prior of), attends the condemnation trial, I, 59. SILVESTRIS. See Sauvage. SAINT-SILVIN (vicomté de), in Normandy, V, 178. SIMON (Jeannotin), slapped by the Maid, III, 89. SIMON (Gilles de Saint-), fights at the day of Patay, IV, 376. SIONNE (Étienne de), priest at Neufchâteau, questioned for the rehabilitation, II, 401. SIONNE (Gérard de), inhabitant of Domrémy; Hauviette, his wife, deposes for the rehabilitation, II, 417. SIQUEMVILLE (Jean de), French captain, V, 333. SKELBY (lord), IV, 481. SLODZ, author of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s statue at Rouen, V, 235. SOHIER (Guillaume), present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 373. SOHIER (Pierre), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 284. SOISSONS. Submission of — to the French, IV, 20, 46, 78, 187, 381; V, 68. Joan at — in 1429, V, 267; in 1430, IV, 32, 49. Treason of the captain of —, I, 111, 273; who sells himself to the Burgundians, IV, 50. Abbot of Saint-Crépin of —. See Cayrol. SOLOGNE. The siege of Orléans begun from —, IV, 96. The Maid reaches Orléans by —, III, 5, 67, 78, 105; IV, 54, 150, 151, 215, 491; V, 53, 290; attacks the English by —, IV, 7, 58, 60, 225; V, 103. SON (Jean), master mason of the château of Rouen, II, 306, 346; III, 179. SOQUET (Jean), subscribes Joan\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. SORCERY. Joan accused of —, I, 203, 209, 237, 304. Dissertation on —, III, 443. SORCERERS, go on the heath with the fairies, I, 187, 211; frequented the Domrémy tree, I, 210. Frère Richard called —, IV, 290. SORET (Jean), general of the Carmelites, attends the rehabilitation trial, II, 120; III, 373. SOUBISE. Description of the manuscript of —, V, 420, 422, 426, 430. SOUCY (Du), clerk for the 1450 inquiry, V, 422. SOUDAN (Pierre), author or mere copyist of the chronicle of the siege of Orléans, IV, 94. SOUTHAMPTON (county of), V, 194. SPATULOMANCY, kind of divination, III, 448. SPIRE (town and church of), III, 466, 467. See Saint-Germain, Raban. STAFFORD (lord), at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 50. Threatens Joan with his dagger, III, 122. Draws his sword against someone who spoke well of her, III, 140. Subscribes the judges\u0026rsquo; safeguard, III, 243. STATUES raised to the Maid in churches, I, 290. The family asks that one be erected at Rouen, II, 190, 260; III, 297; which is done later, V, 235. Of bronze on the Orléans bridge, IV, 448; V, 222, 223; moved, V, 238; destroyed, V, 242. Of bronze on the Martroi, V, 243. Of stone at Domrémy and at Toul, V, 247, 249. Of bronze placed in the Maid\u0026rsquo;s house, V, 247. Supposedly at Saint-Riquier, V, 356. STEVENOT, French captain at the battle of Patay, IV, 319. STUART (David), lord Rossyth, IV, 478. STUART (John), constable of Scotland, sent to the defence of Orléans, IV, 119. Commands at the day of the Herrings, IV, 122; killed there, IV, 124, 206; V, 288. STUART (John), duke of Albany, regent of Scotland, IV, 483. STUART (William), Scottish captain, at the defence of Orléans, IV, 117. At the day of the Herrings, IV, 119, 122; killed there, IV, 124. STUTTGART (library of), V, 347. STYRIA. Superstition of the women of —, III, 457. SUEUR or SUTORIS (Robert Le), canon of Rouen, V, 218. SUFFOLK, county of England, V, 194. The count of —. See Pole. SULLY-SUR-LOIRE. Charles VII at —, IV, 174, 178, 238, 245; V, 347; the Maid goes to him there, IV, 245; stays there, V, 159, 160, 162; escapes from it, IV, 32. SULLY (the lord of), at the Reims journey, IV, 180. Created count, V, 129. SAINT-SULPICE, church of Metz, IV, 328. EXECUTION of the Maid, II, 6, 8, 14, 19, 352; III, 53, 56, 150, 159, 186, 188, 191, 194, 202; IV, 36, 322, 354, 459, 471; V, 76, 90, 91; her judges threaten her with it, I, 393, 398. Foreseen by her, I, 176; braved, I, 444; predicted, IV, 520, 527. Expiations for —, III, 361. Fables on —, IV, 323, 338, 344, 480, 535. See Bourreau, Bûcher. SURREAU (Laurent), elected to second Cardinal d\u0026rsquo;Estouteville, V, 218. Procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. Attends the rehabilitation sentence, III, 362. SURREAU (Pierre), receiver of finances in Normandy, V, 179, 181, 191, 194, 196, 200, 202, 206, 208. SURREY (county of), V, 194. SUSSEX (county of), V, 194. SUTOR. See Sueur. SYLVIUS (Æneas). See Pie II. SYONIA, SYONNE. See Sionne. SYRENE (Nicole), échevin of Reims, V, 141. TABARD, piece of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s clothing, I, 223. See Men\u0026rsquo;s Clothes. TABERARD. See Tavernier. TAILOR of the Maid. See Bourgeois (Jean), Simon (Jeannotin). TALBOT (John), arrives at Orléans, IV, 103. Commands the siege, IV, 106, 223, 224; V, 288, 292. Lodged at the Saint-Laurent bastille of Orléans, III, 5, 26; IV, 58, 62, 131, 230. Summoned by the Maid, I, 240; III, 7; IV, 140, 216, 307; V, 96; commission she addresses to him, IV, 221. Adventure that befell his confessor, IV, 63, 165; V, 56. Defends Meun and Beaugency, IV, 44, 67, 176, 233, 239, 318, 412; V, 295. Goes to meet Falstolf at Janville, IV, 239, 414, 415. Beaten and taken at Patay, III, 99; IV, 16, 45, 68, 177, 243, 314, 319, 340, 374, 422, 423, 452, 479; V, 58, 120, 122, 125, 263, 296. Led prisoner to Beaugency, III, 75. Confused with Falstolf, IV, 512; to whose rehabilitation he is opposed, IV, 376. Commands at Montépilloy, IV, 83; at the battle of the Shepherd, V, 171. TALBOT (William), keeper of the Maid, I, 48. TALMONT, in Poitou, V, 122. TALMONT (abbot of). See Versailles (Pierre de). TAQUEL (Nicolas), instituted clerk at the condemnation trial, I, 148; II, 317; III, 195. Signs as such, I, 476. Did not attend the great hearings, III, 195. Denies having been intimidated, II, 317. Did not write but listened, III, 195. Receives ten francs as salary, III, 196. Writes the trial instrument, II, 156. Signs the trial abridgement, III, 145, 387. Deposes in 1452, II, 317. Cited before the rehabilitation tribunal, II, 161; III, 41. Deposes, III, 195. Recognises the draft of the twelve articles, III, 143; and his signature on the trial instrument, III, 195. TASSE. Grievance imputed to Joan over a — lost and found, I, 146. TAVERNIER (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 382. His determination on Joan, I, 358. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. TERMES (the sire de). See Armagnac (Thibaud d\u0026rsquo;). HOLY LAND. Conquest of — by the Maid, announced, V, 16. TEUTONICUS (Johannes). Anecdote about him, III, 450, 451. TEXIER or TEXTORIS. See Touraine (Jacques de). THEODORICUS. See Leliis. THERMIS. See Charmes (Simon de). THÉROUANE (De), family of Paris, V, 234. THÉROUENNE (bishop of). See Luxembourg (Louis de). THEROULE (Guillaume), abbot of Mortimer, attends the condemnation trial, I, 404, 459; at the abjuration, I, 443. His determination on Joan, I, 337. His opinion on the procedure, I, 426. His sentence, I, 465. THÉVENIN. See Royer. THEVET (André), cited, IV, 537 note. THIART (the bastard of), Picard, in the English service, IV, 369. Flees at Patay, IV, 373, 424. SAINT-THIBAUD, collegiate church of Metz. The dean of —, author on the Maid, IV, 321, 328; on the false Joan of Arc, V, 321; corrected version of his testimony on this subject, V, 323. THIBAULT (Gobert), devoted to Joan, III, 74. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 73. THIERBONNE (Guichard de), at the Paris assault, IV, 393. THIERRY (Nicolas), dean of Meun-sur-Yèvre, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 22. THIERRY (Wautrin), informs in Lorraine for the rehabilitation, II, 205, 383, 464. THIESSART or TRESSART (Jean), secretary of the king of England, V, 198, 201, 209. His opinion on the Maid, II, 307, 347; III, 182. THIESSELIN (Jacob and Nicole), of Domrémy, their arms, V, 245. THIESSELIN (Jacob and Didier), their epitaph, II, 402 note. THIESSELIN Le Clerc, of Viteau. See Clerc (Le), Viteau. THIEUX, village near Dammartin, IV, 46; V, 69. THOISY (Jean de), bishop of Tournay, sent by Bedford to the duke of Burgundy, IV, 390. THOMASSIN (Mathieu), author on the Maid, IV, 303, 312 note. THORRE-LE-THIL (Jean de), V, 328, 329. THOU (Jacques), Orléanais, deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 28. THOU (Jacques-Auguste de), his name on one of the trial manuscripts, V, 396. THOUARS (Louis d\u0026rsquo;Amboise, viscount of), at Orléans, IV, 419. At the battle of the Herrings, IV, 125; V, 288. At the Reims journey, IV, 180. TIBETOT. See Tiptot. TICHEMONT or THICHTEMONT, in Lorraine, V, 328. TIÉRACHE (archdeacon of), IV, 455. TILLAY (Jamet de), at the battle of the Herrings, III, 125. At the defence of Orléans, III, 3; IV, 142, 156, 158, 164. At Jargeau, IV, 170. At Patay, IV, 177. At the Reims journey, IV, 180. TILLET (Jean Du), works on the originals of the rehabilitation, V, 449. TILLET (N. Du), possessor of a manuscript on Joan of Arc, V, 421. TIPHAINE (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 196, 202, 382, 460; despite himself, III, 47. Tends Joan as physician, III, 48. His sentence, I, 466; which he denies having given, III, 49. Cited for the rehabilitation, III, 44. Deposes, III, 46. TIPTOT (the lord of), member of the grand council of England, III, 243. TONNEAU (Jean), Orléanais, IV, 137. TONNELIER (Jean Le), attends the condemnation trial, I, 382. TORCENAY (Jean de), bailiff of Chaumont, has information taken against Joan, II, 441, 451, 453, 463. TORTURE. Joan threatened with —, I, 399; II, 298; deliberation on this subject, I, 402. Account of the hearing where the threat was made, III, 185. TOUCHET (Hector), church notary, attests a copy of the trial, V, 407. TOUL. Joan\u0026rsquo;s case before the Official of —, I, 128, 215. Joan passes through — going to Nancy, II, 437. Commissioners sent to — for the rehabilitation, II, 282. Witnesses questioned at —, II, 449, 451, 454, 458, 460, 461, 465. Diocese of —, II, 205, 386, 392, 399, 460, 463, 464, 467; IV, 322, 508. Chapter of —, II, 466. Ecclesiastical court of —, II, 465, 467. Schools of —, II, 467. TOUR-D\u0026rsquo;AUVERGNE (the lord of la), at the defence of Orléans, IV, 119, 174. At the battle of the Herrings, IV, 125. At Blois, IV, 130. At Beaugency, IV, 239. TOURAINE. Several parishes of — taxed for the victualling of Orléans, IV, 137 note. Judge of —, V, 154, 155. Bailiff of —, V, 332. TOURAINE (Jacques de), alias Texier or Textoris, summoned from Paris for Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, III, 37; attends, I, 29, 31, 34, 38, 48, 58, 69, 80, 92, 113, 180, 188, 189, 194, 195, 202, 323, 375. Questions the Maid, II, 16; III, 48. His opinion on the procedure, I, 200. Draft of the questions to submit to the consultants written in his hand, III, 232. His determination on Joan, I, 337; exhorts her to submit to the Church, I, 380. Sent to Paris, I, 407, 409, 420. Biased against Joan, III, 140. Paid for his pains, V, 197, 203. TOURELLES or TOURNELLES (bastille of the), or of the end of the Orléans bridge, I, 78, 79, 252; IV, 104, 108, 109, 111, 113, 126, 131, 132, 144, 146, 155, 158, 227, 345, 319; V, 287, 288, 292. Capture, III, 8, 24, 70, 80, 110, 124, 127, 217; IV, 9, 61, 161, 162, 230, 283, 431, 451, 494; V, 55, 103, 293. Extremely strong, III, 94, 215; IV, 8, 102, 158, 348, 365, 493; V, 134. Staging of the capture of —, V, 81. Procession of —, V, 308, 309, 310. See Festival, Procession. TOURNAY (the town of), remains French, IV, 301. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s letter to the inhabitants of —, V, 125. Deputation sent to the coronation by —, V, 124. Bishop of —. See Thoisy. TOURNEBU. See Fournier. TOURS. The town of — sends help to Orléans, IV, 156, 167. The Maid at —, III, 66, 72, 76, 80, 101; IV, 168, 234, 314, 496; V, 295, 349. The scabbards of the Fierbois sword made at —, I, 76, 235; IV, 212. The deliverance of Orléans announced at —, V, 261; as is the battle of Patay, V, 262. Festival at — on the coronation, V, 265. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s request for a girl of —, V, 154, 155. Inhabitants of — accused by Catherine de la Rochelle, IV, 473. Public mourning at — for the Maid\u0026rsquo;s capture, V, 253. Commissioners sent to — for the rehabilitation, II, 282. Papers concerning the Maid kept at —, V, 433. Archbishop of —. See Gelu. Church and chapter of —, V, 154, 155. Tablier of the town of —, V, 154. La Massequière at —, V, 155. TOUROULDE (Marguerite La), wife De Bouligny, hostess of the Maid at Bourges, III, 86. Deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 85. TOUSSAINT (Girard), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 277; III, 44. TOUTMOUILLÉ (Jean), visits Joan the morning of her death, I, 478; II, 3; deposes after her death, I, 480; and in 1450, II, 3. TRÉMOUILLE (the sire de La), witness of the sign Joan brought the king, I, 119, 142, 285. Admitted to a private conference between the Maid and the king, III, 91. Employs himself for the lords of Laval, V, 109. Has the constable removed, IV, 14, 46, 69, 178; who humbles himself before him, IV, 320; as does the count of Perdriac, IV, 46, 320. Betrays before Auxerre, IV, 72, 181, 249; V, 60. Performs at the coronation the office of peer, IV, 380; V, 128. Solicits and obtains the captaincy of Compiègne, IV, 196 note; V, 174. Fights at Montépilloy, IV, 83, 193, 195. Charged with returning the bishop of Senlis\u0026rsquo;s horse, I, 160. Makes the Paris attack fail, IV, 48, 323, 342. Does not want Joan and the duke of Alençon to be together, IV, 30, 48; nor that Joan be sent to Normandy, V, 71. Is the cause that Charles VII did not reconquer all his kingdom, IV, 74. Present at Joan\u0026rsquo;s ennoblement, V, 153. Offer made to Joan to rest on the testimony of —, I, 396. TRÉMOUILLE (the dame de La), pregnant, V, 106. TRENTO (bishopric of), III, 462. TRÉSOR DES CHARTES. Request for the insertion of the rehabilitation trial in —, II, 190, 261; accomplished, V, 254. Which manuscript of the trial was deposited in —, V, 448, 455. TRÈVES. War in the diocese of —, V, 324. TRÈVES en Anjou. The lord of —. See Mâcon (Robert le). The lady of —, his wife, III, 102. TRIQUELLOT, notary, I, 15. TROISSY. See Châtillon. TROPHARD (Jean), subscribes Joan\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. TROYES. The inhabitants of — denounce a conspiracy to those of Reims, IV, 285; implore the help of Reims and Châlons, IV, 290; protest their devotion to the Burgundian cause, IV, 287, 288, 289; send frère Richard to meet the Maid, I, 100, 102, 292; summoned by Charles VII and by the Maid, IV, 287, 288. Review of men-at-arms between Auxerre and —, III, 76. Arrival of the French before —, IV, 18, 72, 181, 247, 251, 289; V, 60. Counsel given by Joan before —, III, 13; IV, 75, 183. Surrender of —, III, 117; IV, 18, 46, 76, 183, 252, 295, 378, 499; V, 63, 130. Joan\u0026rsquo;s entry into —, I, 94; prisoners taken back by her, IV, 76, 184; V, 63, 252. Joan, godmother of a child at —, I, 103; informs the inhabitants of her wound received before Paris, V, 145. The count of Vendôme called to the aid of —, V, 145. Bishop of —. See Leguisé. Dean of —, IV, 296. Bailiff of —, III, 17; V, 145, 327. See Bellier. Salle royale at —, V, 145. TROYES (Jean de), dean of the Paris theology faculty, I, 413, 419. TRUN (sergenterie de), in the vicomté of Argentan, V, 184. TURCIE or levee of the Loire. See Loire. TURELURE (Pierre), examiner of Joan at Poitiers, III, 203. TURPIN (Champ, colombier), at Orléans. See Orléans. TURQUETIL (Eustache), denounces Massieu as a supporter of the Maid, II, 16, 330; III, 154. TURQUOIS (Jean), Orléanais, IV, 126. TYBOUT (Henri), subscribes the Maid\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. UGNY, parish near Vaucouleurs, II, 387, 460, 465. ULRICH (messire), chancellor of Austria, III, 463. UNIVERSITÉ (l\u0026rsquo;) de Paris, consulted on burning the Maid\u0026rsquo;s herald, IV, 42; V, 54. Its doctors employed at Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial, IV, 460; V, 196, 198, 200, 203, 205, 207; bought for money, II, 348; V, 196, 198, 200, 203, 207. Its deliberation on Joan, I, 411; which condemns her, I, 414, 430. See Faculty. Iniquity of its judgement, IV, 260. Writes to the duke of Burgundy, I, 8, 10, 15, 17; to Jean de Luxembourg, I, 10; to Pierre Cauchon, I, 15, 408; to the king of England, I, 17, 407; to the pope, I, 497; to the cardinals, I, 499. Brings the false Joan to Paris, V, 335. Court of conservation of the privileges of —, II, 121, 122; III, 362. The — of Heidelberg, of Leipzig, of Oxford, of Poitiers, etc. See Heidelberg, Leipzig, Oxford, Poitiers, etc. SAINT-URBAIN, in Champagne. The Maid spends a night in the abbey of —, I, 54, 222. URCHES. See Ourches. URFÉ (Claude d\u0026rsquo;); from whom he held the manuscript known under his name, V, 446. URFÉ (Honoré d\u0026rsquo;), grandson of the preceding, V, 447. URFÉ (manuscript of d\u0026rsquo;), what it contains by way of pieces of the condemnation, V, 386, 397. Completed with the Saint-Victor manuscript, V, 400. Described, V, 438. Printed fragments of —, I, 95, 125, 139, 150, 195, 198, 201, 205, 221, 224, 230, 232, 237, 239, 242, 247, 250, 255, 257, 262, 265, 268, 271, 274, 279, 283, 291, 299, 301, 305, 313, 318, 374, 384, 392, 402, 441, 444, 452, 454, 469; III, 367; V, 443. Table of contents of —, III, 375, 387. VACHERET (Jean), subscribes Joan\u0026rsquo;s condemnation by the University of Paris, I, 421. VAILLANT (Pierre), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 30. VAILLY (le bourg de), submits to the French, IV, 78; V, 68. VAL DE LOIRE. See Loire. VAL (Du). See Duval. VALÉE (Jean), attends the condemnation trial, I, 196. VALÉRIEN (Pierre de Saint-), astrologer and negotiator, V, 32 note. SAINT-VALÉRY-SUR-SOMME. The Maid\u0026rsquo;s passage at —, V, 361. VALLADOLID, in Castile, V, 330. VALLÉE (Guillaume), charged with counselling Joan after the abjuration, II, 349. VALLIBUS. See Vaulx. VALLIER (the lord of Saint-), at the Paris attack, IV, 87, 198. VALOIS (country of). Joan taken into —, IV, 480. VALOIS (Charles de), name of Charles VII in English documents, IV, 382, 453, 456. VALPERGUE (Théaulde de), Lombard captain, at the defence of Orléans, IV, 101, 108, 117, 141 note. At the defence of Compiègne, IV, 398. VANDOMME. See Vendôme. VARANIS or VARANIUS (Valeran de), author of a Latin poem on the Maid, V, 83. His dedicatory epistle to Georges d\u0026rsquo;Amboise, V, 86. His epigram to the abbot of Saint-Victor, V, 89. VASTE. See Conte (le). VATICAN. Library of —, what it contains of manuscripts on Joan of Arc, V, 79, 280, 285, 404, 423, 429, 431, 457, 464, 465, 475. VAUCOULEURS. Expedition of the Burgundians against —, II, 392. Joan receives the order to go to —, I, 53, 216, 222; III, 204; V, 29. Joan\u0026rsquo;s journeys to —, I, 53, 94, 217, 219, 221; II, 391, 399, 411, 414, 416, 428, 430, 432, 434, 436; III, 198; IV, 118, 205, 330; V, 29, 118, 289. She stays there, II, 436, 437, 446, 448, 450. See Royer (Henri le). Inquiry of —, II, 435, 439, 441, 445, 448, 465. Joan surnamed of —, V, 132, 336, 401. Marches of —, IV, 204. Captain or bailiff of —. See Baudricourt. Provost of —, II, 387, 451, 464; III, 354; V, 227, 230, 280. See Arc (Jean d\u0026rsquo;). Chapel or Collegiate church of Notre-Dame at —, II, 205, 382, 461, 465. VAULX (Jean de), records Joan\u0026rsquo;s apparition in a classic book, IV, 533. VAULX (Pasquier des), called to the defence council of Paris, IV, 453. Attends the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, I, 122, 125, 131, 405, 459. His opinion on the procedure, I, 424. His sentence, I, 465. VAUTIER (Jean Le), attends the condemnation trial, I, 69, 81. VÉDILLE, French man-at-arms at Orléans, IV, 107. VELLY (Jean de), feasted with the Maid at Orléans, V, 270. VENDERÈS (Nicolas de), attends the condemnation trial, I, 6, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 39, 49, 59, 69, 81, 188, 189, 194, 196, 354, 382, 399, 405, 430, 454, 459; V, 271; at the abjuration, I, 444. Author of the abjuration formula, III, 61. His opinion on the procedure, I, 198, 423. His determination on Joan, I, 347. His opinion on the torture, I, 403. His sentence, I, 463. Deposes after Joan\u0026rsquo;s death, I, 477. VENDÔME. Demonstration of the English against the town of —, IV, 463. Château of — lost and regained, V, 102. Captain of —. See Sernay. VENDÔME (the count of). See Bourbon (Louis de). VENDÔME (the bastard of), takes the Maid before Compiègne, IV, 50, 351, 401, 447; V, 177. Required to hand her over by the bishop of Beauvais, I, 13. Pensioned by the king of England, III, 134. VENETTE, post of the Burgundians at the siege of Compiègne, IV, 399, 401, 441; V, 176. VENICE. Embassy sent by Charles VII to —, III, 115. VERDUZAN. See Lesgot. VEREL (Thomas), present at the rehabilitation demand, III, 373. Substitute of Brehal, II, 280; questions the witnesses at Paris, III, 77, 118, 121, 123. VERET (Raoul), canon of Rouen, I, 354. Cited for the rehabilitation, II, 161; III, 41. VERGILE (Polydore), English historian, cited, IV, 475 note, 476, 480 note. VERGY (Antoine de), Burgundian captain, sent against Vaucouleurs, II, 392 note. VERGY (the bastard of), holds the Maid\u0026rsquo;s brother prisoner, V, 210. VERMANDOIS (bailiff of), I, 67; III, 3. See Arc (Jean d\u0026rsquo;), Hire (la), Mailly (Nicolas de), Tillay. VERNADE (Régnault Guilhen de la), Gascon knight, at Orléans, IV, 133. VERNEUIL (battle of), V, 67. VERNON (Jean de), witness at the rehabilitation trial, II, 120; III, 373. VERRECOURT (Nicolas de), receives abolition from Charles VII, V, 210. VERSES, Latin on the Maid, IV, 305, 427, 481; V, 23, 24, 89. See Chronograms. French on the same subject, IV, 310; V, 4, 313; on Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s distress, IV, 325. Chronicles in —, IV, 329; V, 51. VERSAILLES (Pierre de), abbot of Talmont, examiner of the Maid at Poitiers, III, 19, 74, 83, 92, 102. Word the Maid says to him, III, 84; his testimony on her, III, 202. VESANTIER (Jean), bourgeois of Tours, V, 155. VETERIS or LE VIEIL (Jean), procurator of the d\u0026rsquo;Arc family, II, 109. Witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 270, 353. Substitute of Simon Chapitault, II, 287, 288; III, 222, 226, 232, 233. VEZIERS (Jean and Macée de), allied to the Maid\u0026rsquo;s family, V, 278 note. VIART (Richard), witness at one of the rehabilitation acts, II, 270. VICTOIRE (the abbey Notre-Dame de la), occupied by the English, IV, 22, 47, 83, 433. SAINT-VICTOR (abbey of), at Paris. Manuscript of Joan of Arc\u0026rsquo;s trials kept at —, V, 87, 398, 405, 452; executed by order of abbot Nicaise Delorme, V, 89, 388, 399; used to complete the d\u0026rsquo;Urfé manuscript, V, 440, 445, 447; criticised, V, 417. Another manuscript of —, containing Gerson\u0026rsquo;s opuscule on the Maid, V, 464. SAINT-VICTOR, church of Orléans, IV, 102; V, 312. The shrine of —, V, 311. The — ward petitions against the Maid\u0026rsquo;s monument, V, 240, 244. VIEIL or VIEUX (Le). See Veteris. VIENNA, in Austria. Dominicans of —, II, 70; V, 424, 431. VIENNE, in Dauphiné. Archbishop of —, V, 132. VIENNE (Colet de), conducts the Maid into France, II, 406, 432, 437, 445, 447, 448, 457. VIENNE (la), river, forded by the Bretons, IV, 316. VIRGIN (the Holy), honoured by Joan, I, 67, 105, 110, 147, 165, 168, 212; II, 425, 433, 459, 461; III, 14, 104; IV, 250, 352; see Bermont, Jesus-Maria; who submits her deeds to her, I, 175, 205; swears by her name, I, 75, 157; is reputed the greatest saint after —, I, 290; does homage to her with her armour at Saint-Denis, IV, 29. Appears to Joan, IV, 268, 269, 430. Protectress of Joan, IV, 501; had sent her to the king of France, I, 176. Blasphemed by her, I, 272. Protectress of Orléans, V, 298, 303, 315. Her statue on the Maid\u0026rsquo;s old monument, V, 222, 223. See Bermont. VIEUX-MARCHÉ. See Rouen. VIGÉE (Pierre de La), Burgundian emissary at Reims, IV, 293. VIGEULLES (Philippe de), chronicler, cited, V, 324 note. VIGNIER (the Father), Oratorian, author of \u0026ldquo;the error of those who have cast doubt on the execution of Joan of Arc\u0026rdquo;, V, 321. VIGNOLLES (Amador de), brother of La Hire, IV, 130. See Amade. VIGNOLLES (Étienne de). See Hire (La). VILLARS (Archambaud de), captain of Montargis and seneschal of Beaucaire; at the defence of Orléans, IV, 98, 114, 141 note; at the deliverance of this town, III, 3, 215, 216; IV, 43, 136, 138. VILLE-AU-BOIS or VILLE-EN-BASSIGNY, II, 381. VILLEBRANCHE (Jean de), Breton captain, V, 371, 372. VILLEDART (Thévenin), host of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s brothers at Orléans, V, 260. VILLEROBERT, brings the Maid into France, IV, 32. VILLETTE, in the Messin country, V, 328. VILLETTE (La), near Paris, IV, 199. VILLIERS, in Orléanais, lordship of the Du Lys family, V, 213 note. VILLON (François), what he says of Joan of Arc, V, 91. VINCENNES (bois de); Bedford withdraws there, IV, 233. VINCENT (Laurent), witness at the rehabilitation trial, II, 112. SAINT-VINCENT, church of Rouen, III, 177. See Maire (Jean le). SAINT-VINCENT-DES-VIGNES, church of Orléans, IV, 106. VIOLE (Aignan), deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 126. VIOLENCES done to the Maid in her prison at Beaulieu, IV, 470; at Rouen, II, 8, 298, 303, 318, 363, 371; III, 147, 149, 168. VIRGINITY of Joan vowed to God, I, 127, 128, 137; IV, 352; not by order of her voices, I, 183. Verified by the queen of France, I, 95; by the queen of Sicily, III, 209; V, 87; and other ladies, III, 102; by order of Cauchon, II, 201, 217; III, 39, 63, 193; of the duchess of Bedford, II, 201; III, 89, 135, 163; IV, 352. Attested by a physician, III, 50; by Jeanne Touroulde, III, 88. Not recorded in the trial, III, 54, 59. Tacitly recognised by the judges, I, 183; III, 183. The Maid offers to undergo the test of it, III, 173. VISCONTI (Bonne), presents a petition to the Maid, V, 253. VISCONTI (Philippe-Ange-Marie), duke of Milan. Letter written to him on the subject of the Maid, V, 415. VITEAU or VITELLO (Jeanne de), godmother of the Maid, II, 420, 426. See Jeannette (widow Thiesselin). VITEAU (Thiesselin de), inhabitant of Domrémy, II, 389, 403, 412. VITRY en Champagne, besieged, V, 334. VIVIAN (Jacquet), notable Parisian, IV, 436. VIVILLE en Bassigny, III, 192, 198. VOIAU (Jean), French captain, V, 268. VOILLON (Rigaud de), canon of Tours, V, 134. VOICES. Joan\u0026rsquo;s answers concerning her —, I, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 61, 66, 70, 73, 75, 90, 97, 113, 129, 167, 169, 216, 218, 221, 233, 239, 260, 280, 326, 400, 457, 462, 477, 478, 481; what she said of them outside the trial, III, 12, 219; by what name her — called her, I, 130, 220; in what language they spoke to her, III, 204. The accusation\u0026rsquo;s opinion on the —, I, 233, 273, 278, 294, 328, 333. Joan deceived by her —, I, 477, 480, 483, 484; disobedient to her —, I, 239; by what prayer she invoked her —, I, 279; when she heard them, I, 32, 62, 133, 480, 481; when she heard them for the first time, I, 52, 63, 66, 72, 128; III, 204; V, 27, 116, 132; how they spoke to her, I, 130, 340; III, 12; IV, 168; urge her to go to France, I, 52, 216; V, 118; threaten her if she does not obey their command, V, 132. Joan maintains to the death the truth of her —, I, 478, 479, 480, 482, 484; their divine origin, III, 170. See Catherine (Saint), Saint Margaret, Saint Michael, Revelations. VOLANT (Jean), bourgeois of Orléans, makes supplies to the Maid, V, 269; deposes for the rehabilitation, III, 28. VOSGES (the department of), acquires the Maid\u0026rsquo;s house, V, 248. VOTUS (Socius or Compaing), clerk of the 1452 inquiries, II, 296, 309, 310. Variously employed at the trial of 1455, II, 123, 167, 211, 277, 285. VOUTHON, country of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s maternal family, II, 74 note; V, 252. WANDONNE. See Vendôme. WARNONBOURG. See Wurtemberg. WARWICK (the count of), II, 8, 14, 305, 324, 325. Instigator of the Maid\u0026rsquo;s trial, II, 348; V, 84, 89. Visits the Maid in prison, II, 18; III, 122, 140; spies on her, III, 140; has her tended when ill, III, 51, 244; receives her complaints, III, 147; dismisses those of her keepers who had done her violence, II, 299. Angry against Lafontaine, III, 139; against Massieu, III, 154. Threatens Isambard de La Pierre, II, 10, 325, 349; III, 171. Complains after the abjuration, II, 376. Convenes the clerks to record the relapse, III, 148. Saves Loiselleur\u0026rsquo;s life, III, 162. Subscribes the judges\u0026rsquo; safeguard, III, 243. WARWICK (the child of), employed at the defence of Meun, III, 97. Taken at Patay, IV, 16. WATERIN (Jean), questioned at Domrémy, II, 419. WAVRIN (Jean de), lord of Forestel, chronicler; his testimony on the Maid, IV, 405. Engaged under Falstolf, IV, 413; fights beside him at Patay, IV, 423. WILLOUGHBY or WILBI, English captain, IV, 9, 481. WILZKEHER or WILZKEHET (Leonard), chancellor of Austria, II, 71; V, 423. WINCHESTER. Henri Beaufort, bishop of —, called the Cardinal of England, II, 361; III, 131. Employs against Charles VII the army raised to fight the Hussites, IV, 81, 190, 453. Has Joan\u0026rsquo;s trial made, II, 348; has her tended, III, 51. Attends the abjuration, I, 443. Orders the sentence mitigated, III, 64. Prevents Cauchon being insulted, II, 355; III, 35, 184. Weeps at Joan\u0026rsquo;s execution, II, 6. Has her ashes thrown into the river, III, 185. Subscribes the judges\u0026rsquo; safeguard, III, 243. WINDECK (Eberhard de), German author on the Maid, IV, 485. WURTEMBERG, VURTENBOURG and WARNONBOURG (Ulrich de), protector of the false Joan of Arc, V, 323, 326. WYRCESTER (William), author on the Maid, IV, 475. XAINCOINS, official of Charles VII\u0026rsquo;s government, V, 433. XAINTRAILLES. See Saintrailles. XANTES. See Santés. YANVILLE in Beauce, III, 212; IV, 15, 17, 45, 46, 67, 68, 120, 176, 177, 239, 340, 374, 414, 424, 452; V, 286, 295, 296. Demonstration of the inhabitants of —, IV, 244. Captain of —, IV, 132, 178, 244. Grosse tour of —, IV, 178, 413. YVENET (Jean), witness at the rehabilitation acts, II, 278. YONNE (l\u0026rsquo;), crossed near Auxerre by the French, IV, 247; recrossed at the ford near Sens, IV, 48, 89, 201. YSABELIS. See Isabelle. ZABILLET. See Isabellette. ZANONUS. See Castiglione. END OF THE ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.\n","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/joan-of-arc/letters-poems-and-works-of-joan-of-arc/","section":"Writings","summary":"","title":"The Letters, Poems and Works of Joan of Arc","type":"writings"},{"content":"","date":"1 January 1429","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/valeran-varanius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Valeran Varanius","type":"Poet"},{"content":"An anonymous Benedictine monk of Abingdon Abbey, Berkshire, who compiled the abbey\u0026rsquo;s chronicle (the Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis) towards the end of the twelfth century, drawing on the monastery\u0026rsquo;s charters and records.\n","date":"1 January 1170","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/abingdon-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Monk of Abingdon","type":"Religious"},{"content":"Translated from Joseph Stevenson (ed.), Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, vol. I (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts, Rolls Series, 1858).\nThe History of the Monastery of Abingdon # …had already begun to use a new name for the inhabitants: from his own name, Brutus, he called the island Britain, and his companions Britons. When he had put off the prison of the flesh without the Catholic faith, many kings succeeded him until the time of king Lucius, who were likewise ignorant of the Christian faith.\nThis Lucius, having heard of the fame and holiness of the preachers then dwelling in the city of Rome, sent his envoys with his open letters to the venerable pope Eleutherius, entreating him most devoutly with his whole heart and supplicating most earnestly that by his command and will he might be made a Christian. When his devotion had been ascertained, therefore, the venerable pope Eleutherius, at the instance of his prayers, sent his envoys to the illustrious king Lucius — namely Faganus and Divianus, religious men, and sufficiently instructed in the Catholic faith. These men, with renowned devotion, baptised the king himself and his people with unanimous assent and like concord, destroying the idols and faithfully building churches. To be brief: these two sincere men, devoted to God in all things and through all things, having been made the agents of Christianity, resolved to appoint ministers of Almighty God in every place; and where they found arch-flamens according to the law of the heathen, in their place they substituted archbishops, and where flamens, bishops in like manner. There were at that time three archbishops in three most famous places, namely at London, at York, and at the City of the Legions.\n5. — How long Christianity endured in Britain after king Lucius received Christianity. # Meanwhile king Lucius having gone the way of all flesh, his body was honourably buried in the town of Gloucester, as befitted a royal burial. After his death, to recount much in few words, Christianity endured in Britain in tranquil devotion and holy conduct until the time of the emperor Diocletian; and in those times also, by God\u0026rsquo;s disposing, a most fervent religion of monks flourished within the bounds of Britain, and a devotion of holiness memorable in many places. At that time, however, there was a certain religious monk named Abbennus, who, coming from Ireland to Britain, faithfully preached the word of God as the Holy Spirit gave him utterance. In process of time he came to the court of the most illustrious king of the Britons, where he was received with praise and magnificently honoured by all, and became so dear to the king by the privilege of affection that the king rejoiced to have found in him another Joseph. The aforesaid Abbennus obtained from the king of the Britons, at the instance of his prayers, the greatest part of the province of Berkshire, in which, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent and by the counsel of the realm, he happily founded a monastery, to which he allusively gave the name Abingdon, either from his own name or from the name of the place. For in the language of the Irish, as we have learned from the account of modern men, \u0026ldquo;Abbendon\u0026rdquo; means \u0026ldquo;the dwelling of Abennus\u0026rdquo;; but in the language of the English, \u0026ldquo;Abbendun\u0026rdquo; is commonly called \u0026ldquo;the mount of Abennus\u0026rdquo;.\nThat place lies on the flat of a hill, desirable to look upon, a little beyond the vill now called Sunningwell, between two most pleasant little streams which, enclosing the place between them like a kind of bay, afford a pleasant spectacle to those who behold it and a convenient resource for the inhabitants. The venerable Abbennus also gathered there a copious multitude of monks — three hundred monks or more — serving God there in unceasing devotion; over whom he presided as father and abbot, yet, according to the rule of St Benedict, striving rather to be loved than feared, he profited them all in all things. But in his last days, when his head was white, the holy man Abbennus, following in the footsteps of Christ and despising the glory of the world for His love, and seized with the sweetness of his native soil, made for Ireland; and there, by the disposing of the divine mercy, ended his life in holy conduct. The monastery of Abingdon remained in the Catholic faith and in monastic religion until the coming of the English. And since we have made mention of the English, may the angelic power assist us, that we may utter nothing concerning the English beyond the truth.\n6. — Of the coming of the Saxons into Britain. # In the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 449, Vortigern reigning in Britain — as we have learned from the truthful account of the venerable priest Bede — there came to Britain in seafaring vessels, from the parts of Germany, Saxons, Angles, and Jutes; who, though they were of different provinces, were nevertheless bound together by the greatest integrity of affection and by the confederation of a league. They landed on the island of Britain at the petition of king Vortigern, promising that they would afford him aid against his enemies — namely the Scots and the Picts, who had fiercely warred upon Britain. Yet when things had succeeded to their wish and to what they had greedily conceived in their mind, the Saxons, joining battle with the Scots and Picts, gained the victory. But when this had been reported to Saxony with prosperous event, and at the same time the fertility of the island had been announced and the sluggishness of the Britons made known, a more numerous fleet was in like manner sent back thither by a swift course, carrying a stronger band of armed men; which, heaping dread upon the dread of the Britons and piling strength upon strength, rendered the army invincible. These men, then, dwelling in Britain, after taking counsel with the Scots and Picts and after the lapse of time, found no one who would in any respect resist them, or oppose their jurisdiction perfunctorily or partially. These things being so done, by the disposing of the just Judge of the world, whose providence is not deceived in its ordering, the aforesaid race, laying waste the walled cities and the fields alike, the trees being rooted up, spread their fire everywhere, so that they seemed to have covered the whole surface of the island with death and smoke. But to what purpose! …in the years of his youth, both by nature and by industry; and when he found that he had withdrawn far from his Creator, with eyes and hands lifted up to heaven, drawing long sighs, he burst forth into speech in this manner: \u0026ldquo;O God, Creator of creatures! Have mercy on me, wretched above all men; I have sinned, I have erred, and knowingly denied you! But you, most merciful Lord, who do not will the death of a sinner, but rather that he be converted and live: turn your face to my sobbings, turn the eyes of your mercy to my sighs, and grant me space for the amendment of my life, that I may grieve sufficiently, and blot out the things which from my earliest age I have perpetrated, knowingly and ignorantly, against your will.\u0026rdquo;\nNor did God, to whom every heart lies open and every will speaks, delay to give him the wine of compunction to drink, that he might flee from the face of the bow. So king Ceadwalla, inspired by the free and sudden impulse of the Holy Spirit — who blows when He wills and where He wills, who inspires whom He wills and as much as He wills, who has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He wills — said that he wished to hasten to baptism with all speed, and utterly to renounce the error of paganism. And that it might be done with greater solemnity (although the sacrament in itself has no less efficacy in the baptised on account of the persons of the baptisers, necessity being excluded), having nevertheless set his affairs in good order at home, he made for Rome with hastening steps, where he was honourably received by pope Sergius, and was most gloriously baptised by him on the holy day of the Paschal Sabbath [10 April], in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 689, and was happily called Peter after Blessed Peter. And while he was still in his white garments there, being divested of the prison of the flesh on the twelfth day before the Kalends of May, a Friday, he was buried in the basilica of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and rested in the peace of the heart, awaiting the peace of eternity. Moreover pope Sergius made an epitaph for that king in verse, and decreed that it should be engraved on his sarcophagus; the tenor of the epitaph is this.\nThat the king, a guest, might behold Peter and the seat of Peter,\nfrom whose fountain he might draw pure waters in abundance;\nand catch the dazzling beam with radiant draught,\nfrom which the life-giving radiance streams everywhere;\nand eagerly seizing the rewards of the life renewed,\nconverted, he joyfully changed his barbarous rage, and thence his name;\nand Sergius the bishop bade him be called Peter, like the very father\nof the fountain of the new-born, whom the grace of Christ, cleansing him,\nbore straightway, white-robed, to the citadel of heaven.\nWondrous was the faith of the king, most great the mercy of Christ,\nwhose counsel none may approach.\nFor coming in safety from the utmost bound of the Britons\u0026rsquo; world,\nthrough divers peoples, across the seas, and by the ways,\nhe saw the city of Romulus, and beheld the revered\ntemple of Peter, bearing mystic gifts.\nWhite-clad, he shall walk in fellowship among the sheep of Christ;\nfor in body he holds the tomb, in mind the things above.\nYou would believe he had rather exchanged the insignia of sceptres,\nwhom you see to have earned the kingdom of Christ.\n9. — Description of the vill of Seuekesham, afterwards called Abingdon. # But lest we should pass over in silence the nobility of the vill of Seuekesham, as though ignorant of the truth of the matter, let us for the present put forward something concerning it from credible report worthy of belief. Seuekesham, then, was a famous city, desirable in aspect, full of riches, surrounded by most fertile fields, verdant meadows, wide-spreading plains, and milk-flowing flocks. Here was the royal seat; hither, when the weightiest and most arduous affairs of the realm were being treated, the concourse of the people was made; where also from the earliest times of the Britons the place was a place of religion, both in the time of idolatrous worship and in the time of the Christian religion. In this city also there were many tokens of Christianity from the way of life of the ancient Britons, as has been said above. For crosses and images, which were found dug up in that vill now here, now there, furnish proof of this fact.\n12. — Of the finding of the Black Cross. # Among other crosses there was also found that holy cross which is called the Black Cross. For it is so holy that no one, having sworn an oath upon it, can affirm a lie unpunished and without peril of his life; for it is believed to have been in great part smelted and made from the nails of the Lord. Nor was it deposited there by Constantine the Great, who was created emperor in that region, as some say; but it is more credible that it was sent thither by his well-disposed Britons, whom he had led with him when about to set out for Rome, that the memory of the holiness and merit of both, namely of the mother and of the son, might appear more illustriously where the converse of their bodily presence was magnified. Or certainly it was sent either by Caesar himself or by his mother, for the honour and defence of the country from which he had been raised to the empire, as we have said; by whom, on account of their merits and holiness, it is certain that the cross of the Lord was found. They say that when the little chapel of St Helena herself, who had once dwelt there in the time of the man or of the son, had been rebuilt in the time of the English, that cross was found, through which many signs, declaring the powers of that sanctuary, were shown. How many have been convicted of perjury upon it! The number of its miracles cannot be reckoned. It was honourably treated with one of the reverences that were due (since with so many powers, which we cannot enumerate, lies and false assertions were laid bare); and when the brethren wished to adorn it with gold and silver, whatever was fitted around it on one day they saw had all fallen away and come loose on the next, nor could gold or silver ever be made fast on any part of it; it was only wrapped outwardly all over in a linen cloth.\nKing Ceadwalla, however (on whose soul may God have mercy), not only bestowed on Abingdon the good things enumerated above, but also of his own free will gave licence to Cilla, the sister of Hean the patrician, to build a monastery in the place now called Helenstowe by the Thames; where the virgin, consecrated to God and veiled with the sacred veil, gathered together very many nuns, of whom she afterwards became the mother and abbess. After her death, when a very long interval of time had followed, the aforesaid nuns were translated from that place to the vill called Wytham. But when some years had followed, since a grievous war, unheard of in the world, had arisen between Offa king of the Mercians and Cynewulf king of the West Saxons, at that time a castle had been built upon the hill of Wytham; by reason of which those nuns withdrew from that place, and are not said to have returned thither afterwards.\n13. — Of the death of Ceadwalla, and of king Ine. # It now remains for us to turn our pen back again to the successors of king Ceadwalla, and to describe succinctly, according to the measure of our knowledge, both their misdeeds and their benefactions.\nAnd so, when the death of king Ceadwalla in Wessex was heard of — fame flying, than which nothing is swifter — king Ine, related to him by lineal kinship, succeeded to his inheritance. He at first decreed that the gifts and benefactions of his predecessors Cissa and Ceadwalla, and likewise the greatest part of the inheritance of abbot Hean which chiefly concerned the monastery of Abingdon, should be made void; but afterwards, returning to his heart and repenting of the deed, and keenly understanding those two parts of righteousness of which it is said, \u0026ldquo;Turn from evil and do good\u0026rdquo; [Ps. xxxvi. 27.], he not only turned from evil, but also, doing good, increased the benefactions of that house more abundantly from his own manors and lawful donations. For when what had been taken away had first been restored in full, he gave and granted to the aforesaid house and to the monks serving God there, while abbot Hean was alive and looking on, a written grant of 250 hides, as his following charter witnesses, and confirmed it by his charter. The subscription of this charter is as follows.\n…are decreed; although the word alone would suffice as testimony, yet on account of the uncertain ambiguity of future time they are strengthened by the most steadfast assurance of letters.\nWherefore I, Ine, king of the Saxons, have gladly restored to abbot Hean the land of 173 hides near Abingdon, which king Cissa had once given to him and to his sister Cilla the abbess; but king Ine afterwards, while he held the kingdom, seized that land and restored it to the commonwealth, no monastery having yet been built upon it nor any oratory erected; but afterwards he gave the same land back again to the same Hean, the patrician of that time, for the building of a monastery, saying: \u0026ldquo;I, Ine, monarch of the Saxons, governing the royal sceptres under the reign of the Lord, give back and leave again, with the counsel of many, the land which my predecessors Cissa and the rest are known to have given to Hean the patrician and to his sister Cilla.\u0026rdquo; Then the aforesaid patrician Hean submitted himself, with all his wealth and the aforesaid land, to the service of Almighty God, and chose me as abbot, to build that monastery in the place named above, that is near Abingdon, and to rule it according to the Rule; and of his own accord committed himself to my governance, binding himself by a monk\u0026rsquo;s vow. But now, not yet five full years having elapsed since he vowed those vows that were to be paid, desiring to change the decrees, he took king Ine into support for the recovery of his inheritance; to which things I gladly yielded, and, as I have said, will repay in full the aforesaid land and the monasteries which we built. Moreover I shall add 20 hides from the east side of the river Thames, which Cuthred the sub-king and Æthelred king of the Mercians, and also Ine king of the Saxons, delivered to me; and I have likewise granted 10 hides by the ford of Bestlesford and 100 in Bradenfeld, where I built a monastery, which Ine and Coenred gave together; which together make 273 hides. And I, clemently relaxing the monk\u0026rsquo;s vow which he had pledged to me, have indulged him, in the presence of the venerable bishop Hedda, and of abbot Aldhelm, and Wintra, and all our familia in the church. But if anyone shall attempt to come against this decree of the abbacy, or, relying on tyrannical power, shall endeavour violently to take away or carry off these donations of religious kings, let him know that he shall render account before Christ at the last examination of the living and the dead. Now this deed of settlement was written in the year 699 from the Incarnation of Christ, in the twelfth indiction.\n† I, Ine, king, have consented. † I, Æthelbald, king, have subscribed. † I, Daniel, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Befpha, have subscribed. † I, Egfrid, have subscribed. † I, Herrid, have subscribed. † I, Aldbriht, have subscribed. † I, Stranglic, have subscribed. † I, Halda, have subscribed. † I, Oba, have subscribed. † I, Selred, have subscribed. † I, Egbrith, have subscribed. Charter of king Ine. # I, Ine, king of the West Saxons, for the indulgence of my crimes, gladly bestow some land for the munificence of the church. For by the Lord\u0026rsquo;s disposing it had been granted into the power of abbot Hean in four parts of land: that is, 15 hides in Bradanafel, and 15 hides at Bestlesford, and 25 hides whose name is Stretles, and 80 hides at Alaromundeslee. Which donations, that they might endure the more firmly and tenaciously for the rest of time, were also performed before the highest pontiffs, namely Brihtwald the archbishop and bishop Daniel; and for the greater firmness I also placed turfs of those places upon the book, which those two aforesaid bishops held in their hands. Moreover, that the grant of the aforesaid donation might be preserved the more firmly for ever with inextricable tenacity, we have also added witnesses, whose names are kept inserted below. But if anyone, trusting in the obstinacy of his own temerity, shall endeavour violently to come against these decrees of our settlement, let him know that he shall render account in the dread judgement of the last examination before Christ the Judge, who weighs the deeds of each in the even scale of discretion.\n† Sign of the hand of Ine, king of the West Saxons. † Sign of the hand of Æthelred, king of the Mercians. † Sign of the hand of Æthelfrith. † I, Daniel, servant of the servants of God, have confirmed this donation. This charter was written on the third day before the Nones of July [5 July], in the twelfth indiction, in the year 687 from the Incarnation of Christ. I, Winberct, wrote and subscribed this charter.\n† May this aforesaid land be subject for ever to the church of St Mary at Abingdon. Likewise another charter of king Ine. # I, Ine, king of the West Saxons, for the remedy of my soul, have restored the land of 45 hides to Hean the patrician and to Ceolswitha, for the building of a monastery. Which land is named in Bradanfeld and Bestlesford, and another which is called Stretlea, with all things pertaining to it. To which donation there were present as witnesses Ebba, Æthelbald, and Eadfrith son of Iddi, and with the command of the bishops Cedda, Germanus, and Winfrid. Which land Eadfrith son of Iddi first gave upon the altar in the church which is built there, for his soul.\n† I, Theodore, servant of God, archbishop, have consented and subscribed. 15. — The testament of Hean, before he was made abbot. # I, Hean, by the Lord\u0026rsquo;s disposing abbot, have granted to my sister Cilla, on condition, a certain little possession of land which had been granted into my power by the munificence of my parents, who are known to hold the government of the realm, in the place whose name is Bradenfeld, with the adjacent places, and not less with the other places as is marked below, to possess; so that after my death, if she shall outlive me, she may dispose of it and rule it with the fear of God, and after her may restore it wholly to that monastery. But if by the judgement of Almighty God, while I live, her life\u0026rsquo;s lot shall be determined, the right and disposal of the same place shall fall to me. Now the aforesaid quantity of land in Bradenfeld is 48 hides; in Escesdune, 55; in the place which is called Earmundeslea, 83. The sum brought together amounts to 183 hides. If anyone, therefore, shall attempt to make void this settlement made by me with one accord, and canonically and ecclesiastically confirmed by king Ine and by bishop Daniel, let him know that he shall render account before Christ.\n16. — Of the donation of the vill which is called Sutton. # This Ine moreover first gave and granted to God, and to St Mary, and to the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, the vill of Sutton, in pure and perpetual alms, with all things wholly pertaining to it; which vill the monks possessed freely and quietly in peace until the time of king Kenulf and abbot Rethun, as we shall relate more clearly below.\n17. — How king Ine went to Rome and died there. # But after king Ine had done the aforesaid good things acceptable to God, carefully considering that he had entered the world naked and that he would return naked to the dust — man hastening to the dust — he, prudently disposing for himself lest he should perish by the bite of death of body and soul, crowned with a better end what he had well begun. For leaving his empire and entrusting it to his kinsman Æthelheard, he set out for Rome in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 728; and there, lest he should make a show of his conversion, as though flaunting before the people, he did not lay aside his hair in public, but that he might please the eyes of God alone, who judges the words, the heart, and the reins of men, covered with plebeian garb he lived in concealment and in concealment grew old. So Æthelheard remained in the kingdom. When he died, Cuthred succeeded him; to him Sigebert; to him Cynewulf. When Cynewulf had been defeated in battle by Offa king of the Mercians, king Offa seized for himself all that had been subject to his jurisdiction, from the town of Wallingford on the southern side, from Icknield Street as far as Ashbury, and on the northern side as far as the Thames. This Offa also granted to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there the vill called Gosi in pure and perpetual alms. In the time of this king Offa also, a certain bishop named Rethun, of the kingdom of the Mercians, compelled by insults and the violence of hostility, renounced his bishopric, and receiving the monastic habit in the monastery of Abingdon, afterwards became abbot and father.\nThese are the boundaries of Gosi. # These are the boundaries of Gosi: first to the boundary dyke eastwards; then into the Teal brook; along the Teal brook to the Ock; along the Ock to the boundary dyke; from the boundary dyke to the furrow; from the furrow to the little stream; from the little stream into the Lamb brook; along the Lamb brook to the ford around the outside of the homestead; then back to the boundary dyke eastwards.\n18. — Of Brihtric, king of the West Saxons. # When Cynewulf king of the West Saxons had been slain by Cyneheard, brother of his predecessor Sigebert, his brother Brihtric succeeded him. This Brihtric gave the vill of Estun to one of his princes, named Lulla, and granted to him and confirmed by his charter that the said Lulla might give and assign the aforesaid vill, with all its appurtenances, to whomsoever he wished. The said Lulla, relying on the security of this charter, before his death, with the consent of king Brihtric and the counsel of trustworthy men, desiring to make Christ his heir, gave and granted the aforesaid vill, namely Estun, to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there; and the charter by which king Brihtric had confirmed that land to him — which at that time had more efficacy and force than any other that he could make concerning that land — he placed upon the altar of St Mary at Abingdon. And as a sign of the greater covenant he uttered in English: \u0026ldquo;All my right that I had in Estun I give to St Mary in Abingdon.\u0026rdquo;\n19. — This is the charter of king Brihtric. # In the name of the most merciful Almighty Father, who is the giver of all good things and the preserver of the heavens, the hemisphere, the world, the field, the sea, and the rivers — their Creator and Governor, who alone holds the monarchy of the whole world.\nUnder whose nod, and under the fostering right hand of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s defence, I, Brihtric the king, dispensing the government of the realm, do firmly give and confirm by the sign of the Holy Cross to the prince Lulla, devout and with all zeal most faithful in our affection, a certain portion of land — which he shall purchase from us out of his own means with the fullest price in tried and acceptable money — where it is called by the known Saxon name Eastun, namely 10 dwellings, to possess and to give, with all things pertaining to it, fields and woods, or to leave behind him wheresoever or to whomsoever he shall wish, conveying it into his own right with the authority of these letters and deeds of the witnesses written below.\nThis donation was confirmed and executed in a public place, in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 801, in the ninth indiction, and in the twelfth year of our royal empire granted from the high summit of the heavens.\nNow these are the certain boundaries of this little field: on the northern side it contains Hythwaldanhlau, and on the northern quarter of that embankment the public road extends from the north as far as the eastern end against the rising of the sun, to Othsuiran; and so from the east into the southern quarter, through one valley as far as a certain pool whose name is Ceabbansolo. From that place, by a most straight path along the length of one hedge, it comes to Hwatelegegoete, beyond Bradanleah; and so from that boundary, from the south-west wind or the west wind, it has as its most certain bound a transverse hedge, extending the same length, to Horsanleah as far as Gumanedisc. Then from Gumanedisc into the western quarter, on the southern side over Heigdune, by a fitting course against the setting of the sun it duly turns to Bicanstapule. Then, circling back from Bicanstapule through the depth and middle of a valley beside a heap of stones which we call Stancestil, from the bend it reaches Cothongian; and so, circling round to the aforesaid place, it returns from Cothongian to Hythwaldanhlau. And I shall free this donation from all earthly burdens, except military service and the building of a bridge.\nBut if anyone with obstinate contumacy shall attempt to diminish this our donation, or the testimony and affirmation of our most faithful and venerable men, the bishops and nobles, whose names are found in the margin of this page, let him know that he is subject to canonical sentence, and deprived of our communion in this world or in the world to come, and that he shall render account on the Day of Judgement, unless he shall first have made amends to God and men by just judgement. Whoever fulfils these things which we give, or augments them, we pray may deserve rewards in the world to come with all who shall receive their recompense from God, who rewards all who live justly and piously and act rightly, who alone — just, merciful, and compassionate — remains ever to those who hope in Him.\n† I, Brihtric the king, in conveying and confirming, have traced the sign of the Cross. † I, Eadburh the queen, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cyneberht, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wigberht, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wor, prince, have subscribed. † I, Wihstan, prince, have subscribed. † I, Wigfrith, prince, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wihtbrord, prince, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æse, prince, have subscribed. † I, Ealhmund, prince, have subscribed. † I, Lulla, prince, have consented and subscribed. 20. — Of the death of Offa, king of the Mercians, and the succession of Kenulf. # Meanwhile Offa, king of the Mercians, having gone the way of all flesh, his son Egbert succeeded him in the kingdom, who reigned but a few days after his father and straightway departed this life; to him succeeded Kenulf.\n21. — Of the sisters of Kenulf. # This Kenulf had two sisters by the same mother, not only fair of face but also distinguished by the elegance of good character, and — what is far better — in all things and through all things devoted to Almighty God. Certain most powerful nobles had sought them in marriage, both on account of the royal dignity and on account of their fame worthy of remembrance. When the king (on whose consent and will, I mean, a business of this kind depended) asked them one day with kindly countenance what manner of life they desired to lead, or what husbands they desired to have in this mortal flesh, they, with faces cast down a little to the earth and their minds ever lifted up to heaven, as though it had been given and provided to them from above, gave the king this answer: \u0026ldquo;Most gracious king, your holiness knows well that we are sprung of royal stock. Your kindness knows also, most loving brother, that from our earliest age we have desired with our whole mind and all our strength to serve God and finally to please Him alone. Now therefore we beg your kindness, with heads bowed, hands joined, knees bent, and mournful voice, to grant our petition, that for the love of Him who deigned to be born of a Virgin you would peacefully permit us to remain virgins, and to serve Him for ever in integrity of mind and body — Him whom to serve is to reign. For Him above all mortals, as is fitting, we have already chosen to have for our husband, nor shall we have any other, though we should presently have to suffer sentence of death.\u0026rdquo; To whom the king, full of piety and of the bowels of mercy, answered these words: \u0026ldquo;What then, most beloved sisters and devoted handmaids of God, is settled in your minds? Ask what shall be just, and you shall not suffer repulse.\u0026rdquo; To him the virgins: \u0026ldquo;We will and desire, and moreover we beseech your kindness with all the devotion we can, that you would grant us some small portion of land free from all human service and secular exaction, where we may abide in the service of God. We ask also that after our death we may be able to give that land to God and to St Mary of Abingdon and to the monks serving God there — where our bodies shall have temporal burial — in perpetual alms, free and undisturbed, with all the aforesaid liberty.\u0026rdquo; Then the king, after great deliberation — the archbishops, bishops, earls, and barons of that realm having been summoned — granted to them in their lifetime the vill called Culham, with all things wholly pertaining to it; and after their decease firmly confirmed it to the church of St Mary of Abingdon and the community serving God there, free and undisturbed from all secular exaction, under the anathema of all the bishops, so that the men inhabiting the vill should be subject neither to the king nor to the king\u0026rsquo;s ministers, nor obey the command or jurisdiction of any other, except principally the abbot, or him or those whom the abbot of Abingdon shall appoint as warden or wardens there.\nKing Kenulf also obtained from pope Leo the Third a privilege concerning the ecclesiastical benefice in the same vill, under threat of anathema, that no mortal — whether archbishop, bishop, archdeacon, or dean, or their officials, or their men — should presume to summon to law the church itself, or the rector of the church or the vicar, or anyone else holding the church by annual pension, or exact anything from it whereby it could hereafter be subjected to any episcopal or other jurisdiction, and so suffer the loss of its liberty. The abbot alone, by the benefit of the privilege, shall appoint whomsoever he wills, skilled in the law, who shall diligently hear the complaints and pleas, both criminal and others pertaining to ecclesiastical law, and decide them with canonical finality. From that time also, the priest or clerk of the church of Culham shall receive the chrism on the eve of Easter, by the hand of the sacristan in the church of Abingdon, for the use of baptism and of the sick. And when the rector or vicar of that church departs this life, the abbot of Abingdon, by his own authority — not by the consent or counsel of archbishop, bishop, archdeacon, dean, or any ecclesiastical official — shall give the rectory or vicarage to whom he will, no presentation being made to the diocesan or to any other. But if the abbot of that church should die and the named church fall vacant, the prior and convent, by common counsel, shall both give and assign the rectory or vicarage to whom they will, and confirm it by their charter. Moreover, not only did the venerable pope Leo confirm that vill, with all the aforesaid liberty, to the house of the abbey of Abingdon by his privilege, but he also sent letters of petition to king Kenulf, earnestly requesting that, as the high pontiff himself had privileged, so the king himself would confirm the same vill to Abingdon by his privilege, with all its appurtenances and aforesaid liberties. To which petition, although the king did not immediately assent, yet in due place and time — far better and more advisedly, as will be said below — he assented to the wholesome counsel of the high pontiff.\n22. — Of the times of Rethun, bishop and abbot. # And so, about seven years later, the huntsmen and fowlers of king Kenulf — as that race is wont — living upon the goods of others without shame, presumed to burden the house of Abingdon, now with prodigal expenses and undue exactions, now with various insults and wasteful squanderings of the patrimony of the Crucified, nor would they in any wise desist from such presumption, so detestable, either for prayer or for price. But when the abbot of Abingdon named Rethun and the unanimous convent of that place had borne this with grief, that nothing to the prejudice of their house should be done in future upon such injuries, after manifold admonition had been given both to the king and to the king\u0026rsquo;s ministers that they should desist from such injuries — and none having been received — the abbot and convent appealed for their own state and that of their house to the apostolic see. Nor was there delay: the aforesaid abbot went to the Roman court, where he was graciously received by the venerable pope Leo, and consulted the pontiff himself upon his business as prudently as he could. And the servant of the servants of God, hearing his complaint with gentle courtesy — out of his wonted goodness, from whose heart there ever overflowed an immensity both of piety and of sweetness — counselled him and sent him back to his own in all haste, together with the letters of his protection and the privileges of apostolic authority. Now when the king had already learned, both from the tenor of the high pontiff\u0026rsquo;s letters and from the living voice of their bearer, either that he ought diligently to attend to the liberty of the English Church, and especially to give vigilant heed to the defence of the house of Abingdon, and utterly to desist from the undue exactions and vexations of that house, or else swiftly to incur the indignation of the apostolic see — now with quibbling flatteries, now with thundering threats, as though with dilatory exceptions, he so spun out that business that the king had by now brought it to the smallest possible effect, or to none at all.\nMeanwhile, when the high pontiff had now died, the letters of the abbot himself for the execution of his business were utterly shattered as to their use, as the law attests which says that on the death of the mandator the mandate expires. Seeing which, abbot Rethun and the convent of the house of Abingdon, fearing greatly lest it should be imputed to them in future, to the fault and detriment of their house, that they had obtained the aforesaid letters against the royal dignity, as the king asserted, the aforesaid abbot Rethun, by the counsel of his brethren, went to the king, to speak with him peaceably about his business. And that he might do this the more safely, he carried with him gold and silver to the sum of 120 pounds, judging this to be the best counsel for obtaining the king\u0026rsquo;s love, and the last remedy. When this was done, he offered to the king that little store of silver and gold for the sake of peace, and moreover 100 hides at the royal vill of Sutton near Abingdon. For the sake of which gifts the man of God Rethun so won the king\u0026rsquo;s heart to goodwill towards himself and his house that it was publicly decreed that no one of the royal officials, or of the sheriffs, or of the bishops, should henceforth require anything of gain, or of servitude, or of undue exaction in the possessions pertaining to the church of Abingdon; nay rather, liberty was perpetuated to them all in full.\nAnd so, having obtained an opportunity from this concord, abbot Rethun decreed it useful to himself and to his house to commit to writing those matters which had already been settled between the king and himself, lest they should rise again into a revived dispute, and to transmit them to the notice of posterity. When this had been willingly granted by the king, the king made his privilege to the house of Abingdon concerning the vills pertaining to that house, and likewise concerning his own donations, which are set down one by one in his following privilege. The tenor of the privilege is this.\nCharter of king Kenulf. # In the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 811, in the nineteenth year of Kenulf king of the Mercians from the time when he received the kingdom granted him by God, we, with the brethren in the monastery called Abingdon, unanimously from the least to the greatest, decreeing and granting to Rethun the religious abbot or to his heirs, into his own dominion to have or to enjoy, the free land at the monastery called Abingdon, 310 hides; at Wyrthe, 10 hides; at Aclea, and at Northtun, and Punningstoce, 18 hides; on account of his acceptable money and the devotion which he bore towards us. For we were in the synod at the place called Celichyth before our nobles, and he gave in money what was worth 120 pounds, and with 100 dwellings redeemed the fields then placed under servitude by the hand of strangers: first, at Sunningwell 15 hides, at Eatun 10 hides, at Sandford 10 hides, at Denceswyrthe and at Goseie 30 hides, Culham also with all the places pertaining to Abingdon, at Gainge 10 hides and at Lechamstede 10 hides.\nKnow that this will be done not only for the salvation of my soul but of the whole people of the Mercians. These lands he has liberally acquired for ever from the oppression of earls and from the most harsh servitude of kings, and has enjoined them to serve liberally the church of God\u0026rsquo;s Mother. Therefore we command, by the authority of the ever-Virgin Mary and by the sign of the Holy Cross in which all victory consists, that no one in future shall presume to disturb him, or dare to trouble his successors; but that they possess and govern the aforenamed fields in firm peace and security, and afterwards leave them to whomsoever shall please them. I, Kenulf, king of the Mercians, shall free these lands from all servitude, great or small, of kings, princes, and bishops, for the salvation of my soul and for the whole people of the Mercians, just as it was and is freed from all servitude, with these witnesses of both sexes, monks or laymen, that these our statutes may stand firm for ever. Here below are written the names of the witnesses.\n† I, Kenulf, king, have consented and subscribed in the synod and at the place called Celichyth. † I, Wulfred, archbishop, have confirmed. 23. — The privilege of Kenulf. # In the name of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Redeemer of the world.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 821, in the fourteenth indiction, I, Kenulf, king of the Mercians, preordained by the same God and our Lord over the peoples and tribes into the kingship, in the twenty-fifth year of our empire, was asked by the apostolic see, through the privilege of the most glorious apostolic lord pope Leo and through the venerable bishop Rethun, that to himself, or to his kinsmen, or to the community itself dwelling in the monastery situated at Abingdon — the church dedicated there in honour of St Mary the ever-Virgin and Mother of God — I, giving, should grant in the name of the Lord God Almighty and of the most blessed Peter prince of the apostles, eternal liberty for all time under the patronage of the Holy Trinity: all the places pertaining to the aforesaid monastery, whose names are named below — Culanhom, Chenigtun, Hengesteseig, Cumanora, Earmundeleh, Eatun, Suniggawelle, Sondford, Wudtun, Gaeging, Deniceswurth, Ceornei, Gooseig, Faerhom, Wiethenesfeld, Scriuenanhom, Burghtuun, Laehhamstede, Boxora, Waelingford, with their farmstead-tuns (that is, with their appurtenances), Wicham with its fields, as king Ceadwalla granted it, together with the whole wood called Spene; Wohanleh, Trindlaeh, Eastun, with all the little fields pertaining to the aforesaid places — granting, I shall bestow perpetual liberty, as we have said, in things moveable and immoveable, in causes known and unknown, in small and in great. And we command by mandate, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that no man puffed up with pride shall come upon it, nor the king demand his food, nor those having the men whom we call \u0026ldquo;festingmen\u0026rdquo;, nor those who carry hawks or falcons, or lead horses or dogs; nor shall anyone dare to inflict punishment upon them in any wise. Nor shall prince or reeve dare to change this aforesaid leniency into the burden of any charge, either in our days or in our successors\u0026rsquo;. If the man of God is accused for some offence, let the guardian of that church alone chastise him by his own oath, if he dare; but if not, let him make good the aforesaid offence by a single fine, that he may receive another justice in the way of requital. They shall perform military service with twelve vassals and with as many shields; they shall renew old bridges and fortresses; for the rest, they shall glory in full and entire liberty — especially since they themselves on the Lord\u0026rsquo;s days offer seven most salutary masses for us, and cease not to fight against invisible enemies with spiritual weapons, with a hundred psalters. But if anyone shall be unwilling to obey the aforesaid statutes, let him know that he is alienated from the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, and from participation in the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the authority of the blessed apostle Peter, unless he shall have worthily made amends for what he has done against God\u0026rsquo;s church.\nFor they gave for the sake of this matter 120 pounds in gold and in silver, and a hundred hides at the royal vill called Sutton. And after that most prudent man had accomplished these things, he governed that monastery in the utmost security of peace as long as he lived.\n24. — Of Brihtric, king of the West Saxons. # In these days the aforesaid Brihtric, king of the West Saxons, of whom we have already spoken above, gave to one of his princes, named Hemele, the vill called Mene, and confirmed it to him by his charter, and granted it in every same manner as to his aforesaid prince Lulla; that he too after his death might make whomever he wished his heir of the same land. So the aforesaid Hemele gave the vill of Mene, with the consent of king Brihtric, to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, with all things pertaining to it. He also offered upon the altar of St Mary the charter of king Brihtric himself which he had for the same vill. The tenor of this charter is this:\n25. — The charter of Brihtric concerning Hisseburna. # Almighty God reigning for ever: I, Beorhtric, relying on royal dignity, have granted to Hemele my most faithful prince a certain portion of the land of my right, which my predecessors and kinsmen left me to possess by hereditary right, to possess for ever — for having, giving, exchanging, and leaving behind him to whomsoever shall please him — that is, 36 hides. This I did for his petition, and also in exchange for another field; which field lies by the river called Meonea, of about 34 hides, which king Cynewulf had formerly devotedly granted to him with the affirmation of many skilled men, and had received from him the price in purest gold. But a part of this aforesaid land of Beorhtric\u0026rsquo;s donation is by Hisseburna, to the measure of 26 hides.\n† I, Beorhtric the king, have confirmed this my donation with my own characters of letters, and have confirmed it with the sign of the Cross. † Sign of the hand of Æthelmod, bishop. † Sign of the hand of Cyneberht, bishop. † Sign of the hand of Hemele, patrician. † Sign of the hand of Worr, prince. † Sign of the hand of Beornfrith, sheriff. † Sign of the hand of Wigfrith, sheriff. † Sign of the hand of Lulling, under-king. † Sign of the hand of Wigfrith, sheriff. † Sign of the hand of Wigbald, earl. 26. — Of the death of king Kenulf. # After the departure of Kenulf king of the Mercians, his son the saint Kenelm reigned for a few days; to whom succeeded Ceolwulf, brother of Kenulf; to whom Bertulf. This Bertulf gave to the prince Ælfe 12 hides by the river called Cirnea, and Kalemundesdene. And Ælfe himself, with the consent of king Bertulf, gave to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there the same vill, with the aforesaid 12 hides of land, in every same manner as was said above of the prince Lulla; and this is the charter of king Bertulf.\n27. — The charter of king Bertulf. # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. All things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal. Therefore with fleeting and vain things the eternal and ever-abiding joys of the heavenly life are to be purchased.\nWherefore I, Beorhtulf, king of the Mercians, for the remedy of my soul and for the expiation of all my sins, with the consent also of the bishops and counsellors of my people, have freely given, and do give, a certain part of my land to my prince Ælfe, bestowed into perpetual inheritance: that is, 12 hides by the river called Cirnea, and Kalemundesdene; that he may have and enjoy it, with all the profits pertaining to it, so long as he shall lead his life under the starry heaven, and after his death leave it to whomsoever shall please him.\nMoreover the aforesaid land shall remain secure and immune from all royal and princely tributes and vexatious works, and likewise from every burdensome exaction, except military service and the building of a bridge and the fortification of a fortress. If anyone shall wish to augment and amplify this my donation, may God augment his good things here and hereafter. If anyone shall attempt to break or diminish this, let him know that he shall render account on the Day of Judgement before Christ, unless he shall first have made amends by satisfaction.\nNow the schedule of this donation was written in the year 852 from the Incarnation of Christ, in the fifth indiction, in the royal vill named Escantur, before fitting witnesses whose names are noted annexed below.\n† I, Beorhtulf, king, have confirmed this my donation with the sign of the Cross of Christ. † I, Æthelheard, archbishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Alhun, have consented and subscribed. † I, Mucel, sheriff, have consented. † I, Duda, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Aldred, have subscribed. † I, Eanulf, have subscribed. † I, Willa, have subscribed. † I, Tiddulf, have subscribed. Boundaries. # These are the boundaries of the 12 hides of land at Cirnea and at Kalemundesdene, which king Bertulf granted by charter to Ælfegæ, his father\u0026rsquo;s son: first to Bereford; from the ford to Willa\u0026rsquo;s dyke; from the dyke to Swift\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from the barrow to Ebbeldic; westwards from the dyke to the stream, into Brihtinc\u0026rsquo;s brook; from the brook to the Cirnea over against Stretun; then to the Hrindan brook; from the brook straight on to the stone; from the stone to the winter well; from the well to Theofandene and Longdene; then to Fos and Longesfos; then to Hnic\u0026rsquo;s thorn; from the thorn straight on back to Bereford.\n28. # The bishop Ceolred gave to the same Bertulf king of the Mercians 14 hides by the river Thames for the liberty of certain monasteries; and king Beorhtulf himself gave to the prince Æthelwulf in the same manner as above. And the prince Æthelwulf himself gave to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there the same 12 hides, with the king\u0026rsquo;s charter. The description of this charter is this.\n29. — The charter of king Bertulf. # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. The bishop Ceolred, with the knowledge and licence of my venerable families, shall give to Beorhtulf king of the Mercians that territory at Pangbourne, of 14 hides, by the river called the Thames, for the liberty of these monasteries, that he may have the same land, enjoy and possess it during his lifetime, and after him leave it in perpetual inheritance to whomsoever he shall wish. I, Beorhtulf, king of the Mercians, shall give to the ealdorman Æthelwulf the liberty and the territory at Pangbourne into perpetual inheritance; that is to say, that they be freed from the maintenance of princes, and from that burden which we call in Saxon \u0026ldquo;festingmen\u0026rdquo;; nor shall they send thither men who carry hawks or falcons, or lead dogs or horses; but they shall be freed perpetually for ever. If anyone shall keep this, or shall wish to augment it, may he receive blessing from the Lord God of heaven here and hereafter. But if anyone (which we do not desire) shall wish to break or diminish it in any part, let him know that he shall render account before the tribunal of our Judge, unless he shall first have made amends for these things to God and to men.\nThis was done in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 844, in the sixth indiction, in the third year of king Bertulf\u0026rsquo;s reign; the following witnessing and subscribing, and confirming it with the sign of the Holy Cross, whose names are noted below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Bertulf, king, have granted and subscribed. † I, Sæthryth, queen, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ceolred, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Hunberht, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Heaberht, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eanmund, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Mucel, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Humberht, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Alfstan, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cyneberht, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthel, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Beornoth, have subscribed. † I, Ælfreth, have subscribed. † I, Wilfreth, have subscribed. 30. — Of the death of Brihtric, king of the West Saxons. # When Brihtric king of the West Saxons departed this life, his nephew Egbert succeeded him, the son of Cynewulf who had been defeated by Offa king of the Mercians. This Egbert received all the kings of the whole of Albion into subjection. When he had heard the fame of the goodness of the house of Abingdon, and had seen the donations and benefactions which his aforesaid predecessors had bestowed upon that house in the eyes of charity, he sincerely loved the house itself; which love the showing of his own work most evidently proved. For seeing that the benefactions of his predecessors were very many, while his own were small or none, fearing lest the roots of the barren fig-tree should be cut down in him if he bore no fruits, returning to himself and having death ever before his eyes in unceasing meditation as a thing to be dreaded, he deliberated many times with himself what benefaction he could give to the house of Abingdon in pure and perpetual alms for the remission of his sins. To be brief: at last he came to this, that with the counsel of the magnates of that realm he gave and granted the vill called Mercham, with all things wholly pertaining to it, to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, and confirmed it by his charter. Which charter is this.\n31. — The charter of Egbert, king of the West Saxons, concerning Mercham. # In the name of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 835, in the thirteenth indiction. I, Egbert, king of the West Saxons, gave that monastery of Mercham, of 50 hides, to Abingdon, with the licence and consent of our whole people and the unanimity of all the nobles. This donation was made at Easter in Dorchester, and on the following occasion we liberally confirmed the same donation at Christmas, in the thirty-fourth year of our empire. And thus we command, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that no man puffed up with pride come upon it there, nor the king demand his food, nor those having the men whom we call \u0026ldquo;festingmen\u0026rdquo;, nor those who carry hawks or falcons, or lead horses or dogs. Nor shall anyone dare to inflict punishment upon them in any wise, nor prince nor reeve dare to change this aforesaid leniency into the burden of any charge, either in our days or in our successors\u0026rsquo;. If the man of God is accused for some offence, let the guardian of that church alone chastise him by his oath, if he dare; but if not, let him make good the aforesaid offence with a single fine, that he may receive the other justice of the condition of this requital. What need of more? Let nothing be rendered to any man by force there, neither in palfreys nor in provisions, but let it remain free from all these. Concerning that distress which is named \u0026ldquo;witereden\u0026rdquo;, let it be free, unless each shall nevertheless have paid a price that they may receive such things. Also of the thieves whom they call \u0026ldquo;weregeld-thieves\u0026rdquo;, if they are taken outside, let half the price be given to that church and half to the king; and if taken within, let all be restored to the church. Similarly concerning the inheritance of foreigners, that is of Gauls and Britons and their like, let it be restored to the church. Also let the king hold half the blood-price of foreigners, that is \u0026ldquo;weregeld\u0026rdquo;, and let them restore half to the aforesaid church. Also let every wood which is available to that church and its suburbs be free in all causes; nor shall any part of thick or thin timber be cut there for the king\u0026rsquo;s or a prince\u0026rsquo;s buildings, but let it remain protected and free from all. But if anyone shall be unwilling to obey the aforesaid statutes, let him know that he is alienated from the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church and from participation in the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the authority of the blessed apostle Peter, unless he shall have worthily made amends for what he has done against God\u0026rsquo;s church.\n† I, Egbert, king, have granted and subscribed. † I, Æthelwulf, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, have granted and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have granted and subscribed. † I, Rethun, bishop, have granted and subscribed. † I, Kinred, bishop, have granted and subscribed. † I, Wulflaf, abbot, have granted and subscribed. † I, Eadwald, abbot, have granted and subscribed. † I, Wlfar, ealdorman, have granted and subscribed. † I, Osmod, ealdorman, have granted and subscribed. † I, Wigfred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † And we, many others, together with the witnesses named below, have firmly confirmed this aforesaid liberty in Jesus Christ, confirming it with the sign of the Holy Cross. 32. — Of the death of king Egbert. # When Egbert king of the West Saxons was divested of the prison of the flesh and deprived of this common light, his son Æthelwulf succeeded him, who gave to one of his princes named Alcmund the vill called Ashbury, and (as his charter witnesses) granted to him that he might make whomever he wished his heir. And Alcmund himself gave this vill to the house of Abingdon in pure and perpetual alms, with the charter of the king himself. King Æthelwulf also made a general privilege for all the churches of his realm, to which he had distributed in portions the tenth part of the lands of his realm in pure and perpetual alms, of which the first and chief was the house of Abingdon. The form of his privilege is this.\n33. — How king Æthelwulf gave the tenth part of his kingdom to the churches. # I, Æthelwulf, by the grace of God king of the West Saxons, on the holy and most celebrated Paschal solemnity, for the remedy of my soul and the prosperity of the realm and of the people entrusted to me by Almighty God, have perfected a wholesome counsel with the bishops, earls, and all my nobles, that I would give the tenth part of the lands throughout our realm not only to the holy churches, but also have granted to our ministers established in the same to have it in perpetual liberty, so that such donation may remain fixed and unchangeable, absolved from all royal service and from all servitude of seculars. And it pleased Ælfstan, bishop of the church of Sherborne, Swithun, bishop of the church of Winchester, and the ealdormen generally. This we did in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the blessed ever-Virgin Mary and of all Saints, and for the reverence of the paschal feast, that Almighty God may deign to be propitious to us and our posterity. Now this writ was written in the year 854 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the second indiction, on Easter day, in our palace called Wilton. Whoever shall wish to augment our donation, may Almighty God augment his prosperous days. But if anyone shall presume to diminish or alter it, let him know that he shall render account before the tribunal of Christ, unless he shall first have made amends by satisfaction.\n† I, Æthelwulf, king, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Swithun, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulflaf, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Werferth, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthreth, have consented and subscribed. † I, Alfred, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, have consented. Of the coming of the Danes into England. # About these times some of the Danish race began to come to England by ship, to take plunder, to give themselves to the slaughter of men, and to burn their dwellings. Though they were often routed by the English almost to extermination, yet by the pursuit of their fellow-countrymen they were soon repaired in more numerous multitude. So great seemed to be in them the appetite of reigning or of dominating in England that whatever, opportune or inopportune, was to be endured was borne with an even mind, provided that the hoped-for right of ruling should come their way. Nor yet could they attain this by a slight achievement. For it was sweated over by them in this for not less than two hundred years. Whence England, once supported by very many princes — so that among the nations of the East Saxons and West Saxons, the Mercians and Northumbrians, and also of the men of Kent, there were kings over each — with calamities breaking out afresh, suffered such effusion of human blood at the hand of the Danes that scarcely one prince was left in the realm at whose counsel the rest might be protected. Hence cities overthrown everywhere, villages burnt, monasteries destroyed — their monuments bear witness in very many places, where the remains of walls and buildings are to be seen to this day. And so, the inhabitants of the places being routed, when a respite from wars was in some wise prepared, places long deserted by their cultivators began to be inhabited by others, their lordship and service having been changed.\n34. — Of the death of king Æthelwulf, and how Æthelbald his son confirmed to the church of Abingdon all the donations of Cissa, Ceadwalla, and Ine. # When Æthelwulf died, his son Æthelbald succeeded him. This Æthelbald loved the house of Abingdon among the other churches of his realm, as it were by a certain special prerogative, so much that he not only endowed it with his own benefactions, but also confirmed by his charter, with a donation of his own, the very lands which the first founders of the abbey of Abingdon — namely Cissa, Ceadwalla, and Ine — had given and confirmed to the same abbey, and specified them one by one. The tenor of the charter is this.\n…of the ancientness of times past, and by the diversity of succeeding sovereignties, many things providently disposed by predecessors are for this reason obliterated in the darkness of ignorance, since the original tradition of the ordinances is scarcely found handed down in the marks of letters. But lest any dissension should arise among posterity from accidental objection, things to be left to successors by hereditary right are, according to the ordinance of the skilled appointed of old, to be set forth in writing as it were in place of a testament, that to generations and ages the truth may be declared in the deeds of the past. Wherefore we have judged it useful and necessary to describe clearly in this schedule the quantity of the land of the monastery founded in honour of St Mary, Mother of God and ever-Virgin, situated on the side of the mount of Abingdon, over which the venerable abbot Gumma presides to this day. For on either side of the river Thames, on this side and on that, certain territories had been granted by his predecessors to the right of the aforesaid monastery: in the western quarter of the said river, land given in offering to God by these Saxon kings — Cissa, Ceadwalla, Ine — is contained, the quantity of this number being 250 hides; but in the eastern quarter, in Mercia, 274 hides, land which the most mighty kings gave by this reckoning, of twenty hides, for the sustenance of the servants of God to the aforesaid monastery — whose names may be seen added: Æthelred, Cuthred, Coenred. Moreover king Æthelbald offered his own special oblation to the same monastery, and gave 26 hides in the place at Wachenesfeld, and elsewhere by the stream of Geenge bestowed 10. The aforesaid donations of past kings also he confirmed perpetually, together with his own prelates and princes and also nobles, to the worship of God and to the same aforesaid monastery, whose names, annexed in the subscriptions, declare.\n† Æthelbald, monarch of the English of Britain, confirmed by this sign the donations previously made by his kinsmen and likewise by kings. † I, Daniel, servant of the people of God, confirmed it by canonical subscription with my own hand. † I, Wor, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Forthhere, bishop, at the vill of Basing, at the king\u0026rsquo;s command, have consented and subscribed. † I, Walcstod, bishop, have consented and subscribed. XXXVI # After the death of Æthelbald, his brother Æthelberht succeeded him. Although he reigned for but a short time (namely five years), and did not sufficiently provide for the health of his soul in the distribution of benefactions, nevertheless he was incessantly careful to devote attention to the protection of the Church. When he departed this life, his brother Æthelred reigned. This Æthelred, holding the government of the kingdom, gave and granted to his venerable and familiar prince Æthelwulf 10 hides of land in the vill called Wittenham, in exactly the same manner as the king\u0026rsquo;s charter which follows testifies; namely, that he might make whomsoever he wished his heir after his death. Æthelwulf indeed, not proving unmindful of the aforesaid benefaction, gave and firmly granted to the house of Abingdon that same vill with all that wholly belongs to it, with the consent and will of the king, together with the king\u0026rsquo;s charter expressing the gift itself and the manner of giving; and the king\u0026rsquo;s charter itself, for greater security, he offered with most reverent devotion upon the altar of Abingdon, in honour of God and the Blessed Mary. And this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter.\n37. — Charter of King Æthelred concerning Wittenham # I, Æthelred, by the grace of God king of the West Saxons, give and grant to my beloved and venerable prince Æthelwulf 10 hides of land in the place called Wittenham; that he may have and possess it as a perpetual inheritance, with all the advantages belonging to it, in fields, meadows, pastures and fisheries, as long as he leads his life in this world, and after the end of his life may have free power of giving or granting to whatever heir he pleases. Let this land also remain secure and immune from all royal service and every secular servitude, except military service and the repair of the bridge and the fortification of the fortress. If anyone shall wish to increase and enlarge this my donation, may Almighty God increase his prosperous days. But if anyone shall presume to break or alter it, let him know that he will render account before the tribunal of the eternal Judge on the Day of Judgement, unless he has first made amends by satisfaction.\nNow this charter of donation was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 862, in the royal vill called Mycendefr, before suitable witnesses, whose names are recorded annexed below.\n† I, Æthelred, king, have consented and subscribed. † I, Alfred, the king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have consented and subscribed. † I, Swithun, bishop of the city of Winchester, have consented and subscribed. † I, Alhhard, abbot, and many others, have consented and subscribed. At length, however, this church afterwards possessed the land by the gift of Bishop Siward, together with its description.\n38. — Concerning Laking # At this time the prince Cuthwulf, a thegn of Æthelswith, queen of the Mercians, gave to God, and to the Blessed Mary, and to the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, 15 hides of land in the vill called Laking, with the consent and will of the said queen, in pure and perpetual alms. He also placed the queen\u0026rsquo;s charter upon the altar of St Mary in testimony of his gift. The subscription of this charter is as follows.\n39. — Charter of Queen Æthelswith concerning Laking # …of my own power; that is, 15 hides of land in the place called Laking, in return for his humble obedience and an acceptable payment — namely 1,500 shillings of silver and gold, or fifteen hundred shekels; that he may have and possess it, and enjoy it at his pleasure while he lives, and after his end and the term of his days may freely leave it to whomsoever he wills, in everlasting possession and perpetual inheritance. And this donation was agreed in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 868, in the first indiction. And we charge all the powers of the world, in the name of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, to keep these aforesaid things inviolate; these witnesses subscribing and consenting, whose names are written out after the recital.\nBoundaries of the 15 hides at Laking # These are the boundaries of the 15 hides at Laking: first westward and along the south side of Sceldmere; then from Sceldmere to the narrow way; thence to the boundary hill; and from the boundary hill to Werth\u0026rsquo;s spring; from Werth\u0026rsquo;s spring four acres on the north of Laking.\n† I, Æthelred, king of the West Saxons, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælferth, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfhere, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadwulf, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wigstan, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Mucel, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Alfred, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, have consented and subscribed. † I, Oswald, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelwulf, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Alhhard, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelfrith, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Egbert, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eorhtred, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Burgred, king of the Mercians, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelswith, queen, have consented and subscribed. [The same man afterwards granted this same land to this church.]\n40. — Concerning Farnborough # In exactly the same manner the prince Eadric, a familiar of Ælfflæd, queen of the Mercians, gave to God, and to the Blessed Mary, and to the monks serving God there, the vill called Farnborough, with the consent and will of the said queen, and by the authority of the charter which the aforesaid queen had made to him concerning the above-named vill. He also placed that charter upon the altar of the house of Abingdon, confirming all the right which he had in the same land by the attestation of the queen\u0026rsquo;s charter; of which charter this is the purport.\nCharter of Queen Ælfflæd concerning Farnborough # …who, springing forth by the Holy Spirit from the most sacred womb of the Virgin, at whose bidding all things, heavenly and earthly alike, tremble, and the powers of hell are afraid.\nIn the year 878 of this most glorious Incarnation, I, Æthelflæd, by the aid of heavenly goodness and the bounteous mercy of Christ, ruling the government of the Mercians, with the counsel of my bishops and leading men, gave licence to Eadric, my thegn, to acquire 10 hides of land at Farnborough, to be possessed by him and his heirs in perpetuity. This land Eadric bought from Wullaf for an acceptable price, free from all dues, known or unknown, except military service and the building of the fortress, and a single payment distinct from all others. King Offa of the Mercians had granted this land to Bynna, Wullaf\u0026rsquo;s great-grandfather, and confirmed it in writing. It chanced that in the year of the eclipse of the sun the former deed was lost; but now, by our licence and confirmation, the old deed is written out afresh; and if the charter of any matter should be found, let it be burnt with fire. The charter of this donation and confirmation was written in the year of the Divine Incarnation as found above, on the fifth day before the Ides of September, that is, 9 September, at the place called Weardburg. To those who keep it, prosperity, life and salvation; but to those who diminish and break it, death, punishment and perdition.\nThe names attesting this confirmation and testimony appear below.\n† I, Æthelflæd, confirm this my licence with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfwyn, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwine, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelhun, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadgar, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelferd, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelhun, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Egbert, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cynath, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wihtred, have consented and subscribed. † I, Beorhtsige, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelnoth, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelward, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, have consented and subscribed. 41. — Of the Coming of the Danes into England and the Destruction of Abingdon # Now in the time of King Æthelred, as we have learnt from the sequence of the deeds of the English, a very great people is reported to have come into England by ship from Danubia. Its principal leaders and captains are recorded to have been the bloodthirsty men Ingwar and Hubba. These Danes landed in the kingdom of the Northumbrians in the winter season. And such was their appetite for ruling over it — as much for the pleasantness of the place as for the fertility of the island and the abundance of all good things — that they spared none of the natives, whatever their rank, age or sex, even in the extremity of death. Men and women were slain, together with infants still hanging at their mothers\u0026rsquo; breasts; cities on every side were overthrown and villages set on fire here and there; and they laid waste the neighbouring provinces, once so prosperous, with such unhappy devastation that they did not even shrink from laying hands on the Holy of Holies. Thus a foreign race overthrew the house of Gideon; a kid snatched away the covenant of the lamb; a wretched people scourged the horn of David; and the city sat solitary that had been full of a violent people. So cities were overthrown together with their monasteries, whose remains still bear witness in very many places, as where the remnants of walls and ramparts are seen half-ruined to this day. What need of many words? These Danes, passing from kingdom to kingdom and from people to people, exalting their insolence as though it were a mark of victory, came at last with ill-omened steps into Wessex; where, raging in the same manner as in all other places, they finally destroyed the sacrosanct and venerable house of Abingdon — which so many holy kings and men of such authority, named above, had founded and enriched with various endowments — with so hostile a hand, such leonine ferocity and such detestable greed, the monks being utterly put to flight, that they are said to have left nothing there but the walls. Yet it was divinely provided that the relics of the saints, together with the charters of that house — which we have noted above in this book, and which are to be noted below — were secretly preserved; perhaps to the end that through those same charters the future restorers and discoverers of that monastery might be made more certain concerning the lands rightfully belonging to that church. O what grief and what anguish, and who is of so stiff a neck, so iron a breast, so adamantine a heart, that he can hear these things and refrain from tears! So when the God-loving men had been driven from their mother\u0026rsquo;s bosom, foreigners seized upon that place, so holy and so honourable, not only presumptuously but irreverently — and these were Danes, nay rather pagans. And when certain of their company, puffed up with the spirit of pride, sat one day in the Refectory after the manner of monks, and conducted themselves in all things as scurrilously as indecorously, a miracle of this sort occurred, which must not be passed over in silence.\n42. — How the Image drove the Danes out of the Refectory # For the image affixed to the cross, which had been set in the middle of the dining-table — that image, as though indignant at the filthy crew of pagans reclining there, is said, with marvellous movement, a moving arm and a bending finger, to have pulled stones out of the walling of the Refectory with potent strength and admirable force; and by means of these it raged upon that very multitude of pagans with a terrible whirlwind such as had never been heard of. Yet the image did not cease from such stoning until it had driven all the satellites of Satan utterly out of the Refectory — and that not at a foot\u0026rsquo;s pace or marching after the manner of tortoises. These are the works of Christ, worthy of all praise, for whom nothing is difficult. Although He has decreed that each nature is bound by fixed rules, and has so provided that none of them can by any effort advance beyond its prescribed bounds, nor of itself fall short of them, yet their Author, when He wills, where He wills, and as He wills, wonderfully makes His marvels plain through any nature whatsoever, rational or irrational, animate or inanimate; so that all may know that whenever the thing made grows proud against its Maker, or the moulded thing against the potter, or the creature lifts its heel against its Creator, by the just judgement of God it shall find itself sinking into the deep while it strains for the heights without due caution. Let man of wretched condition, therefore, learn from the unfolding of this miracle how dangerous it is to be proud, and how pernicious to arrogate anything to oneself, to detract from anyone, or to take anything away; and let him mark how safe it is to follow the path of humility, and to fear God, to whom every knee is bent; and likewise how honourable it is steadfastly to observe that very law of nature, than which no law is fairer or juster, which says: What you would not have done to yourself, do not to another.\n43. — Of another Miracle # Another miracle also, no less worthy of admiration, is said to have occurred through the same image not long afterwards. For a certain brother had entered the refectory to relieve the thirst he had long endured, with no companion of his order beside him; and, not unmindful, before tasting any of the drink he signed the cup with the sign of the cross and pronounced the customary blessing; whereupon the image answered in a living voice and with full mouth, saying distinctly and plainly, \u0026lsquo;Verily.\u0026rsquo; When the brother heard this — being as it were in ecstasy, for he saw no one, and pondered the presence of the unfamiliar voice — he sat down alone, and considered within himself more earnestly what this could be. What need of many words? At length, recalling that in doubtful matters one should judge the more kindly and the more reverently, he lifted his eyes to the image; and remembering how great and how marvellous were the works God had deigned to perform through that subject creature, he held that what his fancy was wont to foretell in him must necessarily be ascribed to the cross. There is therefore no doubt that the image spoke; nor is it a matter for wonder if God — who takes away and who bestows, who created all things out of nothing, that is, not out of pre-existing matter — brought forth a sounding voice from an inanimate creature, as though uttered through a throat; He who once wonderfully granted to Balaam\u0026rsquo;s ass first to resist the prophet, and then to warn him in a living voice not to proceed further on his way. These are Thy works, good Jesus, to whom be praise and glory.\n44. — Of the Rebuilding of Abingdon # Now it remains for us to turn our pen back to the rebuilding of the house of Abingdon. So when Æthelred, king of the West Saxons, had entered the way of all flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, merciful and compassionate — whose mercy and truth are over all His works, who suffers the pious to endure and the impious to reign — became a ready helper in tribulation to the orphaned children of the holy mother church of Abingdon, He who of His grace knows such great mercy towards His servants. For He raised up successors to King Æthelred who with pious desire — as will be shown below — vied in devoting care to the repair of that house; among whom was the aforesaid King Alfred, King Æthelred\u0026rsquo;s brother, who first took up the government of the kingdom after Æthelred. He indeed, heaping evils upon evils, like Judas among the Twelve, violently wrested from the aforesaid monastery the vill in which the monastery is situated — vulgarly called Abingdon — with all its appurtenances, making an unequal recompense to the victorious Lord for the victory He had granted him over the defeated Danes at Ashdown. In his time the said King Alfred gave to a certain faithful man of his named Deormod, in return for his service and homage, the vill called Appleford, and — as the king\u0026rsquo;s charter testifies — granted him leave to appoint whomsoever he wished as his heir. The aforesaid Deormod therefore appointed God, and the Blessed Mary, and the church of Abingdon as his heir, that gift being attested as ratified and unshaken after the death of the said king. The tenor of this charter is as follows.\n45. — Charter of Alfred, King of the West Saxons, concerning Appleford # Whatever is to be granted to faithful men by royal gift ought to be secured by a written charter, because the frail memory of men fades, while written record always brings it back to remembrance.\nWherefore I, Alfred, king of the Anglo-Saxons, give and grant to a certain faithful man of mine named Deormod a small vill of five hides named Appleford, in exchange for another small piece of land which the inhabitants call Harrendun. With such hereditary right, therefore, I hand it over and grant it to him, that after the end of his life he may pass it on as a perpetual inheritance to whatever heir he chooses, or to some monastery of the saints, as he himself shall will. Let this present land be free from all secular service, except these three: national military service, the repair of the road-bridge, and the building of the royal fortress. But if anyone, kindled by the flame of greed, shall attempt to break this little charter of ours, let him be damned and buried in the lowest hell with Judas the apostate and Pilate, and with all who unjustly possess the sanctuary of God.\nDeormod bought from King Alfred, for fifty mancuses of refined gold, five hides of land in everlasting possession, free of every duty except military service and fortress-work — secured upon this land.\nAnd that this writing may obtain inviolable firmness, I the king first confirm it with the royal seal, and command my faithful men to be witnesses to its confirmation.\n† Sign of Alfred, the king. † Sign of Edward, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † Sign of Wulfric, thegn. † Sign of Deormod, thegn. † Sign of Ælfrith, thegn. † Sign of Sigulf, thegn. † Sign of Wulfric, thegn. † Sign of Beornmund, thegn. † Sign of Ealhmund, thegn. † Sign of Æthelhelm, thegn. Boundaries of Appleford # These are the boundaries of Appleford: first to the stream that runs west of Dyrnangelade; along the stream up to a furrow; then to the wide gate; along the dyke to the moor that lies between Sutton and Wittenham; and so on along the moor to the old dyke that lies between Wigbaldincgtun and Appleford; and from the old dyke to Diceswelle; from Diceswelle to Sandgewyrp; and from Sandgewyrp out to the Thames.\n46. — Of the Death of Alfred, King of the West Saxons, and the Succession of his Son Edward # …that he might make whomsoever he wished his heir in the same land after his death, without any contradiction; and the king\u0026rsquo;s charter testifies to this same thing. The said Ælfstan, trusting in the security of this charter, gave that land to God, and to the Blessed Mary, and to the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and in token of this donation — as was then the custom — he placed upon the altar of the Blessed Mary of Abingdon the king\u0026rsquo;s charter whereby he held his whole right in the said land, in the presence of the king himself and his magnates, no one gainsaying his gift. The tenor of this charter is as follows.\n47. — Charter of King Edward concerning Sevenhampton # Nothing in this world enjoys lasting felicity, nothing possesses enduring dominion, nothing that does not hasten with swift course to the fated term of life. And therefore, as the examples of the orthodox show, we must so enjoy the patrimony of worldly things that we are never deprived of the benefits of the eternal fatherland.\nWherefore I, Edward, king of the English by the favouring dominion of the high-throned Governor, will freely give to a certain thegn of mine named Ælfstan 10 hides at the place called Sevenhampton, that he may have and possess them, and after him leave them to whatever heir he pleases. Let the aforesaid land be free from all worldly service, excepting three things: the repair of the road-bridge, the building of the royal fortress, and also national military service. But if anyone — which God forbid — kindled by the flame of greed, shall attempt to infringe this gift of ours, let him know that he will be damned with the sons of perdition in the torments of hell, unless, repenting, he makes amends by due satisfaction. Now the boundaries of the aforesaid land are these.\nBoundaries of Sevenhampton # These are the boundaries of Sevenhampton: first to the grey apple-tree; from the apple-tree along Pinna\u0026rsquo;s clearing; from the clearing between Morsceaga and Middle-lea, across to the old dyke; from the dyke along the ridge to Byde\u0026rsquo;s spring; from the spring along the street to the hail-thorn; from the thorn along the ridge to Hoda\u0026rsquo;s mere, straight on to the five thorns; from the five thorns across to the old elder stump; from the stump to the old dyke; from the dyke along the highway until it comes north of Bien\u0026rsquo;s hill into the valley; then along the furrow to the narrow way; then along the way to the willow; from the willow to the stone spring; from the spring across to the gore; from the gore to the bend of the brook; from the bend to the old earthwork; from the earthwork to the oak stump; from the stump back to the grey apple-tree.\nThis charter of the royal gift was therefore written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 1043, in the eleventh indiction, with these men confirming, whose names are set out below and appear recorded for those who read.\n† I, Edward, king of the English, confirmed my gift with the sign of the cross. † I, Ælfgifu, mother of the aforesaid king, confirmed the royal gift. † I, Eadsige, archbishop, confirmed it with the nourishing standard of the holy cross. † I, Ælfric, archbishop, willingly confirmed this grant. † I, Brihtwold, bishop. † I, Æthelstan, bishop. † I, Godwine, ealdorman. † I, Godeman, priest. † I, Karl, thegn. † I, Ælfget, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, reeve. † I, Ælfwine, bishop. † I, Grimkytel, bishop. † I, Duduc, bishop. † I, Lyfing, bishop. † I, Brihtwine, bishop. † I, Eadnoth, bishop. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Ælfwine, abbot. † I, Siward, abbot. † I, Wulfsige, abbot. † I, Leofric, priest. † I, Siward, ealdorman. † I, Swegen, ealdorman. † I, Eadwold, priest. † I, Hereman, priest. † I, Leofric, priest. † I, Osgod, soldier. † I, Ælfstan, soldier. † I, Esbern, soldier. † I, Lyfing, soldier. † I, Ordgar, soldier. † I, Odda, thegn. † I, Brihtric, thegn. † I, Dodda Æthelmer. † I, Urki, thegn. † I, Ælfget, thegn. † I, Wulfnoth, reeve. † I, Cyneweard, reeve. † I, Thokig, thegn. † I, Æthelmaer, thegn. † I, Leofric and Tofig, thegns. † I, Ælfwig, reeve. † I, Æthelmer, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Totig, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Godsunu, thegn. † I, Ulfkitel and Æthelric, thegns. 48. — How the King gave Hordwell to Æthelhunflo # This Edward, king of all England, while he still drew the breath of life, gave Hordwell, of three hides, to a certain vassal of his, Tata Æthelhunflo, in pure and perpetual alms, and confirmed it by his charter. He further granted him that he might make whomsoever he wished his heir in the same land after his death, without any contradiction; and the king\u0026rsquo;s charter testifies to this same thing. The said Tata Æthelhunflo, trusting in the security of this charter, gave that land to God, to the Blessed Mary, and to the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and in token of this donation — as was then the custom — he placed upon the altar of the Blessed Mary of Abingdon the king\u0026rsquo;s charter whereby he held all the right he had in the said land, in the presence of the king himself and his magnates, no one gainsaying his gift. The tenor of this charter is as follows.\n49. — Charter of King Edward concerning Hordwell # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever, while the whole sequence of worldly things slips away at every moment without pause.\nI, Edward — not by the demands of my own merits, but by the mercy of Almighty God — king of the Anglo-Saxons, for the remedy of my sins and also of those of my ancestors and of my posterity to come, with the consent and licence of my magnates whose names are written below, have commanded the renewal of a certain hereditary deed for my vassal Tata Æthelhunflo — namely of three hides at Hordwell — into perpetual possession; which lands Æthelwulf my grandfather, king of the West Saxons, had formerly given in perpetuity, free from all worldly dues, except military service and the building of bridge and fortress. But by some mishap that ancient hereditary deed was submerged, so that almost nothing in it was plainly visible. This charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 904, in the famous place called Southampton, in the presence of the following witnesses.\nBoundaries of Hordwell # These are the boundaries of Hordwell: first at Swinbroc; then up out of Swinbroc into the rush-meadow; from the bend of this rush-meadow straight opposite the Hordwell road; then along that road until it comes to the Icknield way; then from that road up onto the old wood-road; then from the wood-road behind Tellesburh to a gore; then from the gore to a grass-acre; then along that furrow to a headland, to a fore-furrow — and the fore-furrow goes into the land; then straight to the stone on the ridgeway; thence west to a gore; along the furrow to a headland; thence down to Fearnhill\u0026rsquo;s valley; then thence to a furrow, an acre nearer the lynchet; then to the lynchet at the south side of Fearnhill\u0026rsquo;s valley; from the lynchet to a headland; then forth to a furrow, to a row of stones; thence straight to the ridgeway; then thence to a grass-acre on a headland — and the grass-acre goes into the land; thence along a furrow until it comes to a bend; thence from the bend forth to a furrow until it comes to a fore-furrow — and the fore-furrow goes into the land; then to the Icknield way west of Tellesburh; thence north over the Icknield way to Sica\u0026rsquo;s spring; then a furlong farther straight on to an alder-bed on the bend of Hæghill\u0026rsquo;s brook; along the brook until it comes to two grass-acres — and the grass-acres go into the land; thence to a fore-furrow on a headland; thence straight to the red cliff on Swinbroc; then along the brook to the rush-meadow.\n† I, Edward, king. † I, Asser, bishop. † I, Ordlaf, ealdorman. † I, Deormod, thegn. † I, Wihtbord, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Werwulf, priest. † I, Beornstan, priest. † I, Widhun, thegn. † I, Buga, thegn. † I, Alla, thegn. † I, Wulfhem, thegn. † I, Wulfred, thegn. † I, Beornstan, thegn. 50. — Of the Death of King Edward and the Succession of his Son Æthelstan # After Edward, king of England, had entered the way of all flesh by the Lord\u0026rsquo;s disposing, his son Æthelstan succeeded him. This Æthelstan, after taking up the government of the kingdom, is said to have shown at once such piety and holiness of life that the grain of mustard-seed which the good Gardener, our Lord and Redeemer Jesus, had sown in the garden of his heart, being early rooted, began at once to grow into a great tree of most steadfast faith, of holy hope, and moreover of immeasurable charity, which neither envies nor acts perversely. For the works that are pleasing to God he gladly saw through discernment, heard through obedience, tasted through charity, perceived through hope and faith, and likewise touched and brought to completion through good works. For he strove unceasingly to devote the utmost care and most diligent attention to the rebuilding of very many churches that had been destroyed. Among these he embraced the monastery of Abingdon — Abbot Chinatus then governing that place — with such sincerity and such privilege of love that he not only enriched it with various ornaments but also endowed it with ample possessions. The king\u0026rsquo;s charters that follow bear true witness to these possessions. The first of them is this.\n51. — Charter of King Æthelstan concerning Dumbleton # God, the Author of all things, governs from on high the highest peaks of the heavens, the deepest foundations of the earth, and the dread tragedies of the pit — ruling, guiding and pressing them by the monarchy of the nourishing Trinity; by the munificence of whose freely-flowing liberality Æthelstan, the most excellent king of Albion, was raised to his father\u0026rsquo;s throne and, as the talk of the four-cornered world, was enlarged in prerogative above all others. Thus the patron, supported by such a diadem of sceptres, a panegyrist of royal dignity, with free generosity of heart granted to Cynath, archimandrite of the monastic life, lands of his own possession in two places by hereditary right in perpetuity; and, moved by the evangelical example which thus proclaims, \u0026lsquo;To everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall abound\u0026rsquo; (Matt. xiii. 12), confirmed them to the aforesaid abbot and his heirs after him to be possessed for ever. This the magnanimous emperor bestowed freely, after his wont — not for a price of avarice, but for the patronage of long prosperity and the purchase of paradisal delight. These places, namely, bear these names: at Dumbleton 10 hides, which lie on the western side of the river Isbourne; and two are held in common, allotted by popular share on the eastern side of the same stream towards Aston; while five are held in five wooded places at Flyford on either side of that brook which is vulgarly called Pidwell. And lest the lord abbot should appropriate the use of this place — with its woods, meadows and pastures, its ploughing and other due appurtenances — let it pertain to Dumbleton perpetually hereafter, most piously to the glory of the donor, and thereafter greatly to the reward of the bearer. This grant, then, was made in the 930th reckoning of the infancy of Jesus, offspring of the highest Being, and the third indiction is joined therewith; and this enrichment of free-flowing bounty is certainly known to have been wholesomely fulfilled — Christ, the Divine, aiding — with the firm agreement and ratified assent of the senators as written below, in the fifth year since the most glorious king ruled the Anglo-Saxons in kingly fashion, and the third after he had received, by the kind benevolence of the wondrous Creator, the government of the sceptre of the Northumbrians and Cumbrians in authentic patronage; and it is encompassed by the ancient boundary of most certain derivation, as is made known in this manner.\nBoundaries of Dumbleton # These are the boundaries of Dumbleton: first east of Dumbleton, to the Isbourne; then southwards from the Isbourne westwards along the dyke; then so up straight to Day\u0026rsquo;s ridge; then so along Scaethbroc to the boundary dyke; then so along into Secgmere; then from Secgmere due east into the Isbourne at Dernaford.\nThen these are the boundaries at Pidwell: from Pidwell into the chalk-pits; from the chalk-pits due south along the ridge to Tittandun; from Tittandun west to the old spring; thence into Winterbourne; so into Pidwell; from Pidwell to Eomer\u0026rsquo;s meadow; and so to the other Winterbourne, then into Pidwell; and so along Pidwell to the chalk-pits.\nThe most famous king also added this supplement to this deed, lest anyone should be able by fraudulent seduction to overcome this little writing with old documents. If anyone — which God forbid — the possessor of the little field, shall transgress by profaning divine law or violating human law, let another of the same lineage, acting more reasonably towards the aforesaid king, enjoy it as a lasting reward; but to those who increase this royal donation may God add doubled blessings, while on those who diminish it may Satan with his satellites bring losses. May God prevent it coming to pass! Peace for ever to those who keep it!\nWith these witnesses # † I, Æthelstan, king and ruler of all Britain and, by God\u0026rsquo;s grant, governor of the other provinces, have signed these gifts under the banner. † I, Wulfhelm also, archbishop, with Rodward and the other bishops, have consented and subscribed. † I, Theodred, bishop, and Ælfheah, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cynsige, bishop, with Ælfric, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfrige, bishop, and Alfred, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelgar, pontiff, with Æthelwold, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cenweald, bishop, and Wulfhelm, with the witnesses noted below, have subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, and Æthelmund, earl, have consented and subscribed. † I, Uhtred, earl, and Scule, have subscribed. † I, Ælfgar, consul, and Ælfsige, soldier, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wiferth, key-bearer, and Leofsige, standard-bearer, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfric, ruler, and Thelgeard, squire, have consented and subscribed. 52. — Charter of King Æthelstan concerning Shallingford # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever, who disposes all things together with the Father\u0026rsquo;s dominion, by the quickening grace of the Holy Spirit. For although the words of priests and the decrees of judges endure continually in the strength of firmness, nevertheless, on account of the uncertain mutability of future years, they must be strengthened by the testimony of charters.\nWherefore I, Æthelstan, king of all Britain, have granted as an eternal inheritance a certain parcel of land — namely 12 hides — in the place known by the celebrated name of Shallingford, to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His holy church dedicated in honour of the blessed Mother of God, Mary, in the place known by the celebrated name of Abingdon, for the use of the monks of God dwelling there, with all its appurtenances, namely meadows and pastures, while the priest Godescalc holds it. Let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, except three things — namely, fixed military service and the repair of bridge and fortress. If anyone shall wish to transfer this our donation to any use other than we have ordained, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, be punished for ever mournfully amid the eternal fires of hell with Judas the betrayer and his accomplices, unless he makes amends by fitting satisfaction for having offended against our decree.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 931, in the fourth indiction. The authority of its unshakeable firmness stands confirmed by these witnesses, whose names are recorded below in depicted characters.\nBoundaries of Shallingford # These are the boundaries of Shallingford: first on the Ock at the boundary of the men of Sandford; then out against the stream to Snita\u0026rsquo;s island; on the north side of this channel; and so to the middle of Bacca\u0026rsquo;s moor; then along the moor to the fishery stream; into Cripple\u0026rsquo;s corner; and then along Fernbrook until it strikes up onto the red dyke; then along the dyke to the Hlyde; along the Hlyde to the broad moor; from the broad moor to Priestham; up to the moss spring; from the moss spring to the ridgeway; along the ridgeway to Christ\u0026rsquo;s Cross; then south until it strikes back onto the Ock where it began.\n† I, Æthelstan, the aforesaid king, endowed with the monarchy of singular privilege, have confirmed and subscribed the support of this deed with the sign of the holy and ever-to-be-loved Cross. † I, Wulfhelm, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of the church of York, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwine, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Beornstan, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Sigelm, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Adulf, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Oda, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadwine, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Burhsige, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Osferth, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwold, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Aldred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Osberht, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Odda, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. Charter of King Æthelstan concerning Swinford # The Scripture of sacred authority confirms us, saying: \u0026lsquo;Naked came I out of my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return thither\u0026rsquo; (Job i. 21); and again: \u0026lsquo;We brought nothing into this world, and indeed we can carry nothing out of it\u0026rsquo; (1 Tim. vi. 7).\nWherefore, not unmindful of slippery power, I, Æthelstan, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s grant king and chief of all Albion, presiding over the height of the kingdom with humble mind, in recompense of a greater reward, freely grant a small parcel of land — of 5 hides — declared by fixed agreement under the name of Swinford, to the church of the blessed Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in Christ\u0026rsquo;s name that none of our successors, of higher or lower rank, should disturb this gift of our devotion by any instigation of rashness. Let the aforesaid land, which with the consent of my magnates I have bestowed on the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, except these three — namely, fixed military service and the repair of bridge and fortress. But if anyone, impelled by a ghostly spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or alter this gift, unless he repents with due satisfaction before his death, let him be punished for ever mournfully amid the eternal fires of hell, prostrate with Judas the betrayer of Christ. The boundaries of this aforesaid land are written in the book belonging to Cumnor.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 931, in the fourth indiction. The authority of its unshakeable firmness stands confirmed by these witnesses, whose names are recorded below.\n† I, Æthelstan, the aforesaid king, endowed with the monarchy of singular privilege, have confirmed the support of this deed with the sign of the holy cross. † I, Wulfhelm, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of the church of York, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwine, bishop, have assented. † I, Beornstan, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Sighelm, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadulf, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Oda, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadwine, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Byrhsige, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Osferth, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Ælfwold, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Aldred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æscberht, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Oda, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfheh, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Godescalc, priest and thegn. Charter of King Æthelstan concerning Sandford # I, Æthelstan, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s grant king and chief of all Albion, presiding over the height of the kingdom with humble mind, in recompense of a greater reward, freely grant a small parcel of land — of 15 hides — declared by fixed agreement under the name of Sandford, to the church of the blessed Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in Christ\u0026rsquo;s name that none of our successors, of higher or lower rank, should disturb this gift of our devotion by any instigation of rashness. Let the aforesaid land, which with the consent of my magnates I have bestowed on the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, except these three — namely, fixed military service and the repair of bridge and fortress. But if anyone, impelled by a ghostly spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or alter this gift, unless he repents with due satisfaction before his death, let him be punished for ever mournfully amid the eternal fires of hell, prostrate with Judas the betrayer of Christ. The boundaries of this aforesaid land are written in the book belonging to Cumnor.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 931, in the fourth indiction. The authority of its unshakeable firmness stands confirmed by the aforenamed witnesses in the first charter consenting to this king\u0026rsquo;s bounty.\nHow Æthelstan the Senator gave Uffington # Also in the days of King Æthelstan there was a certain nobleman, Æthelstan the senator, who first gave and granted to the house of Abingdon and to the monks serving God there the vill called Uffington, with all that wholly pertains to it, in pure and perpetual alms — as the charter of that same Æthelstan the senator shows. The purport of this charter is as follows.\nCharter of Æthelstan the Senator concerning Uffington # I, Æthelstan the senator, have inserted into writing this land of Uffington for the church of St Mary of Abingdon, in the days of King Æthelstan; and it was attested by Kynsige, bishop of Berkshire, and Wulfhelm the archbishop, and Rodward bishop, and many other bishops, abbots and princes who were gathered there when this vill was granted to the church of St Mary in Abingdon. Archbishop Wulfhelm and all the bishops and abbots who were present there together excommunicated from Christ, and from all communion of Christ, and from all Christendom, whoever shall ever change this gift, or diminish this land in pastures or in boundaries, that he may be cast down and sunk into the deepest hell without end. And all the people who were present there said: \u0026lsquo;So be it, so be it. Amen.\u0026rsquo;\nBoundaries of Uffington # These are the boundaries into Uffington: first from Hwæs-mere along the stream into the black stream; from the black stream into Bulemere; from Bulemere to the tail of the bull\u0026rsquo;s ford; from the tail into the bull-dyke; along the bull-dyke to the thorn-stump; from the thorn-stump to the holy place; from the holy place along the headland into the Icknield Street; from Icknield Street into Æthelweard\u0026rsquo;s boundary; from Æthelweard\u0026rsquo;s boundary straight up by the headland to the north gate of Hremmesburh; right through the fort and out at the south gate; due south by the headland up onto Hode\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from Hode\u0026rsquo;s barrow onto the stone barrow; from the stone barrow into the white hollow; from the white hollow into the red hollow; from the red hollow into the dun hollow; from the dun hollow into Dunfæth\u0026rsquo;s ness, into Paddeburh; from Paddeburh to Tædduc\u0026rsquo;s stone; from Tædduc\u0026rsquo;s stone to the hound\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from the hound\u0026rsquo;s barrow to the hawk\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from the hawk\u0026rsquo;s barrow to the stud-fold; from the stud-fold up onto the lark\u0026rsquo;s fort; from the lark\u0026rsquo;s fort to the short dyke; from the short dyke to the long dyke; from the long dyke to the south gate of Æscesburh, and so out at the north gate; from the north gate midway up onto Dudenburh; from Dudenburh onto the church hill; straight across due down into the Icknield Street; then due down along the west furrow of the head-acre, down over the cross-furrow due down to the rush-bed; from the rush-bed to the hidden stone; from the hidden stone to the rush-thicket; from the rush-thicket into Hlippenham; from Hlippenham into the mill-stream; from the mill-stream into the north-long dyke; along through the small thorns into Bulemead; from Bulemead over the clean meadow; from the clean meadow northwards, due east by the north moor-down onto the green way; from the green way straight across the moor into Hwæs-mere directly.\nÆthelstan the ealdorman booked this land of Uffington to the minster of St Mary at Abingdon in King Æthelstan\u0026rsquo;s day; and it was by the witness of Kynsige, bishop of Berkshire, and Wulfhelm the archbishop, and Rodward bishop, and many others, both bishops and abbots and thegns, who were gathered there when this vill with these boundaries was conveyed into the possession of St Mary at Abingdon. And Archbishop Wulfhelm, and all the bishops and abbots who were assembled there, excommunicated from Christ, and from all Christ\u0026rsquo;s communion, and from all Christendom, whoever should ever undo this gift, or diminish this land in pasture or in bounds — be he cut off and thrust into the pit of hell for ever without end. And all the people who stood round said: \u0026lsquo;So be it, Amen, Amen!\u0026rsquo;\nKing Æthelstan gave Watchfield to his thegn Ælfric # Likewise at the same time the aforesaid King Æthelstan gave Watchfield, of 20 hides, to a certain thegn of his named Ælfric, on the terms that he should have by royal authority the freedom to give it after his death to whatever heir he wished; for so the king\u0026rsquo;s charter testifies. Wherefore the said Ælfric, for the remission of his sins and for the souls of his predecessors, made this most sacred house of Abingdon heir to the same vill with all its appurtenances, with the consent and will of the king, no one gainsaying his gift. And this is the subscription of the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Æthelstan concerning Watchfield # The tearful stain of this tottering world, to be detested with all our might, beset by the foul barkings of dire and horrid mortality, warns us — rousing us who are not secure in a fatherland of unimpaired peace, but may fall, as it were, into the whirlpool of stinking corruption — that with the whole striving of our mind we should flee from it and its downfalls, not only despising it but abhorring it like the loathsome nausea of melancholy, pressing on towards that evangelical word: \u0026lsquo;Give, and it shall be given unto you\u0026rsquo; (Luke vi. 38).\nWherefore, casting away the lowest things like the sweepings of refuse, choosing the heavenly things like precious jewels, fixing my mind on everlasting joys, to obtain the mercy of honey-flowing sweetness and to enjoy the delight of infinite gladness, I, Æthelstan, king of the English, raised by the right hand of the Almighty Father to the throne of the whole realm of Britain, bestow a certain parcel of land on my faithful thegn Ælfric — namely 20 hides in the place which the inhabitants call at Wreclesfeld — that he may have it without the yoke of detested servitude, with meadows, pastures, streams and all advantages duly pertaining to it, freely and eternally as long as he lives, and after the general passing — which to all mortal men stands certain, yet its hour uncertain — leave it in perpetuity to whatever heir in succession he wills. The aforesaid land is seen to be enclosed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries: first to the stone at the heathen burial-places; then out to the upper part of Prillec\u0026rsquo;s hassocks; then to Cock-brook; along the stream to Mill-brook; then along the stream to Lenten; then along the stream to the mere-pool; then from the pool to Bean-brook; then along the stream to Headda\u0026rsquo;s mere; then from the mere to the stream where the brooks fork; then from the fork to the boundary hill; then from the hill to the highway; then along the highway fifty-seven rods; then along the furrow to the stone hill; then from the stone hill to the heathen burial-place; back to the stone.\nBut if — which God forbid — anyone, puffed up with a devilish spirit, shall attempt to infringe this little writing of my donation, let him know that on the last and great day of examination he shall perish in everlasting confusion with Judas the betrayer and his impious accomplices amid the devouring flames of Acheron. The schedule of this testamentary will was written out in the vill known to all, called Worthing, amid the rejoicing of the whole assembled people; and this writing was traced out by fingers in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 931, in the seventh year of the kingdom freely committed to me, in the fourth indiction, epact 10, concurrent 6, on the twelfth day before the Kalends of July, that is, 20 June, the moon being twelve days old; and the authority of its unshakeable firmness stands confirmed by witnesses, whose names are recorded below in depicted characters.\nWith these witnesses # † I, Æthelstan, the aforesaid king, endowed with the hierarchy of singular privilege, have confirmed and subscribed the support of this deed with the sign of the holy and ever-to-be-loved cross. † I, Wulfhelm, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of the church of York, have consented and subscribed. † I, Huwal, under-king, have consented and subscribed. † I, Juthwal, under-king, have consented and subscribed. † I, Morcant, under-king, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eugenius, under-king, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwine, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadulf, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfhæh, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cunan, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Benedict, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Winsige, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Theodred, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Odo, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Beornstan, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfhun, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfhelm, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cyneferd, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Arcberht, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wired, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Offerd, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwald, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Arcberht, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Urm, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Guthrum, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Hath, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Scule, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Aldred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadwine, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelnod, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Beorhtsige, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Odda, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfheh, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfsige, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelmund, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelnoth, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadnoth, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelsige, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfsige, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælhelm, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wilaf, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wilferd, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelferth, thegn, have consented and subscribed. The aforesaid King Æthelstan also gave to his thegn Wulfusth 6 hides at Bulthesworth, with meadows, pastures, woods, streams and all advantages duly pertaining to it, in exactly the same manner as above. The aforesaid land is seen to be enclosed by these bounds.\nBoundaries of Bulthesworth # These are the boundaries of Bulthesworth: first to the old tree-stead; then to the rough valley; along the valley to the end of the furlong; then to the middle of the rough hill; then from the rough hill to the hawk\u0026rsquo;s pit; along the rill to the path that lies athwart.\nBut if — which we have not wished — anyone, puffed up with a devilish spirit, shall attempt to infringe or destroy this little writing of my ordinance and confirmation, let him know that on the last and great day of examination — when the archangel\u0026rsquo;s trumpet sounds its piercing blast, the tombs opening of their own accord, leaving the long-weary bodies, and all creatures struck with terror — he shall perish in everlasting confusion with Judas the betrayer, who by the pious Sower is called the son of perdition, amid the devouring flames of innumerable torments. The schedule of this will, inspired and devised by God and the Lord Jesus Christ, was written out in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 931, in the seventh year of the kingdom freely committed to me, in the fourth indiction, no epact, concurrent 5, on the seventh of the Ides, the moon twenty-eight days old, in the royal vill called Welowe, while the bishops, abbots, ealdormen and officers of the realm rejoiced in the royal bounty. And the authority of its unshakeable firmness stands confirmed by these witnesses, whose names are recorded below in depicted characters.\n† I, Æthelstan, the aforesaid king, endowed with the monarchy of singular privilege, have confirmed and subscribed the support of this deed with the sign of the holy and ever-to-be-loved cross. † I, Wulfhelm, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of the church of York, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwine, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Beornstan, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Sighelm, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadulf, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Oda, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadwine, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Burhsige, abbot, have consented and subscribed. † I, Osferth, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwold, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Aldred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æscberht, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Odda, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. In like manner also King Æthelstan granted to another of his thegns, named Ælfeah, 10 hides at Farnborough; and he likewise bestowed it on this house of Abingdon. And this is the king\u0026rsquo;s following charter.\nCharter of Æthelstan concerning Farnborough # In the name of the Enthroned-on-High, who governs and rules all things alike above and below, and who by His manifold power sets an end to all things as He wills, and teaches from the secret mysteries of human nature that with these fleeting and doubtless transitory possessions the kingdoms that endure for ever are to be purchased, to be obtained by God\u0026rsquo;s aid.\nWherefore I, Æthelstan — by the divine grace smiling upon me king of the English, and likewise of all Albion — was asked by my faithful thegn named Ælfeah to release some portion of my right into an eternal inheritance; and assenting to his prayers, for his amiable submission and obedience, with the consent of my magnates, I grant 10 hides of land where it is called by the inhabitants Farnborough, that he may well enjoy and possess it as long as he lives, and after him leave it to whatever heir he wills — as we have said above — in eternal inheritance with all things duly pertaining to it, pastures, meadows, woods and woodland groves. Let the aforesaid land be free in all worldly causes, except the building of bridge and fortress and the aid of military service. To all successors who preserve this right of donation by increasing it, may they happily arrive among the celibate companies of the heavenly hosts, and rejoice without end in eternal glory. But if anyone — which we have not wished — shall attempt to infringe this our gift, let him know that at the examination he would render account at the dreadful judgement and suffer the penalty of his rash audacity, unless he made amends by sincere amendment and sobbing lamentation.\nThe boundaries of Fearnbeorgan. # These are the boundaries which belong to Fearnbeorgan. From Fearnbeorg west along the road to the stone; from the stones south along the road to the headlands; from the headlands along the ridge-row up to the dyke north of the stud-fold; then along the dyke to the boundary-stream east of Lilliglea; then along the southern road to the long tree; then west along the road over Beocumb to the stone-quarry; then north along the narrow road east of the broken barrow to the road that runs east; then along the road to Cytelflod west of Mulescumb, where the roads fork; then on to Scyldmere; then along the furrow to Furcumbe; along the middle of Furcumbe to the dean; then along the dean to the meeting of the roads; then on to the white road to the grey thorn; then from the white road to Fearnbeorg; and the clearing east of Catmere which belongs to it, that is, on the road that runs to Stanleage; then afterwards south along the stony road from the boundary of the Stanmeringas; then along the narrow road to the foul road called Stificweg, which is the boundary of the Catræncringas and of the land at Fearnbeorgan; then along this road out into the open field; and all the hangers between the road and the road that runs to Stanleage belong wholly to Fearnbeorgan.\n† I, Æthelstan, king of all Britain, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Wulfhelm, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have signed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have imprinted the triumphal trophy of the Holy Cross, and have consented and subscribed. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have signed. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented to and subscribed the aforesaid gift. † I, Wulfhun, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Burhric, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwold, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Odda, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Widmær, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulflaf, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Beorhtnoth, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfsige, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfhere, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfnoth, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ealhhelm, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wibgar, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ordeah, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelwold, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Sigered, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelmund, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Alfred, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Sigulf, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn, have consented and subscribed. Of Cealhgræfa, how King Æthelstan gave it to Ealdred his thegn. # The same King Æthelstan also granted Cealhgræfa, of 5 hides, to his thegn Ealdred, and he bestowed that same estate upon the house of Abingdon in the same manner as above. And this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nThe charter of King Æthelstan concerning Cealhgræfa.\nIn the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. All the strivings of perishable things which are plainly seen by human eyes fall away; but the things which are hidden and unseen stand fast for ever through the governance of the eternal Arbiter; nor is there any doubt — as the divine teachings of the Scriptures promise to those who deserve it — that the latter can be acquired and purchased with the former through the abundantly flowing grace of God\u0026rsquo;s bounty.\nWherefore I, Æthelstan, king of the Anglo-Saxons, invested and exalted with no mean dignity, stirred by heavenly desire, grant to my faithful thegn Ealdred the land which is called Cealhgræfa and Teobbanwyrthe, of 5 hides, which he had bought from the pagans with his own fitting money, namely 10 pounds in gold and silver, at the command of King Edward and of Ealdorman Æthelred with the other ealdormen and thegns; granting it in freedom by hereditary right, to have and to possess as long as he shall live, and after his death to give to whatsoever heirs he shall please. These are the boundaries of this aforesaid land.\nThe boundaries of Cealhgræfa. # First, where the dyke runs into Watling Street; along Watling Street to the ford; then along the brook to the other ford; then from the ford up to the spring; and thence into the dell; thence from the dell to the dyke; from the dyke to the other dyke; then from the dyke to the brook; then from the brook to Cynburh\u0026rsquo;s spring; then along the dyke to Eastcotun; thence to the old brook; up from the old brook to the stream; then straight up to the highway; along the highway to the dyke; from the dyke back to Watling Street.\nBut let this aforesaid gift of land be free from every secular burden, except military service and the building of fortress and bridge, in return for the fitting money which I received from him, namely 150 mancuses of pure gold. But if anyone, seized by the goad of wantonness, should attempt to break, alter or diminish this generous bounty, let him know that on that day of the great examination — when the hinges of heaven and the foundations of the earth, and likewise the deepest lurking-places of hell, shall tremble in terror, and when the work and conscience of every man, whether the good or the evil that he has done, shall be laid open — unless he has first made amends by satisfaction. In the year 926 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 14th indiction.\nThese are the lands which King Æthelstan granted by charter to Ealdred in return for his pure money, with the witness which is recorded here.\nWitnesses. # † I, Æthelstan, king, have confirmed with the foundation of the Holy Cross. † I, Wulfhelm, archbishop, have subscribed. † I, Wensige, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Theodred, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Beorneah, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Sigelm, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadwulf, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadgar, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfa, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cyneferth, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwald, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Offerd, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfgar, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfhelm, the king\u0026rsquo;s dish-bearer, have confirmed. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ceolstan, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadwulf, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Healmstan, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelm, thegn, have consented and subscribed. How King Æthelstan gave Beorhtwaldingtun.\nThe aforesaid King Æthelstan gave Beorhtwaldingtun, of 15 hides, to a certain religious woman named Eadulfu, in the same manner as above; and she bestowed that estate upon the house of Abingdon. And this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter.\nThe charter of King Æthelstan concerning Beorhtwaldingtun.\nGod the Architect reigning for ever, who by his ineffable power duly disposes and governs all things, wondrously discerning the turns of times and of men and calmly imposing the uncertain end as he wills, teaches us from the secrets of heaven\u0026rsquo;s glory and the mysteries of human nature that with these fleeting possessions of brief duration the everlasting kingdoms are to be obtained, by God\u0026rsquo;s bounty, for the consolation and support of frail nature.\nWherefore I, Æthelstan, by the favouring grace of God king of the English and likewise governor of the whole orb of Britain, to a certain religious woman called by the name of Eadulfu, with the consent of my nobles and in return for her acceptable money, grant 15 hides of land where the country folk by ancient usage have bestowed the name Beorhtwaldingtun, so that she may well enjoy and possess it in perpetuity as long as she lives; and after her leave it to whatever heir she wills, as we have said above, in eternal inheritance. Moreover let the aforesaid land, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures and woods — be free, except these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress. But if anyone (which we do not desire) should contrive anything against this our decree or should seek to infringe it, let him know that he will render account grievously on the day of judgement before the tribunal of the Lord, unless he has first made amends here by worthy penitence before death. The aforesaid land seems to be encompassed by these boundaries.\nThe boundaries of Beorhtwaldingtun. # These are the boundaries of Beorhtwaldingtun. First from Curspandic up on to Ædene; from Ædene to Wigferth\u0026rsquo;s clearing; from Wigferth\u0026rsquo;s clearing to Pippa\u0026rsquo;s clearing; from Pippa\u0026rsquo;s clearing north along the hedge to the burnt stone; from the stone to Dunian\u0026rsquo;s pool; thence due north to Hæsel-lea; from Hæsel-lea due west to Borsena\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from the barrow due west to the grey stone; from the stone due north to Stancrundel; thence along the road to the long tree; from the tree along the road to the boundary-stream; then still along the road; then back to Curspandic.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 939 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 12th indiction.\n† I, Æthelstan, king of all Britain, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Wulfhelm, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have signed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have signed and subscribed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have imprinted the triumphal trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented to and subscribed the aforesaid gift. † I, Oda, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfhun, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wulfhelm, bishop, have signed. † I, Byrgric, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfgar, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Odda, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfsige, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulflaf, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelwold, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ordeah, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Eadric, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ealhhelm, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelmund, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn, have consented and subscribed. Of the gifts which Hugh Capet, king of France, sent to Æthelstan, king of England. # At the same time, while the illustrious king of the English, Æthelstan, was keeping Easter at Abingdon and holding his full court with his earls and barons, as befits royal dignity, there arrived envoys of the king of France, Hugh surnamed Capet, offering the king various gifts of gold and silver, and also other things sweeter than gold and silver and precious stone, namely precious relics, to be handled and venerated alike with all reverence: that is to say, a portion of the crown of thorns, a portion of the nail of the Lord, and a standard of Saint Maurice, the most glorious martyr and captain of the Theban legion, together with a precious finger of Saint Denis the martyr. When the king had graciously received these, he gave his kindly assent to the envoys\u0026rsquo; petition that his sister should be given in marriage to the king of France. The aforesaid King Æthelstan also gave these holy relics, enclosed with all honour in a silver casket, to this most sacred house of Abingdon; and the protection afforded by them, through the help of divine mercy, brings relief to many in various illnesses.\nOf the death of King Æthelstan. # When these things had thus been happily accomplished, not long afterwards the said King Æthelstan went the way of all flesh, and his brother Edmund succeeded him.\nIn the time of this Edmund a controversy arose between the inhabitants of the district on the one side and the countrymen of Oxfordshire on the other, concerning a certain meadow called Beri which belonged by right to the church of Abingdon. Relying upon its right and upon God\u0026rsquo;s mercy rather than upon any dilatory or cavilling exceptions or the evasions of obscure pleadings, the abbot and monks, by common consent and with equal will, appointed for themselves three days of fasting and prayer, and most devoutly implored the divine clemency that their sheer right over the said meadow might be shown more plainly to all mortals through His omnipotence. While the servants of God were thus engaged with the greater earnestness, a salutary plan was inspired in them — and, as it is pious to believe, divinely provided. For on the appointed day the monks, rising early, took a round shield, upon which they placed a sheaf of corn, and upon the sheaf a wax candle of remarkable size and thickness. When this was lit, they committed the shield with the sheaf and the candle to the river which flows past the church, a few of the brothers following in a small boat.\nSo the shield went before them and, as though pointing with a finger at the possessions which adjoin the house of Abingdon by right, turning now here, now there, now on the right hand, now on the left, it went faithfully before them until it came to the channel near the meadow which is called Beri. There the candle, miraculously leaving the middle course of the Thames, turned aside and encircled the meadow which lies between the Thames and the Gifteleia, and which in winter, and often in summer, is surrounded by water like an island through the overflowing of the Thames. When this miracle was seen by those standing by, and by several countrymen of both Berkshire and Oxfordshire who came running up, together with the monks who followed the candle, the said meadow was restored to the house of Abingdon, the people crying out, \u0026ldquo;The right of Abingdon! The right of Abingdon!\u0026rdquo;\nAnd from this miracle such great amazement seized all who heard of it, that from that time even to the present day there has not been found any king, or ealdorman, or prince, or any other powerful man who has dared in any way to raise a claim concerning that meadow against the house of Abingdon.\nAt that time a certain young man, youthful indeed in years but mature in character, named Æthelwold, was sustained by the very close friendship of King Æthelstan. And because the king saw that he was an eager follower of the virtues, desirous of learning, and moreover strong in excellent natural gifts, he commended him to be instructed in spiritual exercises to Ælfheah, bishop of Winchester, then a man eminent in the things of God and at times endowed with a prophetic spirit; judging (as was indeed true) that he would one day become something great in the Church. Not long afterwards the king himself met the end of his life, and handed the government over to his brother Edmund. After Edmund\u0026rsquo;s death the monastery of Abingdon was reduced to such desolation that, all its adjacent possessions having been brought under royal dominion, it was entirely deprived of monks. For what causes this calamitous evil befell, nothing true has come to my knowledge. Nevertheless, the books of the wills containing the possessions of the church, though such unlooked-for evils came rushing in, were assuredly preserved by the providence of God, so that their restorers, and the successors after them, might be able to learn the evidences of antiquity. From the time of King Ine, under whom the monastery was first built, down to this desolation, a span of 240 years is reckoned to have passed.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Culham.\nI, Edmund, burning with desire for the heavenly kingdom, by the favour of the heavenly Deity diligent king of the English and of the other peoples round about, with the counsel of my nobles grant in perpetuity 15 hides to a certain matron sprung from the stock of my royal line, who is called among men Ælfhild, in the place where the common folk by familiar usage have bestowed the name Culham; so that she may well enjoy and possess it in perpetuity while she passes the course of this fleeting age unharmed and the vital spirit remains in her corruptible flesh; and after her she may leave it to whatsoever heir she wills for ever, as we have said. Moreover let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly hindrance, with all the things known to pertain to that place, both great and small — fields, pastures, meadows and diverted watercourses — granting, I grant it freedom. We have therefore written a new charter because we did not have the old one. But if anyone produces another charter in the open, let him know beyond doubt that he shall be renounced by all the faithful together with the everlasting deed of the Holy Cross, and it shall be of no effect. But if anyone (which we do not desire), walking in the garb of pride, should attempt to infringe this our decree, may he suffer the icy blasts of freezing winds and the winged host of malign spirits, unless he first makes amends with tearful groans of penitence and sincere amendment.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 940 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 13th indiction.\n† I, Edmund, king of the English, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Eadred, brother of the same king, have signed. † I, Wulfhelm, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have signed. And many others signed and confirmed. And so this same matron, coming to the end of her life, made this church the heir of her possession.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Culham.\nEdmund, succeeding his brother Æthelstan, confirmed to the church of Abingdon Watchfield, with all things integrally pertaining to it, which the aforesaid Ælfric, with the consent of his lord King Æthelstan, had bestowed on the house of Abingdon in pure and perpetual alms. On this condition, however: that Godescall, abbot of Abingdon, and the convent of the same place should grant Culham to a certain matron of royal descent named Ælfhild, free and quit for all the days of her life, in that form and in all the same tenor in which King Cenwulf granted it to his sisters, who bestowed the same estate upon this house of Abingdon, as has been said above; and that after the death of the said Ælfhild the said estate should return in all the same manner to the monks\u0026rsquo; own uses. And this indeed was so done, the said Ælfhild yielding to fate. This matron Ælfhild was buried in the chapel which she had built in honour of Saint Vincent.\nThe boundaries of Culham. # First at Wylfingford on the Thames; then from Wylfingford along a narrow dyke to the land-boundary of the Wanhromingas at the headlands; then along the headlands to Fippelbeorgas; from Fippelbeorgas to the Culham dyke; along the dyke to Æppelford; from Æppelford along the true Thames around Ætan\u0026rsquo;s eyot; then back to Wylfingford.\nKing Edmund gave Gareford to his thegn Wulfric. # King Edmund also gave Gareford, of 15 hides, to his thegn Wulfric, on the condition that after his death he might give it to whatever heir he wished. And this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming his gift.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Gareford.\nIn the name of God the highest and most high, Jesus Christ. It is manifest to all that all things heavenly and earthly are governed by the providence of God; and the anxious care of mortal life is lamented and mourned with all its strength at the loss of dear ones and friends. Therefore the honeyed oracles of the divine declaration, with their sure pledges, persuade us by frequent prayers that with these fleeting and doubtless transitory possessions the everlasting kingdoms are to be obtained by the help of God.\nWherefore I, Edmund, king of the English and of the other peoples round about, have willingly bestowed by grant upon a certain faithful thegn of mine named Wulfric, for his loving obedience and his acceptable money which he paid me in the service of his devotion, 15 hides in that place where the country folk by appellative usage and sportive naming have bestowed the name Garanford, so that he may happily possess the same aforesaid land during the course of his life. Then, when the path of the dissolution of his body and soul draws near, let him bestow it, as a free gift of his mind, upon whichever of his dear successors he chooses. For in the perpetual courses of this world let this land which I have granted, here recorded, remain released from all the labours of mortal life — except that which seems needful to all of us, namely three things: the passage of the army, the rebuilding of the bridge, and aid for fortress and castle — in all and through all the things subject to that same place, pastures, meadows, woods and fields, great or small, as our aforesaid conveyance is truly written above in these lines, and which shall remain for ever. If anyone, walking under the goad of devilish ferment, proves to infringe our intact and inviolate gift fraudulently, let him know beyond doubt that he shall be thrust through the hellish wall of eternal anathema together with Ananias and Sapphira and their accomplices, unless he first wishes to make amends by worthy satisfaction. But if anyone should instead strive to fulfil what is exempted with inexhaustible showers of religious good works, and should strive with free intent to increase our very small donation, let him rejoice as a companion of the heavenly hosts in eternal glory; and rejoicing in the recompense of his kindness as an everlasting inheritance, may he deserve to hear the melody of the Thunderer saying, \u0026ldquo;Come, all ye who have done my will and have not despised the precepts of the eternal Father.\u0026rdquo;\nThe boundaries. # The aforesaid land seems to be encompassed by these boundaries.\nThese are the boundaries of the land at Garanford. From Garanford along the Ock to the point where the Cilla flows out to the south; then up along the Cilla stream to the boundary of the Linfordingas; thence to Winter\u0026rsquo;s barrow; thence back out to the Ock; then along the Ock until back to Garanford.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 940 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 13th indiction.\n† I, Edmund, king of the English, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have signed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have signed. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented to the aforesaid gift. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have consented. † I, Burhric, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wulfhelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Odda, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsan, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Ordheah, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfhelm, have consented. Of Wealtham, how it was given.\nThe same King Edmund gave Wealtham, of 30 hides, to his thegn Ælfsige; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter by which the gift of that Ælfsige concerning the same land to this house is confirmed, as was then the custom.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Wealtham.\nOur Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. While by the providence of our Founder every creature was fashioned very good in the beginning, beautifully created and comely formed, above and below the heavens, both in angels and in men, and in manifold and diverse species of beasts of burden, animals, fishes and birds — all of which pay the dues of their nature at the nod of the Creator — save man alone, who was formed in His image and set over all things, yet, falling into death through transgression, wondrously lost the first robe of immortality by despising the Lord\u0026rsquo;s command. Therefore those riches are to be loved which never deceive their possessor and are not lost even in death itself, but abound the more the more clearly that which is loved is discerned.\nWherefore I, Edmund, by the favour of the heavenly Deity diligent king of the English and of the other peoples round about, freely grant and bestow upon a certain faithful thegn of mine named Ælfsige, for his loving service and his acceptable fidelity, 30 hides in the place where the common folk by ancient report call it Wealtham, so that he may well enjoy and possess it in perpetuity while he passes unharmed the course of this fleeting age and the vital spirit remains in corruptible flesh; and after him leave it for ever to whatsoever heir he wills, as we have said. Moreover let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly hindrance, with all the things known to pertain to that place, both great and small — fields, pastures, meadows and woods — except these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress. But as for those who would diminish and break this my gift (which I pray may be far from the minds of the faithful), may their part be with those to whom it is said on the contrary, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye wicked, into everlasting fire, which is prepared for Satan and his accomplices\u0026rdquo; (Matthew 25:41), unless they first obtain pardon by worthy penitence to God with lawful satisfaction.\nThe boundaries of Wealtham. # The aforesaid land seems to be encompassed by these boundaries.\nThese are the boundaries pertaining to Wealtham of the 30 hides. First from Wassanham straight to Ceagga\u0026rsquo;s nook; then from Ceagga\u0026rsquo;s nook to Dyrnan grove; from Dyrnan grove to Wegcocc; then from Wegcocc to Goda\u0026rsquo;s enclosure; from Goda\u0026rsquo;s enclosure to Hild\u0026rsquo;s clearing; from Hild\u0026rsquo;s clearing to Swinef\u0026rsquo;s nook; then from Swæf\u0026rsquo;s nook to Wulf\u0026rsquo;s clearing; from Wulf\u0026rsquo;s clearing to Capeldene; from Capeldene to the turf-strip; then from the turf-strip to Healwicum; from Healwicum back to Wassanham. King Edmund has moreover granted by charter to Ælfsige 14 hides within the boundaries of those 30 hides — over wood, over field, as perpetual pasture and as perpetual inheritance — and 12 meadow-acres at Standen outside those boundaries.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 940 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 13th indiction.\nWitnesses. # † I, Edmund, king of the English, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Eadred, brother of the same king, have signed. † I, Wulfhelm, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have signed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have signed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have imprinted the triumphal trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented to the aforesaid gift. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have signed. † I, Oda, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wulfhelm, bishop, have signed. † I, Burhric, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Odda, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulflaf, thegn, have consented. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelwold, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Ordeah, thegn, have consented. † I, Eadric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ealhhelm, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn, have consented. Of Ermundeslea and Appleton.\nIn the same year King Edmund granted Ermundeslea and Appleton to his thegn Æthelstan, in the same manner as above; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter by which the gift of that Æthelstan concerning the same land to this house is confirmed, as was then the custom.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Ermundeslea.\nIn the name of God the highest and most high. With sure pledges the holy and righteous fathers admonish us by frequent exhortations that we should unceasingly fear and love God — whom we cherish and believe with the inmost affection of the mind — with diligence in good works, because on the day of examination he will render to every man the recompense of all our deeds according to each one\u0026rsquo;s merit. Therefore let us strive to imitate him with the subtlest striving of the mind; for although we are pressed by the burden of mortal life and encumbered by the fleeting possessions of this world, yet by the bounty of his mercy we may purchase with perishable riches the eternal rewards of the heavenly life.\nFor which cause I, Edmund, burning with desire for the heavenly kingdom, by the favour of the heavenly Deity diligent king of the English and of the other peoples round about, have deigned to grant to a certain adopted faithful companion of mine named Æthelstan, for his loving service, 10 hides of land in the place where the common people by ancient custom and common report call it Ermundeslea, together with the estate named Appleton, with pastures, fields and groves of woods, that he may prosperously possess and eternally hold them while he passes unharmed the course of this fleeting age and the vital spirit remains in corruptible flesh; and after him, as we have affirmed, leave them to whatsoever heir he wills. And let the aforesaid land be free from every servile yoke, with all things rightly pertaining to it, except these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress. Moreover, if anyone, with our approval, shall wish to increase this our gift, may the Almighty increase and amplify his temporal life, and his life eternal in the world to come. But whoever consents to its being violated by fraudulent perpetration, let him consider that he will render account before God on the last day of judgement, and will hear with the reprobate, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire\u0026rdquo; (Matthew 25:41), where with the demons they shall be tormented eternally with dire punishments, unless he has first made amends for this by worthy penitence before death.\nThe boundaries of Ermundeslea. # The aforesaid land seems to be encompassed by these boundaries.\nThese are the boundaries of Ermundeslea, and by the other name of Appleton. First up from the Thames along the dyke at Doccangræf; then to the stream which runs through Hæsel-lea opposite the dyke that runs to Wasa; afterwards along Wasa until it reaches Tubba\u0026rsquo;s ford; thence along the stream until it comes to the street; from the street to the dyke that runs to the headland; then on the west side of the headland, 6 yards west of Yttingeshlæw; thence to the row; from the row to the Thames, to the entrance, and along the Thames back to Doccandic.\nWitnesses. # † I, Edmund, king of the English, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Eadred, brother of the same king, have signed. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop, have confirmed. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have consented. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have imprinted the triumphal trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Burgric, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Wulfgar, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Eadric, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, have subscribed. † I, Odda, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Edmund, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Wulflaf, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have subscribed. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have subscribed. Of Lechamstede, how it was given.\nIn the following year the same King Edmund gave Lechamstede, of 10 hides, to his thegn Eadric, in the same manner as above. And this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter by which the gift of that Eadric concerning the same land to this house is confirmed, as was then the custom.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Lechamstede.\nIn the name of God the highest and enthroned on high, who from the summit of the highest heaven governs and orders all things visible and invisible in due order; and in the chamber of this present life we daily perceive before our human gaze temporal possessions and all the faculties of riches failing and dwindling away. Thus with change the frailty of mortal life withers, and the round revolving of the ages passes into nothing, and is lamented and mourned at the loss of dear kinsfolk and friends.\nWherefore I, Edmund, king of the English-born and of the other peoples round about, freely grant and bestow upon a certain faithful thegn of mine named Eadric, for his loving service and his acceptable fidelity, 10 hides in the place where the common folk by ancient report call it Lechamstede, so that he may well enjoy and possess it in perpetuity while he passes unharmed the course of this fleeting age and the vital spirit remains in corruptible flesh; and after him leave it for ever to whatsoever heir he wills, as I have said. Moreover let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly hindrance, with all the things known rightly to pertain to that place, both great and small — fields, pastures and woods — except these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress. Furthermore, for the increase of the aforesaid gift, I have given to the said thegn by perpetual grant one mill beside the diverted watercourses of the Lambourn. In this age the deceitful men of this world are known sometimes to have begun cackling their trifles, claiming another\u0026rsquo;s gain for themselves by usurpation with the ambition of iniquity. But such sluggish advances of avarice I utterly forbid to all Christians in the name of the Holy Trinity, so that my gift stands confirmed with the seal of the Holy Cross. Also, if anyone produces another old document in the open, let it profit neither himself nor others, but let it be erased from the everlasting record and neither written nor heard among the just. Finally, if anyone (which we do not desire) should consent to this our gift being violated by fraudulent perpetration, let him consider that he will render account before God on the last day of judgement, and that with the reprobate to whom it is said, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,\u0026rdquo; he shall suffer dire punishments, if he has not beforehand made amends by bodily lamentation.\nThe boundaries of Lechamstede. # The aforesaid land seems to be encompassed by these boundaries.\nThese are the boundaries of the land at Lechamstede. First at Denepit; from the pit to the bare thorn; from the thorn to Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree; from Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree to the red stone; thence to Stigelhammas; from Stigelhammas to the northern part of Wigferth\u0026rsquo;s clearing; thence to Acdene; from Acdene to Crypsandic; thence athwart over Wæstel\u0026rsquo;s hill to Bucca\u0026rsquo;s crundel; from Bucca\u0026rsquo;s crundel to the grey apple-tree; thence along the standing-place to Gyddandene, athwart over the watch-hill to the dean; along the dean back to Denepit.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 943 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 1st indiction.\n† I, Edmund, king of the English, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Eadgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s mother, have signed the aforesaid gift. † I, Eadred, brother of the same king, have consented. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have signed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have imprinted the triumphal trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfhelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Eadric, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Odda, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulflaf, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn, have consented. Of Linford, how it was given.\nIn the third year the same King Edmund granted Linford, of 6 hides, to his thegn Ælfheah, in the same manner as above. And this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter by which the gift of that Ælfheah concerning the same land to this house is confirmed, as was then the custom.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Linford.\nOur Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. The noble champion declared in the divine Scriptures, \u0026ldquo;The things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal\u0026rdquo; (2 Corinthians 4:18). Therefore, to those who make use of superfluous things, the divine word, as we are set forth above, gives terrible warning that, despising the transitory things of this world and imitating spiritual things, we should hasten to the heavenly kingdoms.\nWherefore I, Edmund, king of the English, governor and ruler of the other peoples round about, have cheerfully bestowed in eternal inheritance upon a certain faithful thegn of mine named Ælfheah 6 hides of land in that place which the common folk by ancient custom and common report call Linford, so that he may well enjoy and possess it in perpetuity as long as he lives; and after him leave it to whatsoever heir he wills, as we have said above, in eternal inheritance. Moreover let the aforesaid land be free, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows and woods — except these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress. But if anyone (which we do not desire) should contrive anything against this our decree or should seek to infringe it, let him know that he will render account grievously on the day of judgement before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, unless he has first made amends here by worthy penitence before death.\nThe boundaries of Linford. # The aforesaid land seems to be encompassed by these boundaries.\nThese are the boundaries of Linford: between the Ock and the Cilla stream.\nWitnesses. # † I, Edmund, king of the English, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Eadred, brother of the same king, have consented. † I, Eadgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s mother, have signed the aforesaid gift. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have imprinted the triumphal trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfhelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Eadric, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn, have consented. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. Of Bleobyrig, how King Edmund gave it.\nIn the same year King Edmund gave Bleobyrig, of 100 hides, to his thegn Ælfric, in the same manner as above; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter by which the gift of that Ælfric concerning the same land to this house is confirmed, as was then the custom.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Bleobyrig.\nIn the name of God the highest and most high, Jesus Christ. To all the prudent who desire to behold in the dwelling of their mind the blessedness of the contemplation of God, it is established by the most manifest signs that any man is able to obtain the high heavenly things which endure without end by means of the lowest transitory things, provided that the savage wickedness of that ancient, hostile and cruel tyrant, the most savage punisher of the human race, is reckoned as a hindrance to the growth of good virtues, and — like the foulest and most envenomed darts of melancholy inspired by thieves — is denied and spat out and abhorred from the heart in the inmost chambers of the hearts of Christ\u0026rsquo;s servants, and utterly and enfeeblingly despised; as the most high Voice of our Founder thundering from his own mouth declares, \u0026ldquo;You who have followed me with good works shall receive a hundredfold and possess eternal life.\u0026rdquo;\nConstrained, indeed, by the fire of this fervour, I, Edmund, king of the English-born, hand over by perpetual charter to a certain bishop of mine, beloved of me with the fire of fervour, whose name is agreed to be Ælfric, in veneration of his prudent and steadfast fidelity, 100 hides of land in a certain place venerable of old and still known by the surname Bleoburg, so that he may well enjoy and possess it in perpetuity while he passes unharmed the course of this fleeting age and the vital spirit remains in corruptible flesh, with all the things known to pertain to that place, both great and small — fields, pastures, meadows, woods and diverted watercourses. This aforesaid bounty I confirmed and strengthened at the beginning of the third year of my reign, that it may be free from all worldly constraints, except what pertains to our common labour — which should by no means be consigned to anyone\u0026rsquo;s oblivion — namely military service and the building of bridge and fortress; and after he has gone the way of all flesh, let him leave the aforesaid gift to whatsoever heir he wills, as I have said above, in eternal inheritance. If anyone with benevolent mind shall wish to increase this generous bounty, may the ruler of the citizens above and governor of those on earth deign to grant him recompense in the eternal dwellings. We have therefore written a new charter because we did not have the old document; but if anyone produces another charter in the open, let him know beyond doubt that it stands renounced by all the faithful together with the everlasting deed of the Holy Cross, and is worth nothing. But if anyone (as we do not desire), puffed up by the suggestion of the accursed serpent and by the bonds of avarice, and so walking under the goad of devilish ferment, proves to infringe our intact and inviolate gift fraudulently, let him know beyond doubt that he shall be thrust through the hellish wall of eternal anathema together with Ananias and Sapphira and their accomplices, unless he first makes amends by worthy satisfaction.\nThe boundaries of Bleobyrig. # The aforesaid land seems to be encompassed by these boundaries.\nThese are the boundaries of Bleobyrig. First on the eastern side of the land at Amma\u0026rsquo;s spring; then due south to the dyke of the water-slade; then along the dyke to the south end at the proper boundary; then up to the great barrow below Hrameslea; then from the barrow up along the stone road to the long marked tree at Hafuc-thorn; then from Hafuc-thorn to the long thorn at Ichenild\u0026rsquo;s way; then to the third thorn at Wirhangra; from that thorn to the fourth thorn standing on the front of Wranga\u0026rsquo;s hill; then on to the fifth thorn; to the elder-tree; then west along the little road up to the thorn; up to Teona\u0026rsquo;s hill; then west to the rough ridge; along the rough ridge to the heathen burials at the old dyke; then along to the tree-site; then from the tree-site straight to the broad barrow east of Wrocena\u0026rsquo;s stub; then to Wrocena\u0026rsquo;s stub; then from Wrocena\u0026rsquo;s stub to the burial at Meocesdun; from the burial to the stream at Swinwegesslo, at the junction of the roads; then up to the earth-cleft at Foxesbeorg; from the barrow west along Drægel\u0026rsquo;s breach to the ridgeway; along the road to the red stone; from the stone north along the narrow road to Totancumb; at the barrow; then due north along the narrow road to the herpath; then to the end of the ridge; then northwards along the road to Ordstan\u0026rsquo;s dyke; then along the dyke; from the dyke, north of the ploughland; then by the ploughland to the stream that runs to Stockwell; then from Stockwell north along the brook to the dyke which the ætheling marked out; then along the dyke to the sheep-wash on Hatch brook; then along Hatch brook to Huddes-ig; then further north along the brook west of Hunddes-ig; then up along the headlands to the end of the little dyke, and then north along the headlands to the long marked tree at Hæthdun; then north along the narrow path to the dyke by the stream that runs to the stud-fold; then east along the old dyke to Æthelstan\u0026rsquo;s tree-site at the bend of the dyke; then south-east along the dyke by Byrgwilla\u0026rsquo;s boundary; then south-east over the moor to Mæring\u0026rsquo;s thorn; from Mæring\u0026rsquo;s thorn to Sulgeat; from Sulgeat by the wort-wall to the red-leaved maple; from the maple to the stream; then straight to Westwelle, which by its other name is called Amma\u0026rsquo;s spring.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 944 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 15th indiction.\nWitnesses. # † I, Edmund, king of the English, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Eadgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s mother, have signed. † I, Eadred, brother of the same king, have signed. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have signed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have imprinted the triumphal trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have signed. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have consented. † I, Burhric, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfhelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Odda, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulflaf, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Ordheah, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn, have consented. How King Edmund gave Winecanfeld and Swinlea. # Likewise in the same year King Edmund gave Winecanfeld and Swinlea, of 11 hides, to the religious woman Sæthryth; and she, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave them to God and the blessed Mary and the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Winecanfeld and Swinlea.\nOur Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. It is manifest to all that all things heavenly and earthly are governed by the providence of God; and the anxious care of mortal life is lamented and mourned with all its strength at the loss of dear ones and friends. Therefore the honeyed oracles of the divine declaration, with their sure pledges, persuade us by frequent prayers that with these fleeting and doubtless transitory possessions the everlasting kingdoms are to be obtained by the help of God.\nWherefore I, Edmund, king of the English and of the other peoples round about, have granted by eternal conveyance to a certain religious woman named Sæthryth a modest portion of my dominion, namely 11 hides of land, for the love of Him who said, \u0026ldquo;Give, and it shall be given unto you\u0026rdquo; (Luke 6:38), in the place which by the gathering of the crowd has long been declared to bear the name Winecanfeld, and Swinlea, so that she may possess the aforesaid land, by my joyful grant, during the course of her life, and after her leave it in eternal inheritance to whatever heir she wills, whether a greater or lesser person. Moreover let the aforesaid land be free, with all the things known rightly to pertain to it — fields, pastures and woods — together with 11 meadow-crops in the place called Hoceshamm, except these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress. But if anyone (which we do not desire) should contrive anything against this our decree or should seek to infringe it, let him know that he will render account grievously on the day of judgement before the tribunal of the Lord, unless he has first made amends here by worthy penitence before death.\nThe boundaries of Winecanfeld and Swinlea.\nThe aforesaid land seems to be encompassed by these boundaries.\nThese are the boundaries. First from the common tree to Bogel\u0026rsquo;s enclosure; from Bogel\u0026rsquo;s enclosure to Hrythm\u0026rsquo;s pool; from Hrythm\u0026rsquo;s pool to the black moor; from the black moor to Imbalea; from Imbalea to Werna\u0026rsquo;s spring; from Werna\u0026rsquo;s spring to Gyrdford; from Gyrdford to Ecgstan\u0026rsquo;s stone; from Ecgstan\u0026rsquo;s stone to Gunred\u0026rsquo;s ford; from Gunred\u0026rsquo;s ford to the Seven Oaks; from the Seven Oaks to Hylne\u0026rsquo;s lea; from Hylne\u0026rsquo;s lea to the breach-nook; from the breach-nook to the rough barrow; from the rough barrow to Tæppa\u0026rsquo;s tree; from Tæppa\u0026rsquo;s tree to the hedge of Westleah, then to the hedge of Ceauuan\u0026rsquo;s ridge; from the hedge of Ceauuan\u0026rsquo;s ridge back to the common tree.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 942 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 15th indiction.\nWitnesses. # † I, Edmund, king of the English, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed the same gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have imprinted the triumphal trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have signed. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman, have confirmed. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have confirmed. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Edmund, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Wulflaf, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have confirmed. Of Bryningtun, how it was given.\nIn the same year the same King Edmund granted Bryningtun, of 20 hides, to his thegn Ordulf, in the same manner as above; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter by which the gift of that Ordulf concerning the same land to this house is confirmed, as was then the custom.\nThe charter of King Edmund concerning Bryningtun.\nIn the name of the Holy Trinity. Since the fleeting ends of life are drawing near, which by divine will are appointed for us who are weighed down by the burden of sins, let us nevertheless follow the Lord\u0026rsquo;s counsels as best we can, according to that saying of the Gospel where it is said, \u0026ldquo;Give, and it shall be given unto you\u0026rdquo; (Luke 6:38).\nWherefore I, Edmund, king of the English, governor and ruler of the other peoples round about, grant to a certain thegn of mine named Ordulf, for his loving service and for his acceptable money which he paid me in the service of his devotion — namely 90 mancuses of purest gold — a certain portion of my inheritance into eternal possession: 8 hides of land where the country folk by ancient usage have bestowed the name Bryningtun, on this condition, that he may possess it during his days and the course of his life; and after him, as I have said to him, may hand it on hereafter in inheritance for ever to whomsoever he pleases. And let this gift remain, as I have just said, emptied of every secular service, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows and woods — except these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress. For whosoever, born of Belial in the generation of the ages, shall attempt to alter this our deed — he who is guilty of the crime of Judas — let him be thrust on the day of judgement with the fierce throng into the flames; unless, cleansed beforehand in this world by the weeping of penitence, he has striven to correct himself in this matter.\nThe boundaries of Bryningtun. # The aforesaid land seems to be encompassed by these boundaries.\nThese are the boundaries of the land at Bryningtun. First at the head-barrow; then to the wort-wall at the end of the hedge; then along the hedge where the fish-bourne and the alder-bourne run together; then from the alder-bourne out to the war-track; and so north to the herpath; along the herpath to the eaves; thence back to the wort-wall at Crohhamm; then to Hunna\u0026rsquo;s spring; then west along the brink until it reaches the Welshmen\u0026rsquo;s bridge; then out to the Kennet; along the Kennet to Mythford; then to the middle river; then to Beaver-eyot; then to Fyrsige; from the hill along the river where the alder-bourne flows out into the Kennet; then up along the alder-bourne to the shallow ford; thence along the hedge out on to the high field; so to the herpath; along the herpath to Imma\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from Imma\u0026rsquo;s barrow back to the head-barrow.\nThis gift was made in the year 944 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 2nd indiction.\nWith these witnesses. # † I, Edmund, king of the English, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have signed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have imprinted the triumphal trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Wihtgar, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have confirmed. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have confirmed. Of the death of King Edmund and the succession of his brother Eadred. # Now this King Edmund, while on the feast-day of Saint Augustine, teacher of the English, he was keeping his court festively with his magnates in the royal vill which is called in English Pucklechurch, it happened that in his presence his butler attacked his steward, first with abuse and then with mortal violence; and when the king took this ill and tried to rescue his steward from the brink of death, he was struck by his own butler — whose name was Leofwine — with a detestable blow, and with a piteous end was slain, and so closed his last day. After his death, as we have learned from the testimony of ancient books, the monastery of Abingdon was reduced to such desolation that, all the possessions of that monastery having been brought under royal dominion by sceptred power, it was utterly deprived of monks. But for what causes this misfortune and so unlooked-for a downfall befell, nothing true or worthy of relation has come to our knowledge. Concerning this matter we have judged it alike more useful and more honourable to remain wisely silent for the present upon such a desolation, rather than to bring forward anything which can be proved to be neither true nor easily credible. Certainly the books of the wills containing the possessions of the church, although so unlooked-for a loss was hanging over that same monastery, were nevertheless preserved by the providence of God, so that the repairers and restorers of that monastery and their successors might be made more certain through those same books, and in the course of time might learn more plainly through them the evidences of antiquity.\nFrom the times of Cissa and Ceadwalla and moreover of Ine, kings of the West Saxons, through whose patronage that monastery was first erected and built, down to this third desolation of the same monastery, a span of 250 years is reckoned to have passed.\nHere ends the First Book. # Here begins the Second Book: Of the Restoration of the House of Abingdon # And so, when Edmund, king of the West Saxons, had entered upon the way of all flesh, his brother, the illustrious King Eadred of renowned memory, succeeded him in the kingdom; and, admonished by the holy counsels of his mother, Queen Eadgifu, he proved the third restorer of the house of Abingdon and the most faithful restorer of its possessions that had been taken away. But before we come to describe that king\u0026rsquo;s virtues and gifts alike, we judge it worth our while to make mention of him at this point, since it is a fitting and appropriate place; for he proved himself the outstanding father and shepherd who, after the desolation, was the most faithful completer of the work of the house of Abingdon, after its sorrow and grief its joyful comforter, the careful establisher of the sacred order, and the most blessed institutor of all the good customs of that house.\n…a native of Winchester, named Æthelwold. This Æthelwold traced a line of nobility not only illustrious in birth but also distinguished in rank and full of all holiness. There flourished in him alike good gifts of talent and of industry, and the complete knowledge of letters acquired in his boyhood years was most gracefully crowned by the goodness of his natural disposition. There were found in him, moreover, a marvellous beauty of body, a most pleasing grace of manners, and a most delightful eloquence of speech, so that beauty, character and grace in the young Æthelwold seemed to vie with one another in rival excellence. And the gentleness of his mind, the constancy of his soul, the cheerfulness of his countenance, the eloquence of his speech, the bounty of his hand, and the holiness of his life — far more precious than all these — though we might most fervently desire to set it forth fully at present, we are by no means able to do so. Now this Æthelwold, when he had grown up and had happily reached the years of discretion, calling to mind that word of the Lord where it is said, \u0026ldquo;They cannot live unto Me who are not dead to the world,\u0026rdquo; straightway cast off the nets of the world and, denying himself, imitating Christ as his captain, and taking up His cross, became a son of the monastery of Glastonbury under the venerable father Dunstan, abbot of that place, and most happily put on the habit of sacred religion. There, living most holily for seven years, the venerable Æthelwold diligently called to mind that saying of the Gospel where it is said, \u0026ldquo;When the Judge shall come and shall winnow the wheat on the threshing-floor, the branch that has borne no fruit for the tiller in the vineyard shall be cut off\u0026rdquo;; and again diligently pondering that he is dust in his origin, dust in his imitation, and dust in his dissolution; and also what he had been through the contagion of original sin, what through the grace of baptism, what through shipwreck, and what through the second plank after shipwreck, and what he shall be through the dissolution of death and the glory of reward — he advanced to such perfection of holiness that, placed on earth among men, he seemed to lead an angelic life on earth.\nHow King Eadred began to love him. # His holiness and goodness therefore becoming known, King Eadred embraced the holy Æthelwold with so special a prerogative of love that it now pleased him to have him summoned from the monastery as his familiar friend. It pleased the king also, at the persuasion of his mother Eadgifu, to give the holy man a certain place, called Abingdon, in which monastic religion had formerly flourished. But at that time it was neglected and ruined, consisting of mean buildings, and possessing only 40 hides; while the rest of the land of the aforesaid place, amounting in circuit on either side to 100 hides, was subject to the royal demesne and held by the king himself. And it came to pass, with the consent of Abbot Dunstan and according to the king\u0026rsquo;s will, that the man of God Æthelwold should undertake the care of the aforesaid place, in order to ordain therein monks serving God according to the Rule. So the servant of God came to the place committed to him, and certain clerks of Glastonbury at once followed him — namely, Osgar, Flodbriht and Fridegar, and Ordbriht of Winchester, and Eadric of London — submitting themselves to his discipleship; and in a short space he gathered to himself a flock of monks, over whom he himself, by the king\u0026rsquo;s command, was ordained abbot. The king also gave the royal estate which he possessed in Abingdon, as the king\u0026rsquo;s following charter testifies — that is, 100 hides, with excellent buildings — to the abbot and brethren for the increase of their daily sustenance, and greatly aided them with money from the royal treasury; but his mother sent them yet more liberal consolations of gifts. And the Lord conferred such grace on His servants that to the aforesaid monastery, which before was most poor, all men seemed to bring riches at once, and all things so fell out with prosperous success that the sentence of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s promise seemed openly to be fulfilled, where it is said: \u0026ldquo;Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.\u0026rdquo; The tenor of the king\u0026rsquo;s charter is this.\n…(a certain abbot, namely Æthelwold, recounting to me the most ancient privileges,) that the vill which is called by the common name of Abingdon, with its dependent hamlets, was in early times subject to the monastery which stands in the same village; but that in the time when the pirate hordes, devastating, ranged over this whole island, it, with all its appurtenances, was taken away from the aforesaid monastery by my grandfather, namely King Alfred — repaying to the victorious Lord unequal recompense for the victory which He wrought. Now therefore, for this reason, with the counsel and consent of my bishops and nobles, whose names are inscribed below, for the redemption of my soul and for the expiation of my sins and of my predecessors\u0026rsquo;, in fulfilment of my vow I restore for ever that same vill to the aforesaid monastery for the use of the said abbot and of the brethren serving God there. Moreover, the appendant lands which in divers places belong to the same vill — that is, Gaineg 10 hides, Gosige 10 hides, Weorth 30 hides, Cumenora 30 hides — may I enjoy for necessary uses during the days of my life, with the licence of the aforenamed abbot and of the brethren subject to him. But when the course of my life is run, let them be brought back to the aforewritten vill with all their stock, and be subject for ever to the aforesaid monastery. But if anyone, instigated by devilish malice, shall presume to infringe or to alter otherwise than we have ordained this charter of our munificence, which I have rendered free from every secular yoke, three things excepted — military service and the building of bridge and fortress — let him be alienated from the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church and from participation in the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and, mournfully consigned to the eternal fires of the abyss, may he be tormented for ever with Judas, the betrayer of Christ, unless he has first made amends by worthy satisfaction for what he has offended against our decree.\nThe boundaries of the 20 hides of Abingdon which Ceadwalla, king of the West Saxons, first gave to God and Saint Mary, and which he thus divided. # First at Ockford; up along the Ock to Abba\u0026rsquo;s dyke; then to the cold spring; then to the boundary-ford; along the brook to the green way; along the way to the brook; then to Woodford; then down by the brook to the outshot of the people\u0026rsquo;s rith; then through the dene-moor, ever along the rith, to Gumangrave; then to the people\u0026rsquo;s bridge; then to the sike at the foul sea; then to Hæglea, to the broad mere; then ever by the roots to the head of Bromcumb; then straight to Abingdon, to the market-street; then along the street on to the highway; then to Ecgu\u0026rsquo;s wyrth; then to Bagga\u0026rsquo;s clearing; then to the ætheling\u0026rsquo;s acre; then out to Stanford; then to Mægtheford, along the stream out to the Thames; then forth with the stream above the great eyot to Cearewella; back below the hill into the Thames; then up by the stream; then to Bagga\u0026rsquo;s brook; then to the hawk\u0026rsquo;s bank; then to the hollow dene; then to Tidwold\u0026rsquo;s spring; along the brook out to the Thames; then forth with the stream to the forking stream; along the stream back out to the Thames; then up by the stream to the Ock\u0026rsquo;s grassland; then ever along the dyke to the Ock; then up again to Ockford. The Æthelings\u0026rsquo; Wood, Cumenora and Gatescombe belong to these twenty hides, which I myself have at times ridden and at times rowed round, and have freely apportioned for myself and my forebears and my successors in everlasting possession, for God and for the world. If anyone, through the devil\u0026rsquo;s teaching, shall diminish what I have granted to God and Saint Mary with gentle heart in everlasting inheritance, may the Lord bring down his power here and in eternity, unless with full repentance he makes amends for that wherein he has robbed our Lord.\nThese, moreover, are the attestations of this gift and freedom:\n† I, Eadred, king by the favouring grace of Christ, have confirmed this gift by the miraculous sign of the holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the see of Canterbury, have established it. † I, Oscytel, primate of the church of York, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, bishop of the see of Winchester, have confirmed it. † I, Osulf, bishop, was present at this royal bounty. † I, Eadgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s mother, procured this donation. † I, Æthelwold, abbot of the aforesaid monastery, dictated it with rejoicing. † I, Ælfhere, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Brihtferth, thegn. † I, Sulf, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Alfred, thegn. Of the monk Æthelstan. # The monk Æthelstan had received the charge, by the abbot\u0026rsquo;s command, of providing food for the workmen. One day, when Æthelwold, as Christ\u0026rsquo;s watchman, was going his round to see how he was conducting himself, he found him in the kitchen cooking food, alone as he himself was alone. And seeing that all the utensils were most clean, the floor of the house swept, and the monk himself with cheerful countenance feeding the fire for the cooking, and desiring in pious eagerness to prove his devotion, he said: \u0026ldquo;From the bottom of the cauldron\u0026rdquo; — for the water in which the boiled meats were cooking was now bubbling — \u0026ldquo;draw out with your bare hand a hot morsel.\u0026rdquo; Without delay — for he was a man of great simplicity — he thrust his arm into the boiling liquid as though into a tepid one, and grasped it according to the will of him who commanded. The abbot, marvelling at his devotion, charged him that this should be kept secret while he lived. And when afterwards, on account of the merit of his life, he had attained the summit of the episcopate at Wilton, and his summons from this life arrived, he was carried to Abingdon and buried, in the year 980 from the Incarnation of Christ.\nOf the boy Ædmer. # There was also in the same monastery a boy of the purest innocence of purpose, named Ædmer, whom the abbot, for the comeliness of his manners, cherished lovingly with pious care. This boy, when he had come to his last end, was rapt away and led before the Queen of heaven, who was encompassed by a very great company of angels and shining with marvellous brightness (as he afterwards related to his abbot and the brethren). Being pleasantly asked by her whether he would rather cleave to her or still to the world, yearning to enjoy the blessedness which he beheld, he answered: \u0026ldquo;Nowhere else, O Lady of all, is there such sweetness, such goodness, as is assuredly found with You; wherefore, if it be pleasing to Your excellent mercy, I desire that I may deserve to serve You henceforth.\u0026rdquo; But she said: \u0026ldquo;From this day you shall have your wish.\u0026rdquo; And while, with these and other heavenly novices, he was being taught the oracles of so great a Lady, he was sent back for a little while to the world below, to disclose these things to his companions. When he had finished telling them, his spirit, as it is right to believe, was borne up to the court of the Mother of God herself by the conduct of angels.\nOf the monk Osgar. # The holy father, judging that his monks could in no wise better learn the observance of religion than from others, sent one of his monks, Osgar, to the monastery of Fleury, which is adorned with the relics of Saint Benedict, to be instructed there; and on his return he kindly imparted to his fellow-soldiers, by teaching, what he had learned.\nAnd when very many men of God from divers parts of England, having heard of Æthelwold\u0026rsquo;s holiness — though instructed in a different manner of reading and chanting — came together to him and were received, he, desiring them to sing praise to God in church with one accord, summoned from the monastery of Corbie, which is situated in France and at that time was most highly reputed for ecclesiastical discipline, most skilled men, whom his monks might imitate in reading and chanting.\nOf the Mead. # When the fame of such virtues of these men was spread abroad, whenever opportunity served, the king used to come to the church and commend himself to the prayers of the father and of the servants of God dwelling there, and at their entreaty he also used to take food with them. In this matter a marvel once occurred: while all were feasting, the cup-bearers poured enough for all from a single vessel, yet only one palm\u0026rsquo;s measure of drink was drained, though a multitude was present on account of the royal presence and the feast.\nOf Queen Eadgifu. # The mother of the same king also, by name Eadgifu, cherished the abbot and the monks with the greatest love, and now poured out to them the stores of her resources, and now by her diligent admonition obtained for them so great favour from her son that at the beginning of the building of the monastery he himself measured out the foundations of the work with his own hand, and afterwards endowed them most richly with royal liberality. And as the grace of God thus showed itself gracious to its dwellers in modern times — when on the one hand the king with his aforesaid mother, and many powerful men also, rejoiced to frequent the place with gifts and to confer lands upon it, while on the other hand the abbot acquired the possessions belonging to the same place from of old, partly by reasoning and partly by payment of a price — a few years ago you might have seen the monastery there entirely built in honourable style and abundantly enriched.\nHow King Eadred gave Stanmere to Wulfric. # The aforesaid King Eadred also gave Stanmere to his thegn Wulfric, with all things known to pertain to that place, in great and in small — fields, pastures, woods — to hold freely and in perpetuity as long as he lives, and after the general passing which is certain for all mortals yet uncertain as to its hour, to leave it in perpetuity to whatsoever heir of his line he will. For so the king\u0026rsquo;s charter testifies; whereupon the said Wulfric, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent and will, made this most holy house of Abingdon heir to that same vill; and this is the text of the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nThe charter of King Eadred concerning Stanmere. # In the name of the Most High God. With the most subtle striving of the mind let us fear and love God, whom we cherish and believe in with the deepest affection of mind, for the champion and exhorter of holy preaching uttered such a sentence, saying: \u0026ldquo;All things are naked and open before the eyes of God, and from the first light until dusk He beholds every act.\u0026rdquo;\nTherefore I, Eadred, king of the English and governor and ruler of the other nations round about, to one of my thegns and soldiers — who in the service of his will and devotion was ever ready and prompt to declare and fulfil it, and who from the cradle of his infancy received, not by chance but by his parents\u0026rsquo; will, the name of Wulfric — have freely given with bounteous grant a certain portion of land, in the place where the inhabitants of that region long ago bestowed the name of Stanmere. Moreover, the extent of that land, according to the estimation of those dwelling round that place, is declared to be as great as twice five hides is seen to be in equal measurement — that is, 10 hides. Let him have and possess the aforesaid bounteous gift as long as the vital breath shall nourish his flesh, corrupted by worldly frailty. But when the day of his dissolution shall come, on which he shall pass from this corruptible life to incorruptible blessedness, let him leave it, without any hindrance, to whatsoever heir he please in eternal inheritance. And let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly burden, with all things known to pertain to that place, in great and in small — fields, pastures, woods — except the common service of military service and the building of bridge and fortress. But if anyone shall presume by his own rashness to invade it by force, let him know beyond doubt that he will render account, stumbling and trembling, before the tribunal of the strict Judge, unless he has first chosen to make amends here by worthy satisfaction.\nBoundaries of Stanmere. # The aforesaid land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Stanmere: first, from the chalk-pits to the street; along the street to Athulf\u0026rsquo;s thorn; thence to the fyrd-meadows; along the hard way; then to the cat\u0026rsquo;s barrow; then to Ælfheah\u0026rsquo;s boundary; thence along the boundary way to Wulfora; thence along the boundary to the upper end of Ine\u0026rsquo;s dene; then to the stile; then along the boundary to the gallows-hanger; from the gallows-hanger to Poccing\u0026rsquo;s clearing; thence to the down-enclosure; thence to Locer\u0026rsquo;s way; along the way to the old stile; from the stile athwart over Eomm\u0026rsquo;s ridge; thence to the old corner-way; thence to Beden\u0026rsquo;s way; from Beden\u0026rsquo;s way southward within, along the hedge round Huna\u0026rsquo;s down; then back to the chalk-pits south of the grey copses.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 948 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, indiction 5.\n† I, Eadred, king of the English, have unfalteringly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid gift under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s mother, have confirmed it with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have concluded the same king\u0026rsquo;s grant and benevolence under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Wulfstan, archon devoted to the office of divine service, archbishop of the city of York, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have subscribed and confirmed the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have signed it. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have concluded it. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Eadric, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ælfgar, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelnoth, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelsige, thegn, have consented. How King Eadred gave Wittenham to Æthelwulf. # In like manner King Eadred gave Wittenham, of 10 hides, to the prince Æthelwulf; and he, Æthelwulf, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, granted the said vill, on the same terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and Blessed Mary and to this house of Abingdon and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. And the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nThe King\u0026rsquo;s charter concerning Wittenham. # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. All things that are given in this world for the solace of mortal life are temporal; but those that are promised to the Saints in the kingdom of the heavenly life shall endure without end; therefore all must so act that by good deeds here they may deserve to obtain the felicity of future blessedness.\nWherefore I, Eadred, by the grace of God king of the West Saxons, give and grant to my beloved and venerable prince Æthelwulf land of 10 hides, in the place called Wittenham; that is, that he may have and possess it in perpetual inheritance, with all profits belonging to it — fields, meadows, pastures, fisheries — as long as he shall lead his life in this world, and after the end of his life he shall have free power of giving or granting it to whatsoever heir he please. This land also shall remain secure and immune from every royal service and every secular service, except military service and the building of the bridge and the fortification of the fortress. The aforesaid land is bounded by these bounds.\nBoundaries. # First at Gatecliff; up along Shilling\u0026rsquo;s brook; then eastward to Caber\u0026rsquo;s beech; then along the boundary to the head-tree westward; thence to the new furrow; along the furrow; then athwart over Crawa\u0026rsquo;s brook; on to the new furrow; along the furrow to the highway; and along the way to the Thames on the north-westward side.\nIf anyone shall wish to increase and amplify this my gift, may Almighty God increase his prosperous days. But if anyone shall presume to break or change it, let him know that he will render account before the tribunal of the eternal Judge on the Day of Judgement, unless he has first made amends by satisfaction.\nThis charter of the gift was written in the year 862 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, in the royal vill which is called Micheldever, before fitting witnesses, whose names are noted below.\n† I, Æthelred, king, have consented. † I, Swithun, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfhere, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Alfred, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, have consented. † I, Ealdred, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Garwulf, thegn, have consented. † I, Osmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Ægferth, thegn, have consented. † I, Eadwulf, thegn, have consented. † I, Ecgberht, thegn, have consented. † I, Ealhheard, abbot, have consented. † I, Osric, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelfred, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulflaf, thegn, have consented. † I, Hunsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfstan, thegn, have consented. Of Dencheswurthe. # In like manner he granted Dencheswurthe, of 5 hides, to the soldier Wulfric; and he, Wulfric, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, granted the said vill, on the same terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and Blessed Mary and this house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nCharter concerning Dencheswurthe. # In the name of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Redeemer of the world, in the year 947 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, I, Eadred, by the disposing mercy of the All-Creator king of the English and of all the nations dwelling round about, in the first year of my reign — the divine grace of God persuading me to consider how marvellously and how subtly the heavenly Ruler governs and guards celestial and terrestrial things in the sure course of reason — because we judge those things to be profitable which are determined by common deliberation and wholesome counsel, as a certain wise man admonished, saying: \u0026ldquo;Do all things with counsel, and after the deed thou shalt not repent.\u0026rdquo;\nTherefore, by no means holding it in oblivion, with the witness of my bishops and the attestation of the other faithful, I have cheerfully granted in perpetual freedom a small portion of my dominion — 5 hides — to a certain soldier called by name Wulfric, in that place where the countrymen, by wonted use and jesting name, bestowed the name of Dencheswurthe, for the love of Him who said, \u0026ldquo;Give, and it shall be given unto you\u0026rdquo;; that he may well enjoy and perpetually possess it as long as he shall presume to hold the life of this fleeting world; and after he shall have gone the way of all flesh, let him leave it to whatsoever heir he will, as we have said before, in eternal inheritance. And let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly burden, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — except these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress. And whosoever among all successors shall strive to amplify this right of gift by increasing it, may the All-begetting Father increase and amplify their life in this present world, and among the heavenly citizens may they rejoice, blessed and happy without end, in eternal glory. But if anyone shall presume by his own rashness to invade it by force, let him know beyond doubt that he will render account, stumbling and trembling, before the tribunal of the strict Judge, unless he has first chosen to make amends by worthy satisfaction.\nBoundaries. # The aforesaid land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries at Dencheswurthe: first on Cilla\u0026rsquo;s rith, west to Muttic; to the dyke; to Ordulf\u0026rsquo;s boundary; to Ceawa\u0026rsquo;s mound; along the dyke to the land-brook; along the brook to the northern Dencheswurthe; then east straight back to Cilla\u0026rsquo;s rith; then south to where we first began; and there the three hides lie undivided in the northern Dencheswurthe.\n† I, Eadred, king of the English, have unfalteringly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid gift under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s mother, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have concluded the same king\u0026rsquo;s grant and benevolence under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Wulfstan, archon devoted to the office of divine service, archbishop of the city of York, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have subscribed and confirmed the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have signed it. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have concluded it. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have concluded it. † I, Eadric, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ælfgar, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Beorhtsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelnoth, thegn, have consented. King Eadred gave Bedelaching to his thegn Cuthred. # The same King Eadred gave Bedelaching, of 5 hides, to his thegn Cuthred; and he, Cuthred, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, granted the said vill, on the same terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and Blessed Mary and this house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nCharter concerning Bedelaching. # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. \u0026ldquo;All the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal\u0026rdquo;; therefore by fleeting and vain things the eternal and ever-abiding joys of the heavenly country are to be greatly purchased.\nWherefore I, Eadred, by the grace of God king of the West Saxons, for the remedy of my soul, have freely bestowed a certain part of the land of my right on my thegn Cuthred in perpetual inheritance — that is, 5 hides in the place called Bedelaching; namely, that he may have and possess the aforesaid land with all profits belonging to it — fields, meadows, pastures — as long as Almighty God shall will that he tarry in this life; and after the end of his life he shall have free power of giving or granting it to whatsoever heir he please. And let the aforesaid land remain secure and immune from every royal service and every secular service, except military service and the building of the bridge and the fortification of the fortress. If anyone shall wish to increase and amplify this my gift, may God increase his goods here and in the world to come; but if anyone shall presume to break or change it, let him know that he will render account before the tribunal of the eternal Judge on the day of judgement, unless he has first made amends by satisfaction. This deed was written in the year 948 from the Incarnation of Christ, in the place called Suthtun, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are seen written below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Æthelred, king, have consented. † I, Æthelwulf, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Beorhtferth, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, have consented. † I, Heremod, priest. † I, Milred, thegn, have consented. † I, Cunlaf, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelwulf, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have consented. † I, Æscred, thegn, have consented. † I, Cuneleah, thegn, have consented. † I, Ceolberht, thegn, have consented. † I, Mucel, thegn, have consented. † I, Heahwulf, thegn, have consented. † I, Weohthelm, thegn, have consented. † I, Cyneferth, thegn, have consented. King Eadred gave Wasingetune to Eadric. # The same King Eadred granted Wasingetune, of 20 hides, to the ealdorman Eadric; and he, Eadric, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, granted the said vill, on the same terms on which King Eadred had granted it to him, to God and Blessed Mary and this house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nCharter concerning Wasingetune. # In the name of the Holy Trinity. Although the decrees of bishops and the words of priests are fixed, like the foundations of mountains, in strict bonds, yet very often by the tempests and whirlwinds of secular things even the religion of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church is dissipated and broken by the stains of the reprobate. Therefore, foreseeing the uncertain state of future times, we have decreed that it will profit our successors that those things which are determined by common deliberation and wholesome counsel should be confirmed, strengthened by interwoven letters.\nWherefore I, Eadred, king of the English and governor and ruler of the other nations round about, to one most faithful to me, a beloved ealdorman named Eadric — won over by the diligence of his devotion and his service — have deigned to give twice ten hides, which in English is called twenty hides, in that place where the inhabitants of that region long ago bestowed the name of Wasingetune. Moreover, I have granted this gift of the aforesaid munificence on such terms: that he may possess and firmly hold it until the last course of his life, with all the appurtenances which the God of heaven created on that land\u0026rsquo;s soil, both in things known and unknown, in small and in great — fields, pastures, woods and thickets of woods — granting it with freedom. And after he shall have left the frailty of the human race and, by the grace of the heavenly Judge, shall have gone the desirable way of gladness, let him leave it eternally to whatsoever successor he will, as I have noted above. And let the aforesaid land be free from every fiscal tribute and emptied of secular services, except military service and the building of bridge and fortress. And I command in the name of the Most High God that neither we living nor any who are reckoned under the name of Christendom and the faith of Divine knowledge should presume to bring the statutes of this freedom to nought. Whosoever shall strive with benevolent mind to amplify my gift, may he hold prosperously in this present world the joys of long-lasting life. But if anyone shall presume by his own rashness to invade it by force, let him know beyond doubt that he will render account, stumbling and trembling, before the tribunal of the strict Judge, unless he has first chosen to make amends by worthy satisfaction.\nBoundaries of Wasingetune. # The aforesaid land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Wasingetune: first to Duha\u0026rsquo;s clearing; from Duha\u0026rsquo;s clearing to the red spring; from the red spring to Lydgeard\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from Lydgeard\u0026rsquo;s barrow to Tatmon\u0026rsquo;s apple-tree; from Tatmon\u0026rsquo;s apple-tree to Deneburh\u0026rsquo;s mound; from Deneburh\u0026rsquo;s mound to the stone barrow; from the stone barrow to Hæthburh\u0026rsquo;s mound; from the mound to the war-grove; from the war-grove to the two barrows; from the two barrows to Lærem\u0026rsquo;s down; from Lærem\u0026rsquo;s down to Bida\u0026rsquo;s wood; from Bida\u0026rsquo;s wood to Wiga\u0026rsquo;s camp; from Wiga\u0026rsquo;s camp to Benna\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from the barrow to the black pool; from the pool to the apple-tree; then to the dun-coloured head; then to Huna\u0026rsquo;s knoll; then back to Duha\u0026rsquo;s clearing.\nThese are the pastures that belong thereto: Wynburh\u0026rsquo;s spear, and the three crock-hursts, and Horsham, and Yffel\u0026rsquo;s clearing, and Hæslwic, and Gatawic, and Ridanfald, and Scacalwic, and Hundscedingfald.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 947 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, indiction 5.\n† I, Eadred, king of the English, have unfalteringly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid gift under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s mother, have confirmed it with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have concluded the same king\u0026rsquo;s grant and benevolence under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Wulfstan, archon devoted to the office of divine service, archbishop of the city of York, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have subscribed and confirmed the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented to the aforesaid gift. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have signed it. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Wulfgar, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Ælfgar, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Edmund, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfric, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelsige, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelnoth, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfheah, thegn, have consented. † I, Ælfred, thegn, have consented. † I, Æthelred, thegn, have consented. Of Weligforda: how King Eadred gave it to Wulfric. # In like manner King Eadred gave Weligforda, of 13 hides, to his thegn Wulfric; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, granted the said vill, on the terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and Blessed Mary and this house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nThe King\u0026rsquo;s charter concerning Weligforda. # The Saviour of the world, in perpetual eternity governing and disposing all the rights of kingdoms from the high summit of heaven — who, in showing the gifts of His knowledge, is unfailingly beheld ruling heaven and earth and the liquid plains and the shining globe of the moon and the eternal sun, holding and guarding them with His ineffable grace.\nWherefore I, Eadred, by the mercy of divine indulgence king of the English, have given 18 hides to one faithful to me in the inmost affection of heartfelt love, nay, dear to me in all things by the privilege of affection, called by name Wulfric, in that place where the inhabitants of that region long ago bestowed the name of Weligforda, in exchange for another land which is said to be situated in Cornwall, where the countrymen of that district call it by the barbarous name of Pendyfig; so that he may have and possess it as long as he lives, and after him leave it to whatsoever survivor he will in eternal inheritance. And let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly burden, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — except the common service of military service and the joint building of bridge and fortress. But if any man shall strive to break this my gift, boasting with the rashness of folly, may he be weighed down by heavy chains about his neck among the flame-vomiting throngs of foul demons, unless he has first chosen to come to satisfaction here.\nBoundaries of Weligforda. # The aforesaid land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Weligforda: first from Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree; along the dene; then up on to the way; thence to the broad clearing, northward to a meadow; and then right through the clearing to a meadow southward, to the old hedge-row; into the wet hanger; from the hanger to the shilling hanger; then to the broad meadow westward; in the meadow to the cradle-mound; from the mound to the Lambourn; thence up to the deer\u0026rsquo;s tree; from the tree to the elm stump; then to Ceolbald\u0026rsquo;s spring; from the spring to the ford of Cut\u0026rsquo;s syte; from the ford to Wulfric\u0026rsquo;s; then to the upper part of the hoard-lince; from the lince to the sedge-mead northward; then straight on to Cenhelm\u0026rsquo;s stone; from the stone to the way; on the way to Rigeham; then the green way; out to the lamp-pits; to the chalk-pit; from the chalk-pit to the ash; then forth over the burn; along the mill-path; to the three thorns; and so forth along the lince to Cardanham; from the meadow out through the clearing to the green barrow; from the barrow to Ecgu\u0026rsquo;s tree; from the tree to the boundary-way; thence to the dene; and so forth to the three boundaries; from the boundaries back to Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 949 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, indiction 7.\nWitnesses. # † I, Eadred, king of the English, have unfalteringly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid gift under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s mother, have confirmed it with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have concluded the same king\u0026rsquo;s grant and benevolence under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Wulfstan, archon devoted to the office of divine service, archbishop of the city of York, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have subscribed and confirmed the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, gave consent, affixing the Cross. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have confirmed the king\u0026rsquo;s gift. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it by the banner of the Cross. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have depicted the sign of the Cross. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, ealdorman. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ætheric, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. Of Æscesburh: how King Eadred gave it. # In like manner King Eadred granted Æscesburh, of 33 hides, to his thegn Ælfsige and his wife Eadgifu; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, granted the said vill, on the terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and Blessed Mary and this house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nThe charter of King Eadred concerning Æscesburh. # In the year 953 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. I, Eadred, by divine favour, king and foremost ruler of all Albion, have most freely granted to my thegn Ælfsige and his wife Eadgifu, for his pleasing and faithful service, a small portion of land assessed at 33 hides in the place called Æscesburh; binding this gift of munificence on such terms that after his death he may leave it in perpetual right to whatsoever heir he will. But if anyone — which we desire not — shall attempt to break the charter of this gift, unless he be first duly punished in this world, may he be pressed in the world to come by everlasting torment. And this portion of land is seen to be encompassed by these limits.\nFirst at the south gate; and from the north gate to Dudebeorh; then to Ecel\u0026rsquo;s barrow; then to the ring-pit; then to the heads; then to the chalk-pits; thence to the broad mere; then along the dyke to the dene-mead; then to the broad way round Mordun, to Thyrs\u0026rsquo;s stream; thence to the northern hatch-mere; then along the moor by the north stone; then athwart over the moor to Bullandic; and so along the dyke to Æthelfrith\u0026rsquo;s boundary, at the end of Bullandic; to the thorn stump; then to Talla\u0026rsquo;s burn; thence to the holy place; and so up along the brook to Æthelfrith\u0026rsquo;s boundary westward; and so along the boundary to the raven\u0026rsquo;s fort, at the north gate; out at the south gate to Hoda\u0026rsquo;s mound; then to the stone mounds; then to the red hollow; then to the dun hollow; and so by the slope; then to Domferth\u0026rsquo;s hurst; to Thættac\u0026rsquo;s stone; then to the hound\u0026rsquo;s mound; then to the hawk\u0026rsquo;s mound; then to the short dyke; then to the long dyke to Æscesburh; back to the south gate.\nThe names of the attesters of this gift are seen noted below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Oda, archbishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cenwold, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Leofwine, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. Of Cifanlea: how it was given to Wulfric. # The same King Eadred gave Cifanlea, of 25 hides, to his thegn Wulfric; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, granted the said vill, on the terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and Blessed Mary and this house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nThe charter of King Eadred concerning Cifanlea. # …through His aid we are able to restore the lost and the wicked, as the Psalmist thus sang: \u0026ldquo;The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.\u0026rdquo;\nWherefore I, Eadred, by divine indulgent mercy king of the English, eternally grant to one of my faithful thegns, called by name Wulfric, 25 hides with the pasture which is situated on a certain hill, which he obtained from me, in that place where the countrymen of that land long ago bestowed the name of Cifanlea; that he may have and possess it as long as the vital spirit shall nourish his body; and when the day of his dissolution shall come, let him leave it to whatsoever heir he will, as we said above, in eternal inheritance. Let this my immovable gift therefore remain pleasing in eternal freedom, with all things known to pertain to that place, in great and in small — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — except the common service of military service and the joint building of bridge and fortress. If any, moreover — I desiring it not — oppressed by envy shall strive to violate this charter of freedom, may they, fallen into the ranks of foul darkness, hear on the day of judgement the voice of the Arbiter saying to them, \u0026ldquo;Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire\u0026rdquo;; where with the demons they are cruelly tormented in iron frying-pans, unless before death they amend this with worthy penance.\nBoundaries of Cifanlea. # …to Catbeorh; along the way to Æthelun\u0026rsquo;s thorn; then along the way to Sealhangra eastward; thence along the way to the burial-mounds; then along the nether boundary to the grey apple-tree; then to Orlham\u0026rsquo;s boundary; along that boundary to Ciltewud\u0026rsquo;s boundary at the stone; then west along the way to the ridge; then along the boundary to the chalk-pit; thence along the boundary to the other chalk-pit; then to the pale stump, and there to the wood; then to the shrubs; then over the high ridge; then to the king\u0026rsquo;s enclosure; then west there along the enclosure to Hnæf\u0026rsquo;s clearing southward; then along the enclosure to the brook; from the brook thence north outside the little heath-field; then along the way by the Winterburna boundary, west of the old fort, on to the stony way; from the way to the stone chests; thence to the heads; then west to the burn, six furrows off; then north one furlong; then west over the two barrows to the army-path; north along the army-path to the broad ford; then west along Burnstow to Ibba\u0026rsquo;s stone; then east along the way to Standene; thence west to the root-bank; thence north to the sheep-meadows; then straight to where the town-ways shoot out; then straight to the grey apple-tree; from the grey apple-tree through the town to the new chalk-pit; then along the boundary to the little barrow up on Mull\u0026rsquo;s down; from the barrow along the boundary to the ridge-way; along the ridge-way to Catwier\u0026rsquo;s boundary; then east along the boundary to Putta\u0026rsquo;s pit; from the pit along the boundary back to Catbeorh.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 951 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, indiction 9.\nWitnesses. # † I, Eadred, king of the English, have unfalteringly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid gift under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s mother, have confirmed it with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have concluded the same king\u0026rsquo;s grant and benevolence under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfric, bishop, gave consent, tracing the Cross. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have confirmed the king\u0026rsquo;s gift. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it by the banner of the Cross. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have confirmed the banner of the Cross. † I, Byrhtsige, bishop, have depicted the sign of the Cross. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Byrhtsige, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. Of Cusanricge: how it was given to King Eadred\u0026rsquo;s thegn. # King Eadred also gave Cusanricge, of five hides, to his thegn Ælfric; and he himself, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, bestowed the said vill — on the same terms on which the king had granted it to him — upon God and Blessed Mary and this house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nThe King\u0026rsquo;s charter concerning Cusanricge. # In the year 953 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. I, Eadred, by divine favour, king and foremost ruler of all Albion, have most freely granted to my thegn Ælfric, bound to me by kinship of the flesh, for his pleasing and faithful service, a small portion of land assessed at 5 hides in the place called Cusanricge; binding this gift of munificence on such terms that after his death he may leave it in perpetual right to whatsoever heir he will. But if anyone — which we desire not — shall attempt to break the charter of this gift, unless he be first duly punished in this world, may he be pressed in the world to come by everlasting torment. And this portion of land is seen to be encompassed by these limits.\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries at Cusanricge of the five hides: first to the boundary-way; along the boundary-way to the hatch-gates; along the hatch to the grey thorn; from the thorn to Cyneeah\u0026rsquo;s tree; then along the hart-path to the queen\u0026rsquo;s dene; then along the old way to Linleah; then along the hatch to the chalk-pit; then over the ridge back to the boundary-way. And in the common land there belong to it 65 acres.\nThe names of the attesters of this gift are seen noted below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Oda, archbishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfred, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cenwold, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Leofwine, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. How King Eadred gave Cumtune to his thegn Ælfheah. # In like manner King Eadred granted Cumtune by Æscesdune, of 8 hides, to his thegn Ælfheah; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, granted the said vill, on the terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and Blessed Mary and this house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nThe charter of King Eadred concerning Cumtune. # In the year 955 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. I, Eadred, by divine favour, king and foremost ruler of all Albion, have most freely granted a small portion of land to my thegn Ælfheah, joined to me by kinship, assessed at 8 hides in the place called Cumtune, next to the hill called Æscesdune; binding this gift of munificence on such terms that after his death he may leave it in perpetual right to whatsoever heir he will. But if anyone — which we desire not — shall attempt to break the charter of this gift, unless he be first duly punished in this world, may he be pressed in the world to come by everlasting torment. And this portion of land is seen to be encompassed by these limits.\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries of the land at Cumtune: first from the ridge-way to the broad gate; from the broad gate to Æthelhelm\u0026rsquo;s lince; on to the forward down; from Æthelhelm\u0026rsquo;s lince to the Icknield Way; from the Icknield Way to Bica\u0026rsquo;s dyke; from Bica\u0026rsquo;s dyke into the swine-brook; from the swine-brook to the broad thorn west of the mere; from the thorn to the red dyke; along the dyke to Hild\u0026rsquo;s mound; from Hild\u0026rsquo;s mound to the black pit; from the black pit along the western rush-row into the swine-brook; from the swine-brook to the reeds; from the reeds to Hwitluc\u0026rsquo;s mound on the Icknield Way; from the Icknield Way to the mere chalk-pit; from the nether chalk-pit to Dinra\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from Dinra\u0026rsquo;s barrow to the ridge-way; from the ridge-way to Fernhill\u0026rsquo;s slade; from Fernhill\u0026rsquo;s slade to Hazel Hill southward; from Hazel Hill west to the green way; along the way to the driven furrow; along the furrow until it comes to the broad gate east of Weland\u0026rsquo;s smithy. The names of the attesters of this gift are seen noted below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Oda, archbishop, have consented. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have assented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have assented. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have assented. † I, Cenwold, bishop, have witnessed. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Leofwine, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. How King Eadred gave Boxora to his thegn Wulfric. # In like manner King Eadred gave Boxora, of 10 hides, to his thegn Wulfric; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, granted the said vill, on the terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and Blessed Mary and this house of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is this.\nThe charter of King Eadred concerning Boxora. # The Lord of lords reigning for ever and ever. The kingdoms of the kings of this present world pass away like ignominy, and all the glory and place of this world will perish, for they are not eternal; but the things above are eternal.\nWherefore I, Eadred, king of the English, governor and ruler, grant for ever with devoted mind to one of my faithful thegns — whom many call by the well-known name of Wulfric — for his benevolent service, a certain portion of land, that is, 10 hides, in that place where by English appellation it is called Boxora; that he may have and possess it as long as he lives, and after him leave it eternally to whomsoever he will. And let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly burden, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — except the common service of military service and the building of bridge and fortress. But if anyone shall strive to infringe it — which God forbid — let him know that he is guilty every hour of his life and shall not escape dark Tartarus.\nBoundaries. # This land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Boxora: first at Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree; then along the army-path to the valley-pit; then up to Æcme\u0026rsquo;s meadows on the south side; from the clean meadows along the boundary out to the heath-field on the east side; then out to the linden on the north side; then along the boundary to Weoc\u0026rsquo;s thorn; from that thorn then along the boundary to the Lambourn at Clatford; from Clatford to the head of Meosbrook; then to Ælle\u0026rsquo;s post; thence along the army-path out to the marsh; there by the marsh to the enclosure at the new hedge; then to the dyke; along the dyke out to the stream; then up to the black groves; from the groves to Rinda\u0026rsquo;s hollow; from the hollow to the three thorns; then along the way back to Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree, where it first began.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 958, in the first indiction.\nWitnesses. # † I, Eadred, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have consigned. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have acquiesced. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have not refused. † I, Daniel, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfgear, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Wulfgar Leofa, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Cynric, thegn. How King Eadred gave Beorcham to Ælfwine his thegn. # The same King Eadred granted to Ælfwine his thegn Beorcham, of three hides; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, conveyed the aforesaid estate, on the same terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and St Mary and to this house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is as follows.\nCharter of King Eadred concerning Beorcham. # Whatever is seen to stand firm in its former state soon slips away, as no wise man is unaware; and the joys that deceive in this life are shaken and scattered.\nWherefore I, Eadred, king of the English, have bestowed in perpetual inheritance a certain small portion of land, namely of three hides, in the place which is called by the rustics by the well-known name of Beorcham, to a certain vassal who is called by his familiars by the name of Ælfwine, on account of his faithful service; so that he may cheerfully possess it during his lifetime, with all things rightly pertaining to it, and after the end of his life may leave it unburdened to whatsoever heirs he may wish. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of servitude, three things excepted, namely military service and the construction of bridge and fortress. But if anyone shall wish to change this our munificence into something other than we have decreed, let him be anathema, unless first in this life before his death he repents as guilty of having offended against our decree.\nThese bounds gird the aforesaid land hereabouts.\nBounds. # These are the boundaries of the three hides at Beorcham. First from Ceolla\u0026rsquo;s spring along the stream to the Ige, to the end of the enclosure; then along the enclosure to Cnotinga hamm; then from Cnotinga hamm straight along the foot of the slope; along the valley to the white stone; then past the white stone along the street to Loddera street; then from Loddera street back to Ceolla\u0026rsquo;s spring.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 952, with these witnesses consenting whose names are seen written below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Eadred, king, have established this royal boon with the triumphant standard. † I, Oda, metropolitan, have consigned. † I, Eadgifu, mother of the same king, have confirmed. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfsige, have consented. † I, Dunstan, abbot. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn, have consented. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Oswig, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Lyfing, thegn. How King Eadred gave Weonfeld to Ælfgar his thegn. # The same King Eadred gave to Ælfgar, his thegn and soldier, Weonfeld, of three hides; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, conveyed the aforesaid estate, on the same terms on which the king had granted it to him, to God and St Mary and to this house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms. The king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift is as follows.\nCharter of King Eadred concerning Weonfeld. # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour. We know most certainly and without ambiguity that all the visible things of this present world, daily manifested in diverse matters, are declared to be transitory and temporal things which the heavenly Ruler has created for all, save only that He daily distributes sustenance to men through His bountiful mercy.\nWherefore I, Eadred, by the indulgence of divine clemency king of the English, have given to one of my faithful thegns and soldiers, who from the cradle of his infancy received, not by chance but by his parents\u0026rsquo; will, the name Ælfgar, three hides of land in that place where the dwellers of that region long ago imposed the name \u0026ldquo;at Weonfeld\u0026rdquo;, so that he may have and possess it during his life, that is, as long as the vital spirit nourishes his frail body in this toilsome life; and after the separation of the soul from the body has taken place — which is known to be the common and inescapable lot of all mortals — he may leave it to whatever heir he wishes in perpetual inheritance. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly burden, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — the common labour excepted, namely military service and the building of bridge and fortress. And let this small gift of blessing remain in everlasting writing with the seal of the holy Cross, as long as the willing rock is beheld by human eyes upon the earth, and water serves the Creator of all creatures with its wave-wandering floods. But if any man shall strive to violate this my gift, boasting with the rashness of folly, let him be weighed down about the neck with heavy chains among the flame-breathing throngs of foul demons, unless first in this life he has chosen to come to satisfaction.\nBounds of Weonfeld. # The aforesaid land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries. First at the hounds\u0026rsquo; lea, to the Grægsol stream; along the stream to the Grægsol enclosure; along the enclosure to the confluence of the meadows; from the confluence to Tichanstede\u0026rsquo;s enclosure; along the enclosure out to the field; then always by the foot of the slope until it comes out to the foul rill; along the rill out to the dock-ford; from the ford west along the moor until it comes to the fallen tree-trunk; from the trunk along the enclosure out to the heath-field; to the boundary of the Beorhfeld people; to the enclosure; then along the enclosure by the dwelling.\nWitnesses. # † I, Eadred, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented to the aforesaid gift under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgifu, mother of the same king, have confirmed with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have concluded the same king\u0026rsquo;s sovereignty and goodwill under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of the city of York, bound by the office of archontic service, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Theodred, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have subscribed the vault of the holy Cross, and confirmed. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have given consent, tracing the Cross. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have confirmed the king\u0026rsquo;s gift. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have depicted the form of the Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented to the aforesaid gift. † I, Ealhhelm, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, ealdorman. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelgarth, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. On the death of King Eadred. # Now this King Eadred, seized by a fatal illness, took to the bed of sickness, from which he did not depart until, by the disposing of the just Judge of the world, he breathed forth his last spirit. A voice that slipped from heaven revealed the blessedness of his end to the blessed Abbot Dunstan, as he journeyed to Glastonbury and was hastening as quickly as he could, that he might visit his flock the sooner — before it could have become known to him by human means — saying, \u0026ldquo;King Eadred has fallen asleep in the Lord.\u0026rdquo; O how blessed the life of a king that is commended by so blessed a testimony!\nOn King Eadwig. # Eadwig, the son of his brother King Edmund, succeeded King Eadred in the government. In his sight the venerable Æthelwold, abbot of Abingdon, of whom we have spoken before, found such favour that the said king gave to his every petition — so far as concerned the advancement of the house of Abingdon — an assent both effective and affectionate. The venerable Æthelwold, not unmindful of this favour, at the very beginning of his reign obtained from the same king a privilege concerning the liberty of the monastery of Abingdon and, moreover, of the possessions belonging to the same monastery, established and confirmed by all the archbishops and bishops of England; the archbishops and bishops, and likewise the abbots, firmly enjoining under threat of anathema that no mortal should thereafter presume either to obtain anything contrary to the liberty of the privilege, or in any other way maliciously to act against it. The tenor of the privilege is as follows.\nPrivilege of King Eadwig concerning the town of Abingdon, and concerning the election of an abbot from its own congregation. # By the admonition of orthodox ecclesiastical vigour we are very frequently instructed that we who are utterly subject to it should venerate in supplication Him who, disposing the fabric of the whole world in a wondrous and ineffable order, at last formed the microcosm — Adam, that is — out of fourfold matter, and, breathing into him by a gracious impulse after His own likeness, set him over all that He had formed in the lower world, and, with but one thing excepted and forbidden for the sake of proving him, most fittingly placed him in the delight of paradise\u0026rsquo;s pleasantness, with Eve as his companion. Alas! beguiled by larvarical cavil and captivated by the fickle and persuasive cunning of the woman, he bit the forbidden fruit with jaws of anathema, and, cast down into this wretched world, deserved everlasting death for himself and his posterity. For as the prophets foretold, and as they who, taught from heaven, plainly proclaimed in orthodox doctrine the long-hidden presages of the heavenly King declared, an angel, bringing a blessing from on high — not, as the seditious loquacity of the Jews speechlessly confesses, but embracing the most elegant eloquence of ancients and moderns alike, and confounding the Arian and Sabellian taunts in anagogic utterance — slipping from the heavenly thresholds into the ear of the inviolate Virgin, is seen to have sung wondrous songs, as the evangelical declarations proclaim. To her the whole Church, that is, the catholic Church, proclaims with harmonious voice, thundering on high: \u0026ldquo;Blessed are you, Virgin Mary, who have believed; for there shall be fulfilled in you the things that were told you by the Lord.\u0026rdquo; Wondrous to tell! The Word is made flesh and embodied — that Word of which the Evangelist, pre-eminent above all in height of understanding, says, \u0026ldquo;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God\u0026rdquo; [John i. 1], and so on. By that incarnation, indeed, taken from the Virgin, the sin of the ancient virgin is wiped away, and honour is bestowed upon all women, resplendent with bright miracles. Therefore, with the divinity of Christ remaining inviolate and His humanity suffering, liberty graciously befell His devoted servants.\nHence I, Eadwig, with the assistance of the High-throned One, king of the English and of the other peoples established round about in their several ways — that I may deserve to obtain a share in this liberty of the high-throned Governor\u0026rsquo;s clemency — grant to the monastery situated in the renowned place which the dwellers of this stock call by the noble name of Abingdon, held dedicated to the Mother of our Lord, the ever-Virgin Mary, and to St Peter, prince of the apostles, and to his fellow-apostle Paul, and to the monks dwelling there in the regular life, the everlasting liberty of a monastic privilege: namely that after the decease of the excellent Abbot Æthelwold, in whose times this restoration of liberty was granted through Christ\u0026rsquo;s favour, the whole congregation of the aforesaid monastery may lawfully appoint as abbot, electing by fitting counsel from that same body of brethren, the one whom it has chosen according to the regular institutes of St Benedict. Let the liberty of this privilege henceforth be held in perpetual use by all catholics, nor let any outsider, relying on tyrannical contumacy, usurp and exercise the right of power in the aforesaid monastery; but let the college of the same monastery glory, as I have said, in the privilege of perpetual liberty. Moreover, let the aforesaid monastery be free from every earthly servitude in the same terms in which it is held released by the ancient privilege of our catholic predecessors — namely Pope St Leo and the catholic King Cenwulf — when Heahhun held the abbacy. Let the lands, indeed, granted by right for the use of the monks to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His Mother Mary in ancient and modern times by kings and religious persons of both sexes, and by myself and by my uncle King Eadred, most faithful in restoring, be of the same perpetual liberty. For the aforesaid king, restoring to God\u0026rsquo;s church the land called Abingdon — which King Ceadwalla had in ancient times granted with devoted mind to our Lord and to His Mother Mary, and in which our predecessors, deceived by diabolical avarice, had unjustly built themselves a royal building — forbade that any king should demand entertainment there or construct a building in perpetuity. Which I, Eadwig, king of the English, acting upon the counsel of my nobles, command to stand fixed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for evermore, both in my own times and in those of my successors. But if anyone so grasping, seduced by the madness of avarice — which we do not desire — shall attempt with rash daring to infringe this bounty of our munificence, let him be alienated from the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church, and likewise from participation in the most sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God, through whom the whole orb of the earth has been freed from the ancient enemy of the human race; and let him be set on the left side with Judas the betrayer of Christ. Unless first in this life, humbled, he repents with worthy satisfaction that he presumed to rebel against God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church, let the apostate obtain neither pardon in this active life nor rest in the contemplative, but, most wretched, thrust into the everlasting fires of the abyss, let him be tortured for ever with Ananias and Sapphira.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 959, in the second indiction, in the third year of my reign, on the sixteenth kalends of June [17 May], this syngraph of munificence was written, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below according to each one\u0026rsquo;s dignity.\n† I, Eadwig, monarch of the English of Britain, have confirmed the aforemade gifts of kinsmen and also of kings with this wonder of the holy Cross. † I, Odo, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have subscribed the same goodwill. † I, Eadgifu, grandmother of the same king, have confirmed this gift with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Osulf, servant of the people of God, have confirmed with my own hand by canonical subscription. † I, Brihtelm, bishop, at the king\u0026rsquo;s command have impressed the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have set up the trophy of the holy Cross. † I, Brihtelm, bishop, have subscribed and confirmed the vault of the holy Cross. † I, Daniel, pontiff, have given consent, tracing the Cross. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman, have confirmed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift. † I, Æthelwold, abbot, have depicted this boon with my own hand in letters. † I, Ælfric, abbot, have confirmed with the standard of the Cross. † I, Ælfwold, abbot, have fixed the form of the Cross with my own hand. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wulfgar, warden. † I, Æscwig, warden. † I, Ælfnoth, warden. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Brihtferth, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, steward. † I, Æthelsige, butler. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Leofing, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Cyneric, thegn. † I, Wihtsige, thegn. † I, Leofa, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Leofstan, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Æthelstan, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Oswig, thegn. † I, Ordgar, thegn. † I, Brihtric, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Wulfhere, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Ælfmaer, thegn. † I, Ordwold, thegn. † I, Ordnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Eadred, thegn. † I, Cyneric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Eanulf, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ceoleah, thegn. † I, Brihtric, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Leofing, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ætheric, thegn. † I, Brihtelm, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Brihtwald, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfmaer, thegn. † I, Eadulf, thegn. † I, Sigelm, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Æthelm, thegn. Charter of King Eadwig concerning Abingdon. # In the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 955, in the fourteenth indiction, I, Eadwig, by the favouring grace of God king and chief of Albion, as soon as the heavenly Lord enthroned me over the earthly realm, with most devoted devotion grant a certain small portion of land, reckoned by the inhabitants at twenty small holdings, to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His Mother the blessed Mary ever-Virgin, and likewise to St Benedict, the most renowned patron of monks, and to his servant Abbot Æthelwold, at the monastery which is in Abingdon; commanding in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that none of our successors, as long as Christianity flourishes, shall dare to violate this our decree. But if anyone — which we do not desire — struck by the blight of greed, shall attempt to infringe the privilege of this gift, let him know himself guilty of sacrilege in perpetuity, unless first in this world he has wiped away this monstrous crime with worthy penitence. And this small portion of land is seen to be encompassed by these limits.\nBounds. # These are the boundaries of the land at Abingdon which King Eadwig gives to God in praise into the minster, and to himself for an eternal possession. First on the Thames, by the southern shore; there up to the dyke, on the south side of Ock\u0026rsquo;s yard; then along the dyke to the Ock; along the Ock to the abbot\u0026rsquo;s dyke; along the dyke to the cold spring; from the cold spring to the middle of the rush-meadow, as far as Torhtwold\u0026rsquo;s moor; then there to the dyke; along the dyke to the boundary-fords; then up along the brook until it comes opposite the old lea-ridge; then straight between the Pottles trees; to the elder stump; then there to the wood-ford; to the Sunningwell brook; along the brook to Dunna\u0026rsquo;s ford; then there to the willow-bed; then to the half-acre northward; then along the furrow to the heads; then there south over the half-acre; then there east to the furrow; then to the short land; there to the heathen burial-place; then thence to the seven acres westward; then there north to Lippa\u0026rsquo;s dyke; along the dyke through Sucga\u0026rsquo;s grove; then to the elder stump; then to the bramble-thorns; to the dyke; along the dyke to the horn-pit; then through Madoc\u0026rsquo;s lea to the old dyke; then to the acre-dyke; then to the hazel-dyke; from the hazel-dyke to the boundary-way; to Bæga\u0026rsquo;s worth; along the long way to the highway; along the highway to Ecgun\u0026rsquo;s worth; then to Bæga\u0026rsquo;s lea; then always by the foot of the slope; then to Bæga\u0026rsquo;s brook; from Bæga\u0026rsquo;s brook to the hawk\u0026rsquo;s edge; along the boundary-hedge; then out to Rygeworth westward; to the old dyke; then along the dyke to the pear-hanger; then to Wulfric\u0026rsquo;s brook; then straight across the herdsman\u0026rsquo;s way to the great willow; then there out to the Thames; then along the Thames; then back to the dyke on the south side of Ock\u0026rsquo;s yard.\nThe witnesses of this gift were those whose names are seen noted below.\n† I, Eadwig, king and chief of all Albion, have joyfully confirmed this gift by the wonder of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgar, ætheling, brother of the same king, have devoutly assented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have bound this gift with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop, have confirmed the same with the seal of the Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop of the church of Winchester, with the other bishops, have of one accord bound this gift with the seal of the holy Cross by equal vow. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have impressed the seal of the Cross. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have impressed it. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have confirmed this privilege by the sign of the Cross. † I, Cenwold, bishop, have enrolled. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have consigned. † I, Dunstan, abbot, have confirmed with letters. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, with the other suffragans have inviolably confirmed this gift. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, earl. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. Moreover, let the aforesaid land, which I, with the consent of his nobles, have eternally restored to the holy church — though it was once unjustly taken away from it — be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, those things comprised in the aforesaid necessity excepted, namely military service and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nHow the king gave Hengestesige to the church. # Likewise in the same year King Eadwig gave to God and St Mary and to this house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there in perpetuity, Hengestesige, Seofecanwyrthe and Wihtham, and confirmed it by his charter. The tenor of this charter is as follows.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Hengestesige. # With our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. It is known to all who nearly give their minds to the study of wisdom that, as the dangers of the present life threaten and the perishing of fleeting things increases, human knowledge slips away like dew and is handed over to oblivion, unless it is marked beforehand by some sure reasoning; \u0026ldquo;for the things which are seen here are not eternal but earthly,\u0026rdquo; as the apostle, imbued with the word of the Thunderer, says: \u0026ldquo;Now, as a shadow, so swiftly do bodily things flee; but eternal glory stands surer than every sight.\u0026rdquo;\nThere is liberally granted into eternal possession a certain earthly portion, that is, by the reckoning of 20 hides — though in three places, where it is commonly named \u0026ldquo;at Hengestesige\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;at Seofecanwyrthe\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;at Wihtham\u0026rdquo; — so that the aforesaid territory may eternally pertain to that monastery which is situated in the town called Abingdon, with those things which are known to pertain to the same land, both in great and in small: fields, pastures, meadows, woods. Let the aforesaid land be free of every service, except military service and the defence of bridge and fortress. But if any man shall strive to violate this my gift, boasting with the rashness of folly, let him be weighed down about the neck with heavy chains among the flame-breathing throngs of foul demons, unless first he has made amends with tearful groans of penitence and pure emendation.\nThe land mentioned above is asserted to be encompassed by these bounds.\nBounds of Hengestesige. # These are the boundaries of the estate belonging to Abingdon, which is gathered together under three names, namely Hengestesige, Seofecanwyrthe and Wihtham. First at the maiden-ford; then mid-stream to Stanford; forth along the stream, outside Kytan island, to the water-course; from the water-course to Sætling\u0026rsquo;s acre; then to the highway, to the uppermost lea; then to the priests\u0026rsquo; lea; then to the cat\u0026rsquo;s lea; then to Cybba\u0026rsquo;s stone; from the stone to the triple boundary; then within the rough lea to Broga\u0026rsquo;s gate; then to Sundra\u0026rsquo;s pasture, to the great thorn; from the thorn to the cottage slopes; then to the tidd combe; from the combe to Teta\u0026rsquo;s hill; from Teta\u0026rsquo;s hill to the head-way; along the combe to the hatch; from the hatch to Path\u0026rsquo;s stump; then to the plum lea; then to Frithela\u0026rsquo;s barrow; then to Ydyr\u0026rsquo;s lea; from Ydyr\u0026rsquo;s lea to the stone; then to the Thames at Eanflæd\u0026rsquo;s lode, mid-stream, until it comes back to the maiden-ford.\nBy these words the boundaries of the aforesaid lands are seen to be declared.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Eadgar, brother of the same king, have consented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have impressed with the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have consigned. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have not refused. † I, Awulf, bishop, have concluded. † I, Dunstan, abbot, have subscribed. † I, Æthelwold, abbot, have acquiesced. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Cynesige, thegn. Concerning the wood which King Eadwig gave to the church of Abingdon. # Likewise, in the first year of his reign, King Eadwig gave to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there in perpetuity, a certain wood at Heafochrycg, for the building of St Mary\u0026rsquo;s church at Abingdon, at the petition of Æthelwold, abbot of the same place, and confirmed it by his charter. The tenor of this charter is as follows.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Heafochrycg. # Nothing in this world enjoys prolonged happiness, nothing possesses lasting dominion, nothing that is not borne by a swift course to the fatal end of life. And so, as the examples of the orthodox demonstrate, the patrimonies of worldly things are to be enjoyed by us in such a way that we may nevertheless never be defrauded of the rewards of the eternal homeland.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, with the consent of the High-throned Governor\u0026rsquo;s command, possessing the government of all Albion in its several ways, not unmindful that these things were granted to me in order that by them I might earnestly gain eternal bounty, have bestowed in eternal inheritance, with most devoted devotion, a certain wood with its fields — a little more than sixty acres — for the building of the holy church of God\u0026rsquo;s Mother which is situated in Abingdon, to Æthelwold the most devoted abbot and to the college of monks keeping the rule of the excellent Abbot Benedict under his discipline. To this wood the dwellers of its own diocese have given the well-known name of Heafochrycg, and it is encompassed on every side by these known bounds.\nthen along the enclosure to the thorny lea; then forth to Brygford; then always by the enclosure to the stone ways; from the stone way always by the foot of the slope to the flax acres; then always by the foot of the slope to the titmouse mere; from the mere to Cuthwulf\u0026rsquo;s cottage-site; from the cottage-sites to Panganbourne; then up mid-stream back to the dyke.\nWitnesses. # The witnesses of this gift of our munificence were those whose names are inscribed below in order, according to each one\u0026rsquo;s dignity.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Eadgar, brother of the same king, have consented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Cenwold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have consigned. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Brihtelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have not refused. † I, Adulf, bishop, have concluded. † I, Daniel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelwold, abbot, have acquiesced. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, ealdorman. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Cynesige, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. Moreover, let the aforesaid wood, which I with the consent of my nobles have perpetually bestowed upon the aforesaid abbot for the building of the church, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, these three excepted: namely military service and the restoration of bridge and fortress. But if anyone, driven by a larvarical spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or alter this gift, unless before his death he repents as guilty with worthy satisfaction, let him be cast down into the everlasting fires of the abyss and punished, sorrowing, for ever with Judas the betrayer of Christ. This syngraph of munificence was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction, on the ides of February [13 February].\nHow King Eadwig gave Gainge to the church. # Likewise, in the second year of his reign, the aforesaid King Eadwig gave to God and St Mary and to this house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there in perpetuity, Gainge, and confirmed it by his charter. The tenor of this charter is as follows.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Gainge. # With our Lord Christ reigning for ever, who disposes all things by the Father\u0026rsquo;s command and equally by the quickening grace of the Holy Spirit. As is well known, it quite often happens, on account of the uncertain vicissitude of future times, that those things which were previously confirmed by the testimony of many faithful persons are fraudulently and perilously dissipated, without any consideration of reason, through the contumacy of posterity and the machinations of deceit, unless they are inserted into eternal memory by the authority of letters and the testimony of charters.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, anointed with the royal unguent and exalted in the sceptre-bearing monarchy of the English people by the favouring clemency of the High-throned One, inflamed with desire for the heavenly kingdom, with a rejoicing heart bestow and grant to Almighty Christ and to His blessed and glorious Mother the ever-Virgin Mary the possession of 10 hides in the place which is called by the famous name of Gainge, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, waters — to the monastery of Abingdon, for the use of the monks dwelling there in the regular life, that this possession may remain subject to it by perpetual right of ownership. Therefore I eternally prescribe this gift of pure munificence above other charters, on account of the contentious and threatening tyranny of certain men who have plotted to usurp the same land for themselves, and have threatened that, should a favourable time ever present itself, they would violently invade it and utterly take it away from the aforesaid monastery. And that this charter of pure gift may accord with the ancient privilege, this too I command both by my own authority and by that of Almighty God: that no person, high or low, shall ever dare rashly to take away this portion of pure gift from the aforesaid monastery on any occasion; but let this same possession remain eternally free from every yoke of earthly servitude, three things excepted: namely military service and the restoration of bridge and fortress. Whoever shall guard these things with kind intention of mind and thought, let him rejoice in eternal brightness with all the saints in the kingdom of heaven without end, be crowned and glorified. But if anyone — God forbid — driven by tyrannical greed and relying on worldly power, shall presume to oppose this gift of my beneficence, let him be subject to eternal malediction with Judas the betrayer of Christ, and be tortured in the lower hell with the devil and his angels for ever, unless he has made amends with worthy satisfaction for having offended against our decree, confirmed by the divine authority of Almighty God.\nThe land mentioned above is asserted to be encompassed by these bounds.\nthe middle of Lilia\u0026rsquo;s blue hollow to Lodder\u0026rsquo;s barrow; then to the green linc westward; from the linc to the eagle\u0026rsquo;s down westward; then to the holland-dyke eastward; along the dyke two furlongs northward; then east by the head two furlongs; along the furrows; along the water-dean west to the deep dean; from the dean to the red stone; from the stone back to Lilia\u0026rsquo;s blue hollow.\nThis gift of pure beneficence was given for confirmation in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction; these were the witnesses, whose names written below are seen to be present.\n† I, Eadwig, by the grace of God king of the whole British land, have confirmed my gift with my own seal. † I, Eadgar, brother of the same king, have swiftly consented. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed with the sign of the bountiful Cross. † I, Ælfsige, divine overseer of the church of Winchester, have impressed my own seal. † I, Cenwald, have been present with the heavenly sign. † I, Oscytel, have consented with a placable mind. † I, Osulf, have not refused. † I, Wulfsige, have confirmed. † I, Brihtelm, have acquiesced. † I, Ælfwold, have consigned. † I, Adulf, have concluded. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Brihtferth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Brihtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. Concerning Hennarithe, how it was given. # In the same year King Eadwig gave to Brihtric his thegn 10 hides in Hennarithe; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming his gift.\nCharter. # With our Lord Jesus Christ reigning. Of the most high and blessed Trinity, whose composite figure is most readily evident, since the joy of the present conflict secretly begets for us, as it were, an everlasting jubilee — as the apostle says: \u0026ldquo;For that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory\u0026rdquo; [2 Cor. iv. 17].\nFor which cause I, Eadwig, king of all the peoples belonging to this island, grant to one of my pleasing thegns a certain part of my land — to Byrhtric — in the place which is called Hennarith, that is, 10 hides, to enjoy heritably as long as he lives; with pastures and meadows; and after his death let him leave it to whomsoever he wishes. If therefore anyone shall wish to increase this gift of the king, let him be worthy of eternal reward; but if to diminish it, let him be anathematised, unless before death he makes amends. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly obstacle, these three excepted: military service and the construction of bridge and fortress.\nBounds of Hennarithe. # The land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThis is the land-book of the land at Hennarithe — ten hides of common land — which King Eadwig booked to Byrhtric his thegn.\nThis charter was made in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 955, in the fourteenth indiction; this land was armed with these witnesses.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have set it forth with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Odo, archbishop, have signed. † I, Eadgar, the king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have consented. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have signed. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have been present. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have consented. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have adhered. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, have consented. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. How King Eadwig gave Tadmertun to Byrhtnoth. # The same King Eadwig granted in the same year to Byrhtnoth his thegn 9 hides in Tadmertun; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Tadmertun. # That the end of the world is drawing near, with its threats increasing, even manifest signs and clear proofs declare, and those oracles spoken long ago are known to weigh upon the torpid minds of unbelievers for judgment: the ardour of charity — which is the supreme God — grows cold, and the wholesome water of the holy laver dries up; each one seeks for himself teachers of error according to his own desires, casting away the sentence of evangelical truth as though it were nauseous nectar, and turns his ears to fables of muddy liquor. Let everyone who is wise beware of these things for himself.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king of all Albion, by the Lord\u0026rsquo;s disposing — since the Creator and Maker of things, by whom the governance of the whole worldly frame is duly ruled, has deigned to bestow upon me the sceptres of those who went before by right of posterity and succession — deem it worthwhile, anticipating the vicissitude of future times, to foresee with a sagacious gaze of mind the uncertain state of the human condition, so that from these wounds of sins inflicted I may deserve to obtain the indulged remedies of heavenly mercy.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king and chief of this island, with the consent of my wise men and princes, freely granting, have given to Byrhtnoth my thegn a certain part of land, that is, 10 hides, in the place which is called Tadmertun, as a perpetual inheritance to him and his heirs, free from every tribute — we grant it — excepting these: fortress, bridge and military service; that he may have and enjoy it with all things pertaining to it.\nBounds. # These are the boundaries of the 10 hides. First from Eoppa\u0026rsquo;s spring-brook; then the black springs; then from the black springs to the headland-acre; from the acre along the boundary to the middle of Hæstburh; from the hazel barrow to the hazel ford; along the stream to the old ford; from the ford always by the boundary; then to the street; from the street to the fern-acre; from the fern-acre always by the mere; then to the ridge-way; from the ridge-way by the boundary; then to the old dyke; along the dyke to the long dyke\u0026rsquo;s bridge; from the bridge against the stream; then to the grass-spring brook; from the brook to the foul spring; from the spring by the boundary to the sharp ness; always by the boundary then to the tail of land; from the tail to the street; along the street to Hunburh\u0026rsquo;s lea; from the lea then back to Eoppa\u0026rsquo;s spring-brook.\nThis grant was made in the year from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction, with these witnesses consenting and subscribing, whose names are placed after. It is forbidden to every Christian, in the name of the Holy Trinity, to change or break this gift; otherwise let him be anathema from God and men, unless he first makes worthy amends.\nWitnesses. # † I, Eadwig, king of the English, have impressed this gift with the triumph of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgar, brother of the same king, have confirmed. † I, Oda, archbishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have favoured. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have dictated. † I, Daniel, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Æthelmaer, thegn. Concerning the five hides in Tadmertun. # In the same year King Eadwig gave to Brihtric his thegn 5 hides in the same Tadmertun; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning the five hides in Tadmertun. # rejoicing in Christ, foreseeing with a sagacious mind\u0026rsquo;s eye the hazards and struggles of human nature — of which Ecclesiastes says, \u0026ldquo;Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity\u0026rdquo; [Eccles. i. 2] — we ought unceasingly to render the thanks we owe to Him, by whose goodness, when we did not exist, we were created; when we are in peril, we are revived by His benefits; and when at last, utterly lost to eternal destruction, we believe we are restored to life by the bruising of His Only-begotten; and by trafficking in the same it is granted that eternal things be exchanged for fleeting ones, as the Truth says, \u0026ldquo;Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven\u0026rdquo; [Matt. vi. 20], and so on.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king and chief of all Albion, with God\u0026rsquo;s help, grant to a certain thegn named Brihtric 5 hides in the place which is called Tadmertun as a perpetual inheritance, with all things pertaining to it, to possess and to hand over to whomsoever it pleases him. Let this same land remain released from every royal yoke except military service and the construction of bridge and fortress. But if anyone shall strive to contravene this gift, let him feel the punishments of Avernus; \u0026ldquo;there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth\u0026rdquo; [Matt. viii. 12].\nBounds of Tadmertun. # These are the boundaries at Tadmertun of the 5 hides. First from Edward\u0026rsquo;s mill; then to the old dyke; from the dyke to the boundary-brook; from the boundary-brook to the eastern channel; from the channel to the boundary-stone; from the boundary-stone to the old gore; from the gore always by the heads; always by the heads then to the brook; from the brook against the stream; then to the rush-bed; from the rush-bed then to the way; then south along the way; then to the valley; then from the valley up to the edge; then along the edge to the hart\u0026rsquo;s spring; from the hart\u0026rsquo;s spring to the old stile; then along the stile to the boundary-pit; from the pit to Wilbald\u0026rsquo;s edge; from Wilbald\u0026rsquo;s edge then back to Edward\u0026rsquo;s mill.\nThis grant was made in the year from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction, in the first year of my reign.\nWitnesses. # † I, Eadwig, king of the English, have impressed this gift with the triumph of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgar, brother of the same king, have confirmed. † I, Oda, archbishop, have consigned. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Brihtelm, bishop, have favoured. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have dictated. † I, Daniel, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Æthelmaer, thegn. How King Eadwig gave five hides in Tadmertun to Beorhtnoth. # Likewise in the same year the aforesaid King Eadwig gave to Beorhtnoth the prince 5 hides in the same Tadmertun; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning five hides in Tadmertun. # With our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. It is known to all who scrutinise from heaven the sacraments of the heavenly gifts that not only is the state of this world corrupted by failing through the striving of the ancient enemy\u0026rsquo;s deceit, but also, in the nearly completed course of the present life, human prosperity is constrained by the sharp intent and anguish of iniquitous men. Now therefore, while we have the time of pardon, let us hasten with all our might to avoid the snare of death, and while we possess a carnal patrimony, let spiritual commerce be exercised, whereby among the angelic choirs we may deserve to obtain joys that will endure without end.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king of the English and governor and ruler of the other peoples round about, grant to one of my faithful, a prince named Beorhtnoth, 5 hides in perpetuity in that place which is called Tadmertun; so that he may have and possess it as long as the vital spirit nourishes his body; and when the day of his dissolution shall have come, let him leave it to whatever heir he wishes, as we have said above, in eternal inheritance. Moreover, let the aforesaid gift be free from every worldly obstacle, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows — these three excepted: military service and the construction of bridge and fortress. But if any man shall strive to violate this my gift, boasting with the rashness of folly, let him be weighed down about the neck with heavy chains among the flame-breathing throngs of foul demons, unless first here he has chosen to come to satisfaction.\nBounds of the land of Tadmertun which he gave to his thegn. # The aforesaid land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries at Tadmertun of the 5 hides. First at Halhford; then along the crooked stream; then to Eoppa\u0026rsquo;s spring-stream; then up against the stream to Sandford; from Sandford always by the boundary then to the head-stumps; from the stumps to the boundary-stone; from the stone always by the boundary; then to Landgar\u0026rsquo;s bridge.\nThis aforesaid grant was made in the year from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 956, in the fourteenth indiction; it was written in the king\u0026rsquo;s palace, at Cheddar, on the third kalends of December [29 November].\nWitnesses. # † I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented to the aforesaid gift and confirmed it under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Odo, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have subscribed with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop of the church of London, have subscribed and confirmed the vault of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have consented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have impressed. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have consigned. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have consented. † I, Awulf, bishop, have consented. † I, Daniel, bishop, have concluded. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Beorhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Cuthesdun to Ælfric the earl. # In the same year King Eadwig gave to Ælfhere the earl Cuthenesdun, of 20 hides; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Cuthenesdun, how he gave it to the earl. # In the name of the Holy and Almighty Trinity, Creator and Ruler of all things, which alone possesses and holds by perpetual power an immutable, incorruptible and ineffable kingdom.\nI, Eadwig, diligent king of the English and governor and ruler of the other peoples existing round about, in the first year of my reign, by means of written letters, this charter I confirmed, whereby, with the consent of noble men, I grant to a certain earl — one who not only obeys me in all faithful subjection but also submits himself to my will in all things — distinguished by the illustrious name of Ælfheah borne by his dearest forebears, a modest part of my kingdom, that is, 20 hides, in perpetuity, near the place which by the assertion of many men is thus spoken of, at Cuthenesdune. Therefore I give strict command that he may possess the aforesaid land, granted by my glad consent, for the whole course of his life, and thereafter may leave it to whatever heir he chooses in perpetual inheritance. Let this immovable gift of mine therefore remain fortified with perpetual liberty, with all things pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — except for the common labour, military service and the joint building of bridge and fortress. But if any men, against my wish, corrupted by the canker of greed, should strive to violate this charter of liberty, let them, fallen among the hosts of foul darkness, hear the voice of the Judge on the Day of Judgement saying thus: \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,\u0026rdquo; where they may be cruelly tormented with demons in iron frying-pans, unless before death they amend this by penitence.\nBoundaries of Cuthenesdune # These are the boundaries of the 20 hides at Cuthenesdune. From the cattle ford to the hollow ford; from the hollow ford to the foul mere; along the stream to the broad meadow; then so north along the furrows to At-thorn; from At-thorn to the foul stream, to a pit; from the pit along the stream to the headland; from the headland along the furrows; to the thorn thicket on the fore-part of Eanferth\u0026rsquo;s mound; from Eanferth\u0026rsquo;s mound along the furrow; then to a stream; along the stream to a dyke; along the dyke to the dry brook; then so along the dyke to the boundary-spring brook; along the brook to the boundary spring; from the boundary spring to the headland, straight to the road; then east along the road to where the roads meet; thence straight north along the way to the headlands; then to the boundary way and along the boundary way; then around the churls\u0026rsquo; grove; to the fost brook; from the fost brook to the lyth-way; along the way to the boundary of the híwan; along the híwan boundary to the sluice; then from the sluice to the stone bridge; along the boundary of Healhtun to the rushy valley; then from the rushy valley straight to the three oaks; from the three oaks to the road; along the road to the hollow brook; along the brook to the army-path ford on the Thames; along the Thames back to the cattle ford.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Edgar, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have readily consented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the seal of the venerable Cross. † I, Brihthelm, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have assented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have not refused. † I, Ælfwald, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Daniel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Ælfric 20 hides at Hanney # Charter of King Eadwig concerning Hanney # In the name of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; Amen. Adam, the first-born, created by the will of Almighty God from formless matter and happily placed in Eden under the keeping of the command of the Triune and Simple Godhead, living without disturbance from any element, when the guilt of transgression was found in him, was thence indeed expelled; and in these diverse regions of the world, with the hardship of a toilsome prison until the very end of his term — as now appears in his descendants — he miserably ended his life and endured the threatened death. And thereafter, through the diverse outlines of the five zones, the abundant and innumerable offspring of that same forefather sprang up; and not only patriarchs and prophets but also kings, with all the conditions of every order, were justly bound by the same guilt and the same punishment, as though by the debt of that first transgression, to work iniquity of their own nature from then on, had not our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and likewise Son of man, at last mercifully come to their aid, bestowing on them the hope of immortality and promising a blessed life after death. Moreover, only philosophers devoted to true wisdom — and most of all religious men — look with grief and wonder upon the lost delights of Paradise, reflecting that from the time of Father Liber, the contemporary of Noah the builder of the Ark, and of Polynices and the princes of Thebes, that city most securely defended with a hundred gates, on account of the slippery division of this earth, chronic seditions, ambushes, lairs and wars have never ceased among men until this present span of life.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, by the bounteous providence of the Most High Thunderer king of the English and of all the peoples of Albion of every race, with all the effort of my mind calling back my most faithful nobles to the will of Almighty God, as is most fitting for me, and all the more so because my most devout predecessors are shown to have done so, and striving to amend whatever I shall discover them to have done somewhat lukewarmly or negligently for whatever reason, have willingly granted in perpetuity, before worthy witnesses and noble men, to my adoptive kinsman named Ælfric 20 hides of land in the place called in the English manner Hannige — more for his own satisfaction than for love of the Cross, for which he gave me 60 mancuses. And now I confirm this gift with the sign of the Cross of Christ, so that he may grant it in perpetuity to whatever heir he wishes, whether during his life or after his departure from it, with all things pertaining to it, namely fields, meadows, pastures, fisheries and the rest; on this condition, namely that, apart from military service and the building of bridge and fortress, the aforesaid land be free from all royal tribute. But if anyone — which God forbid — should attempt to break our donation, let him know that he is anathematised before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ, unless he wipes it away with worthy penitence before his death. This charter of the said land was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction.\nFirst from the king\u0026rsquo;s boundary to the Wanoting brook; along the stream until it comes out at Cylla\u0026rsquo;s stream; then along the stream until it comes out at the Ock; then along the Ock until it comes to Wulfhun\u0026rsquo;s mill; then south to the old brook; along the brook until it comes to Snodda\u0026rsquo;s fleet; from the fleet to the broad army-path; along the army-path until it comes back to the king\u0026rsquo;s boundary.\n† I, Eadwig, by the shining grace of God king of all Albion, have confirmed this gift with the mark of the venerable Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop, have impressed the sign of the Cross. † I, Edgar, atheling, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have confirmed. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Coenwald, pontiff, have confirmed the same. † I, Oscytel, consenting, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed the same. † I, Athulf, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Daniel, at the king\u0026rsquo;s bidding, have dictated this charter. † I, Dunstan, abbot, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, with the other suffragans have confirmed this gift. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, earl. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, steward. † I, Ælfsige, steward. † I, Ælfsige, steward. † I, Eadric, with God strengthening me, affirm this to my brother. † I, Oswerd, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Edmund, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Oswig, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Eadric 22 hides at Welliford # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave to his thegn Eadric 22 hides at Welliford; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave them to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig of 22 hides at Welliford # With the deepest affection of heartfelt charity, I, Eadwig, by the providence of the Most High not only governor and ruler of the English race but also of the other nations dwelling round about, grant to my thegn named Eadric 22 hides, with those benefits which are lawfully seen to belong to that place, both in meadows and fields and in pastures and woods, near the place called at Welliford, that he may possess it all the days of his life, with all things pertaining to it, both great and small. And when the time of his dissolution arrives, let him leave it, as written above, eternally to whatever heir he wishes. Let the aforesaid estate remain defended from every obstacle and free from all service, except the common labour, military service, and the renewal of bridge and construction of fortress. But if anyone, puffed up with tyrannical power, should attempt to infringe this charter of our decree, let him know that he will render account before Christ and His angels at the terrible judgement, unless he first takes care to amend here.\nBoundaries of Welliford # The aforesaid land is declared to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries belonging to Welliford. From Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree along the way to the hollow way; along the way from the hollow way to the broad clearing; on its northern side to a certain enclosure; then right through the clearing southwards out to another enclosure; from the enclosure along the hedge-row into Popping\u0026rsquo;s hanger; into Scilling\u0026rsquo;s hanger to an enclosure; from Scilling\u0026rsquo;s hanger to the west side of Broadham; from Broadham to Cerd\u0026rsquo;s mound; from Cerd\u0026rsquo;s mound out to the Lambourn; to Ecc\u0026rsquo;s ford; at Ecc\u0026rsquo;s ford to the secret tree; from the secret tree to the elves\u0026rsquo; valley; to an elder tree; from the elder tree to Cedbold\u0026rsquo;s spring; from Cedbold\u0026rsquo;s spring to the ford of Cyta\u0026rsquo;s brook; from the ford of Cyta\u0026rsquo;s brook along the ridge to the northern side of Syntre meadow; from Syntre meadow to the flax enclosures; from the flax enclosures to the mint enclosures; to Cylma\u0026rsquo;s stone; from Cylma\u0026rsquo;s stone to the covered spring; from the spring to the rough spring; from the rough spring right out through the clay hanger; from the hanger along the cross out to the mules\u0026rsquo; valley; along the valley on the far side of the Lambourn; along the stream to the water way; from the water way to the water-meadows; from the meadows to the green hill; from the hill along the hatch to Ecca\u0026rsquo;s tree; from the tree along the boundary to Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree.\nThis aforesaid donation was made in the year 956 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the fourteenth indiction.\n† I, Eadwig, by the grace of God king of all the British land, have confirmed my gift with my own seal. † I, Edgar, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have readily consented. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed with the sign of the kindly Cross. † I, Ælfsige, overseer of the church of Winchester, have marked it with my own pen. † I, Coenwald, have been present with the heavenly sign. † I, Oscytel, with a placable mind have consented. † I, Osulf, have not refused. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfhere, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Ælfsige 25 hides at Bennaham # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave to his thegn Ælfsige 25 hides at Bennaham; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave them to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Bennaham # In the name and power of Christ. Seeing with keen foresight the falls and lapses of the human condition — of which Ecclesiastes says, \u0026ldquo;Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity\u0026rdquo; — we ought unceasingly to render thanks to Him by whose goodness we were created when we did not exist; when we are in peril we are refreshed by His benefits; and when we were utterly lost to eternal death we believe ourselves restored to life by His wound; and it is granted to us, by trading, to exchange eternal things for fleeting ones, Truth saying, \u0026ldquo;Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,\u0026rdquo; and so forth.\nWherefore I, King Eadwig, monarch of the island of Britain, by God\u0026rsquo;s favour, grant to this my faithful man, named Ælfsige, 25 hides in the place called Bennaham in hereditary right, to enjoy for as long as life accompanies him; and after his death let him have licence to bequeath it to whatever heir he pleases, with all things pertaining to it here — meadows, pastures, woods, hunting-grounds. Let this field remain henceforth immune from all royal tribute, except military service and the building of bridge and fortress. If anyone henceforth removes this donation of ours, let him know that he goes against God, not me, who received power from Him.\nBoundaries of Bennaham # These are the boundaries at Bennaham. First from the Cynete to the boundary dyke; from the dyke to Hædd\u0026rsquo;s spring; from the spring to the clear spring; from the spring to the red stone; from the stone to Wigmund\u0026rsquo;s gully; from the gully up on to the ridge; along the ridge to Ælle\u0026rsquo;s post; from the post to Æca\u0026rsquo;s fright; from the fright to the ford of Meos\u0026rsquo;s brook; from the ford to the withered gate; from the gate to the head of the hollow brook; then to the hay-gate; then to the east side of the cross; from the cross to the boundary stream; from the stream to Stapleford, out on to the Cynete; then up along half the stream; back to the boundary dyke; and Coda\u0026rsquo;s meadow in addition.\nThis donation was made in the year 956 from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, in the fourteenth indiction, in the first year of my reign.\nWitnesses # † I, Eadwig, king of the English, have impressed this gift with the triumph of the Holy Cross. † I, Edgar, atheling by descent, have confirmed. † I, Oda, archbishop, have set my seal. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have favoured. † I, Daniel, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Ælfwine 15 hides at Middeltun # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave to his thegn Ælfwine 15 hides at Middeltun; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave them to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Middeltun # The Creator of heaven and earth, through the Word co-eternal with the Holy Spirit, in the beginning distributed gifts to the human race, governing it through the times of the law, of nature, of the letter and of grace; but when true God, having deigned to descend and become man, embraced by hereditary right the sevenfold Spirit with which He filled the world, distributing to each man according to his own lot — since then men shine with genius, are mighty in strength, and now dare to have dominion over their own vices, being anointed with the name of Christ. Accordingly, some do not hesitate to share out perishable goods, reckoning worthless things fit to be exchanged for lasting ones.\nTherefore I, Eadwig, by God\u0026rsquo;s bestowing grace king of the English, desire to honour some devout person: to this my most intimate friend, named Ælfwine, I grant 15 hides at Middeltun in perpetual inheritance, to be possessed with all things pertaining to it, and to be handed on in due time to whatever heir he wishes. And this grant of land was enacted free from all royal tribute, except military service and the building of bridge and fortress, in the year 956 from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, in the fourteenth indiction, in the first year of my reign, before worthy witnesses.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries. First from Chalkford to the old watercourse; then to the dead mere; then to the short moor; then to the lonely hill; then to the Lithsel brook; then up to Gyna\u0026rsquo;s beech; then to the stud-fold; then to the seven thorns, to the narrow way on the watercourse; and six cottar-holdings.\nWitnesses # † I, Eadwig, by God\u0026rsquo;s favour king of the English, have sealed this donation with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Edgar, atheling by descent, have assented. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have favoured. † I, Osulf, bishop, have dictated. † I, Daniel, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. May he who henceforth preserves this gift be glorified by Christ; but may he who destroys that purpose not fulfil it, but be plunged headlong into the depths of the abyss.\nHow King Eadwig gave Brihthelm Kenitun # Charter of King Eadwig concerning Kenitun # The almighty Creator of all things together marked out the forms of each one over six days, and they keep their natural state — except man and the transgressing angel, through whom all adversity crept into the human race, which divine grace in mercy at last freed in the end of the ages.\nHaving heard this and savoured it from many learned men, I, King Eadwig, by God\u0026rsquo;s grace, resolve to honour my faithful men both with money and with estates; and to this my faithful man, the priest Brihthelm, I grant Cenigtun in perpetual inheritance, to be possessed with all things pertaining to it and handed on to whatever heir he wishes. And this liberty of the aforesaid little estate, released from all royal tribute except three things — namely military service and the building of bridge and fortress, which are most necessary to all regions — was made in the year 956 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, in the fourteenth indiction, in the first year of our reign.\n… the hedge to Bægenworth; ever along the stream until it comes to Sceaceling\u0026rsquo;s fishery; then out to Stanford; then out on to the Thames at the eyot, straight across the hill to Ceane\u0026rsquo;s spring and the stream, out to the Thames; along the Thames until it comes to Hyldige island; then out again to Wulfric\u0026rsquo;s brook.\n† I, Eadwig, king of all Britain by the bestowal of divine grace, have gladly confirmed this gift with the sign of the cross. † I, Oda, archbishop, have consented. † I, Edgar, the atheling, have confirmed. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have assented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have acquiesced. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Cynewald, bishop, have impressed. † I, Daniel, bishop, have dictated. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. Whoever henceforth preserves our decree by strengthening it, let him be fed with heavenly manna; but if anyone — which God forbid — should attempt to go against it, let him suffer the torment of hell, unless he hastens quickly to amend.\nThis is the agreement which Bishop Brihthelm and Abbot Æthelwold made concerning their exchange of lands: namely, that the bishop gave the hides at Kenitun to the church at Abingdon as a perpetual inheritance, and the abbot gave the 17 hides at Crydanbricge to the bishop for ever, both in life and after life; and they also exchanged all things, both in this transaction and in others, just as they agreed between themselves; and this was with King Eadwig\u0026rsquo;s leave. And these are the witnesses: Ælfgifu the king\u0026rsquo;s wife, and Æthelgifu the mother of the king\u0026rsquo;s wife, Bishop Ælfsige, Bishop Osulf, Bishop Coenwald, Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, Ælfheah the king\u0026rsquo;s steward, and Eadric his brother.\nMoreover, the lord abbot Æthelwold, with the same king\u0026rsquo;s consent, arranged the exchange of the same land, that is, Cenigtun, with Bishop Brihthelm. In return for it the bishop himself received that vill which is called Crydanbricge. The witnesses of this exchange were the king\u0026rsquo;s wife Ælfgifu and her mother Æthelgifu, Bishop Ælfsige, Bishop Osulf, Bishop Cenwald, and many others.\nLikewise, the same King Eadwig gave to his thegn Ælfric 25 hides at Bægenworth; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave them to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Bægenworth # By Christ\u0026rsquo;s disposing grace, I, Eadwig, crowned with the imperial diadem of the Anglo-Saxons and following the example of good kings, and wishing to rule peacefully the peoples granted me by God, grant to one of my thegns, Ælfric, a certain portion of land, that is, the measure of 25 hides, where it is called at Bægenworth, that he may have it for as long as life accompanies him, and after his death may leave it to whatever successor he wishes in eternal possession; with fields, pastures, meadows, woods. Let this land be immune from all service, except the aid of bridge, fortress and military service. Glory to those who consent; Tartarus to those who refuse.\nThe aforesaid land is encompassed by these bounds:\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Bægenworth. First from the miry grove up along the slade to the thorn; then to the south side of the chalk-pit; then to the spring that is at Irec\u0026rsquo;s ford; then up along the stream to the boundary way; along the way to the dyke at the sheaf edge; along the dyke to the boundary way; along the way, round about, to Thorn hanger, to Ceobba\u0026rsquo;s stone; forth along the boundary way to the way at the calf\u0026rsquo;s spring; forth along the way to the uppermost clearing; then forth over Scitere\u0026rsquo;s cliff to the highway; up along the way to the roe hedge; along the way to the hazel dyke; then to Wulfstan\u0026rsquo;s dyke; from the dyke to Maduc\u0026rsquo;s clearing; through the clearing to the pit; from the pit to the elder stump; then to Lithman\u0026rsquo;s dyke; along the dyke to the west side of the seven acres; then to the heathen burial-place; then to the south side of the short land; then along the furrow to the half-acre; then to the willow-bed; then to the hidden ford; from the ford along Sunningwulf\u0026rsquo;s brook to the wood-ford; then along the ridge westwards into the brook; up along the brook to the miry grove where it first began.\nThese are the boundaries of the meadows that belong to that land. First from the bridge to Therige; up along the middle stream until opposite the new dyke; then to the middle stream; in there along the stream to the great willow; then up along the hedge-row out to the river to the middle stream.\nThen these are the boundaries of the meadow at Enna\u0026rsquo;s hills. From the end of the dyke forth across the river; down along the middle stream up to the dark stream until opposite the hill; there between the meadow and the down, back to the dyke.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Edgar, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have consented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have not refused. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have sealed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have acquiesced. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfwald, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfwald, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Eadric 16 hides at Pyrianford # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave to his thegn Eadric 16 hides at Pyrianford; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave them to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Pyrianford # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The highest servant of the gracious and undivided Trinity, that noble champion of holy preaching, in his exhortation uttered this sentence, saying: \u0026ldquo;All things are naked and open before the eyes of the Lord\u0026rdquo;; and He watches the deeds of each man from the first light until nightfall.\nTherefore I, Eadwig, grant to one of my dear ones, whom I love from the depths of my heart, named Eadric, a certain portion of land, reckoned at 16 hides, there where it is called in the English tongue at Pyrianford; for as long as he shall be seen to keep his body animated, let him claim for himself the privilege of our gift; and at last let him bestow it perpetually upon his successor, whomever he chooses, with all things lawfully pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods. And let this land be free from every secular charge, except military service and the construction of bridge and fortress. But if anyone, puffed up with tyrannical power, should attempt to infringe this charter of our decree, let him know that he shall render account before Christ and His angels at the terrible judgement, unless he first takes care to amend here.\nBoundaries # This land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Pyrianford. First from Pyrianford along the waggon track to the fish brook; along the brook to the boundary hedge; up along the hedge to the boundary marks; west straight to the western side of Snow\u0026rsquo;s mere; then to the fore-part of the spur of land; then straight over the upper down; then to the encircling way; along the way to the boundary hedge; up along the hedge to the enclosure hedge; forth along the hedge to the crab-apple tree of the enclosure; then to the pear clearing; then south to the edge, on to the old runnel; then to the hedge; onwards along the hedge to Eccel\u0026rsquo;s enclosure; then on along the hedge to the mill field; then on along the hedge to the mint field; thence straight to the mint barrow; there to the brook; along the brook to the flax weirs, on to the hedge; thence out on to the field; then out to the mile-measure; thence to the fore-part of the ridge; thence to the forked way; along the forked way to the Welshman\u0026rsquo;s fen; thence out to the way; along the way to Pyrianford; and a part of Sithwood belongs to Pyrianford.\nThis aforesaid donation was made in the year 956 from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, in the fourteenth indiction.\nWitnesses # † I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have consented. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have sealed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Edgar, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have consented. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the sign of the venerable Cross. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Wilmanlehttune to Ælfhere # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave Wilmanlehttune to the noble Ælfhere; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Wilmanlehttune # In the name of the Almighty Holy Trinity, creator and ruler of all things, who alone possesses and holds with perpetual power a kingdom immutable, incorruptible and ineffable.\nTherefore I, Eadwig, diligent king of the English and governor and ruler of the other nations dwelling round about, in the first year of my reign have confirmed with the written word that, with the consent of noble men, I have granted to a certain earl — one who not only obeys me with faithful subjection in all things but also submits himself to my will in everything, as it was frequently wont to be shown by my dear predecessors — named Ælfhere, a modest portion of my dominion, that is, 10 hides, in perpetuity, at the place which by the assertion of many men is thus spoken of, at Wilmanlehttune, so that he may possess the aforesaid land — by my glad consent — for the course of his life; and thereafter let him leave it, as I have said before, to whatever heir he wishes in eternal inheritance. Let this my immovable gift therefore remain blessed with eternal liberty, with all things pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — except the common labour, military service and the joint building of bridge and fortress. But if any men, against my wish, corrupted by the canker of greed, should strive to violate this charter of liberty, let them, fallen among the hosts of foul darkness, hear the voice of the Judge saying to them on the day of judgement, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,\u0026rdquo; where they may be cruelly tormented with demons in iron frying-pans, unless before death they amend this with worthy penitence.\nBoundaries of Wilmanlehttune # This land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds:\nThese are the boundaries at Wilmanlehttune. First at Cranmere; from the mere along the brook; and so to the thorn; and from the thorn along the street into Bore\u0026rsquo;s pit; from the pit to the black pit; thence to the end of the long down; from the long down so to the mound; from the mound to the salt street; and after the street to Wilmanford; from Wilmanford to Cynefrith\u0026rsquo;s pit; thence into the white dyke; from the dyke along the ridge-way straight into Cranmere\u0026rsquo;s brook; along the brook into Cranmere.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Edgar, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have readily consented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have acquiesced. † I, Osulf, bishop, have not refused. † I, Ælfwald, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Daniel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Edmund Anningadune # Likewise, the same king gave Anningadune to his noble Edmund; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Anningadune # In the name of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, I, Eadwig, illustrious emperor of the Anglo-Saxons and of the other peoples dwelling on every side, have often begun to ponder that the things which are seen are temporal and fleeting, and that the things which are not seen will endure eternally.\nTherefore to one of my nobles, named Edmund, I grant in perpetuity 16 hides, at the place which by the assertion of many men is thus spoken of, at Anningadune; while the vital breath keeps his body alive, may he enjoy our joyful and bounteous gift; when the course of his life is run, let him bestow it as a perpetual gift on whatever heir he wishes, with fields, pastures, meadows, woods. Let this land be immune from all service, except the aid of bridge, fortress and military service. May he who increases it enjoy the Lord; may he who diminishes it belong to the Devil.\nBoundaries # The aforesaid land is declared to be encircled by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Anningadune. First to the deep stream east of Bremre; then west across Bremre to the boundary of the comb-dwellers; then along the boundary of the comb-dwellers to the boundary of the men of Dentun; from the boundary of the men of Dentun so to the boundary of the men of Sunt; then along the boundary of the men of Sunt to the boundary of the men of Bidel; then forth east along the boundary of the men of Bidel, until back out to Bremre. These are the pasture places: Brochurst, and Beadda\u0026rsquo;s syles, and at Fyrnham, and Hlithwic, and Strodwic.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction.\n† I, Eadwig, by the grace of God king of all the British land, have confirmed my gift with my own seal. † I, Edgar, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have readily consented. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed with the sign of the kindly Cross. † I, Ælfsige, divine overseer of the church of Winchester, have impressed my own seal. † I, Oscytel, with a placable mind have consented. † I, Osulf, have not refused. † I, Byrhthelm, have acquiesced. † I, Athulf, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwald, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Eadric Peadanwurthe # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave Peadanwurthe to Eadric; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Peadanwurthe # Christ reigning eternally. For what is better in this life than to purchase heavenly and lasting things with these earthly and fleeting ones? For all that is seen perishes in time, but that which is not seen will remain without ceasing.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king of the English and governor and ruler of all the British land, grant to a certain man of mine named Eadric a modest portion of land, that is, 5 hides, in perpetuity, there where in the common tongue it is called at Peadanwurthe; henceforth let him possess our gift in security for as long as life accompanies him; and at his death let him bestow it as a perpetual gift upon whomever he wishes, with fields, pastures, meadows, woods. Let this land be immune from all service, except the aid of bridge, fortress and military service. But if anyone diminishes this donation, let him know that he is guilty at every hour of his life, and shall not escape shadowy Tartarus.\nThis land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Peadanwurthe. First from Ælflæd\u0026rsquo;s boundary north to the hedge; along the hedge to the standing-place; then to the dyke; then to the river; along the river to the mill-channel; thence along the mill-dyke back to the river; along the river to the bridge; and the millstead and the land north of the river that belongs to it, and the oxen\u0026rsquo;s wic, and the meadow on Tun\u0026rsquo;s island that by right belongs there; and the whole east boundary — the hedge runs eastwards on to Ælflæd\u0026rsquo;s boundary — and the weirs and the meadow north of the river, and the enclosures that by right belong there.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Edgar, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have consented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the seal of the venerable Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have sealed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have acquiesced. † I, Athulf, bishop, have not refused. † I, Daniel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfmær, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Æthelnoth Fifhide # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave Fifhide to Æthelnoth; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Fifhide # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. To all who from heaven diligently examine the mysteries of the gifts above it is known that not only is the state of this world corrupted and destroyed by the fraud and machination of the ancient enemy, but also, in the nearly completed course of this present life, human prosperity is constrained by the sharp intent and anguish of wicked men. Now therefore, while we have the time of grace, let us hasten with all our strength to avoid the snare of death, and while we possess a carnal patrimony, let spiritual commerce be practised, whereby among the angelic choirs we may deserve to obtain joys lasting without end.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king of the English and governor and ruler of the other nations dwelling round about, grant in perpetuity to a certain faithful thegn of mine named Æthelnoth 13 hides in that place where the countrymen of that land long ago bestowed the name at Fifhide; so that he may have and possess it as long as the vital spirit nourishes his body. And when the day of his dissolution arrives, let him leave it, as we have said above, to whatever heir he wishes in eternal inheritance. And let the aforesaid donation be free from every worldly obstacle, with all things duly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows — except these three things: military service and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if any man, boasting with the rashness of folly, should strive to infringe this my donation, may he himself be pressed down by heavy chains about his neck among the flame-vomiting hosts of foul demons, unless he prefers first to come to satisfaction here.\nThe aforesaid land is seen to be encircled by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of the 13 hides that belong to Fifhide. First at Ydele\u0026rsquo;s island; from Ydele\u0026rsquo;s island along the boundary to Thætel\u0026rsquo;s way; along the way to the head of the boundary moor; along the head of the boundary moor to the Ock; up with the stream to Hud\u0026rsquo;s lade; from Hud\u0026rsquo;s lade to the short dyke; from the short dyke to Ælfthryth\u0026rsquo;s dyke; along the dyke to the hollow brook; along the hollow brook to the Wase; along the Wase back to Ydele\u0026rsquo;s island. The whole of the land is then 13½ hides.\nThis aforesaid donation was made in the year 956 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the fourteenth indiction.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid donation under the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have subscribed with the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop of the church of Winchester, have subscribed and confirmed the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have consented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have sealed. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have impressed. † I, Ælfwald, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Athulf, bishop, have consented. † I, Daniel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfhere, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Eadred, thegn. † I, Cynesige, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Brihthelm 5 hides at Stowe # In the same year the aforesaid King Eadwig gave to his kinsman Brihthelm 5 hides at Stowe; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave them to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in the same manner as above.\nHow the king gave Eadric Peadanwurthe # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave Peadanwurthe to his thegn Eadric; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Peadanwurthe # Christ reigning eternally. For what is better in this life than to purchase heavenly and lasting things with these earthly and fleeting ones? For all that is seen perishes in time, but that which is not seen will remain without ceasing.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king of the English and governor and ruler of all the British land, grant to a certain man of mine named Eadric a modest portion of land, that is, 5 hides, in perpetuity, there where in the common tongue it is called at Peadanwurthe; henceforth let him possess our gift in security for as long as life accompanies him; and at his death let him bestow it as a perpetual gift upon whomever he wishes, with fields, pastures, meadows, woods. Let this land be immune from all service, except the aid of bridge, fortress and military service. But if anyone diminishes this donation, let him know that he is guilty at every hour of his life, and shall not escape shadowy Tartarus.\nBoundaries of Peadanwurthe # This land is seen to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Peadanwurthe. First from Ælflæd\u0026rsquo;s boundary north to the hedge; along the hedge to the standing-place; thence to the dyke; thence to the river; along the river to the mill-channel; thence along the mill-dyke back to the river; along the river to the bridge; and the millstead and the land north of the river that belongs to it, and the oxen\u0026rsquo;s wic, and the meadow on Tun\u0026rsquo;s island that by right belongs there; and the whole east boundary — the hedge runs eastwards on to Ælflæd\u0026rsquo;s boundary — and the weirs and the meadow north of the river, and the enclosures that by right belong there.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 956, in the fourteenth indiction.\nWitnesses # † I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Edgar, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have consented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the seal of the venerable Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have sealed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have acquiesced. † I, Athulf, bishop, have not refused. † I, Daniel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfmær, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Wulfric Ceorlatun # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave Ceorlatun to his thegn Wulfric; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig # In the year 956 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, in the fourteenth indiction, I, Eadwig, renowned king of the English nation, grant in perpetuity 5 hides to one of my thegns, named Wulfric, in that place where the country folk, by a jocular appellative usage, bestowed the name at Ceorlatun; while the vital breath keeps his body alive, may he enjoy our bounteous gift with a joyful mind; when the course of his life is run, let him bestow it as a perpetual gift on whatever heir he wishes. Let the aforesaid estate be free of all service, except military service and the defence of bridge and fortress. But if anyone, puffed up with tyrannical power, should attempt to infringe this charter of our decree, let him know that he shall render account before Christ and His angels at the terrible judgement, unless he first takes care to amend here. For the aforesaid estate is divided by no fixed bounds, but acres adjoin acres.\nWitnesses # † I, Eadwig, king of the English, have unwaveringly consented. † I, Edgar, the same king\u0026rsquo;s brother, have consented. † I, Oda, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Cenwald, bishop, have sealed. † I, Oscytel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have acquiesced. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have not refused. † I, Ælfwald, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Ælfric 20 hides # Likewise, the same King Eadwig gave 20 hides to his kinsman Ælfric; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave them to God and Blessed Mary and the church of Abingdon and the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this donation.\nCharter of King Eadwig of the 20 hides # Adam, the first-born, created by the will of Almighty God from formless matter and happily placed in Eden under the keeping of the command of the Triune and Simple Godhead, living without disturbance from any element, when the guilt of transgression was found in him, was thence likewise expelled; and in these diverse regions of the world, with the hardship of a toilsome prison until the very end of his term — as now appears in his descendants — he miserably ended his life and endured the threatened death. And thereafter, through the diverse outlines of the five zones, the abundant and innumerable offspring of that same forefather sprang up; and not only among patriarchs and prophets but also among kings, with all the conditions of every order, the same guilt and the same punishment justly bound them all, as though by the debt of that first transgression, to work iniquity of their own nature from then on, had not our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and likewise Son of man, at last mercifully come to their aid, bestowing on them the hope of immortality and promising a blessed life after death. Moreover, only philosophers devoted to true wisdom — and most of all religious men — look with grief and wonder upon the lost delights of Paradise, reflecting that from the time of Father Liber, the contemporary of Noah the builder of the Ark, and of Polynices and the princes of Thebes, that city most securely defended with a hundred gates, on account of the slippery division of this earth, chronic seditions, ambushes, lairs and wars have never ceased among men until this present span of life.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, by the bounteous providence of the Most High Thunderer king of the English and of all the peoples of Albion of every race, shall take care with all the effort of my mind to call back my most faithful nobles to the will of Almighty God, as is most fitting, and all the more because my most devout predecessors are shown to have done so. But whatever I discover them to have done somewhat lukewarmly or negligently for whatever reason, I shall strive to amend. For which reason, for the love of true wisdom, I willingly grant to my adoptive kinsman named Ælfric 20 hides, for his satisfaction — he himself lovingly granting me 60 mancuses before witnesses and worthy nobles — and, cherishing him, I confirm this aforesaid estate with the sign of the Cross of Christ, so that he may grant it in his lifetime to whatever heir he wishes, and after his departure from the frailty of this world his gift may remain firm for ever, with all things pertaining to it, namely fields, meadows, pastures, fisheries; and, apart from military service and the building of bridges and fortresses, the aforesaid land shall be free from all royal tribute. If anyone — which God forbid — should attempt to break our donation, let him know that he is anathematised before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ; with this condition interposed, let him enjoy the aforesaid land well during his life, and leave it to whatever heir he wishes. This little charter was written when 956 years of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Nativity had passed, in the fourteenth indiction.\nBoundaries # Here are the boundaries of the 20 hides at Hanney. First from the king\u0026rsquo;s boundary to the Wanoting brook; along the stream until it comes out at Cylla\u0026rsquo;s stream; then along the stream until it comes out into the Ock; then along the Ock until it comes to Wulfmær\u0026rsquo;s mill; then south to the old brook; along the brook until it comes to Seocca\u0026rsquo;s fleet; from the fleet to the broad highway; along the highway until it comes back to the king\u0026rsquo;s boundary.\n† I, Eadwig, by the favouring grace of God king of all Albion, rejoicing have confirmed this gift with the mark of the holy Cross. † I, Oda, archbishop, have impressed the sign of the Cross. † I, Edgar, ætheling and brother of the same king, have confirmed. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Cenwold, bishop, have confirmed the same. † I, Oscytel, consenting, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed the same. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed the same. † I, Daniel, at the king\u0026rsquo;s command, have drawn up this charter. † I, Dunstan, abbot, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman, with the other supporters, have confirmed this gift. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhere, earl. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, steward. † I, Ælfsige, steward. † I, Ælfsige, steward. † I, Eadric, by God\u0026rsquo;s strengthening, affirm this to my brother. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Edmund, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Oswig, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. This my assent I grant in the same place, which is called by its inhabitants Hanney, in the presence of my nobles; and by my will may it abide in Christ for ever.\nHow King Edgar gave Bochland to Ælfheah. # In the third year of his reign King Eadwig gave Bochland to Ælfheah the ealdorman; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the church of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Bochland. # and created things that pass away, He distributes daily for the provision of sustenance; nay, He has even persuaded us that by means of these same fleeting and transitory things eternal things may be purchased.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, by the grace of God king of the English, have granted with perpetual possession to one of my ealdormen, most faithful to me, who by the people of this country is called by the noble name of Ælfheah, in return for his most devoted service, 10 hides, where the country folk by ancient usage have bestowed the name of Bochland; that he may enjoy it well and possess it perpetually so long as he lives, and after him may leave it to whatsoever heir he shall choose, as we have said above, in eternal inheritance. Moreover, let the aforesaid land, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows — be free, excepting these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone — which we do not desire — shall attempt to contrive against or to infringe our decree, let him know that he will render a heavy account on the day of judgement before the tribunal of the Lord, unless he has first made worthy amends here by penitence before death.\nBoundaries. # The aforesaid land appears to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Bochland. First, Sprindel\u0026rsquo;s ham belongs to Bochland, and all the common field up to Bochland\u0026rsquo;s boundary; from the head of the little moor to Laureca\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from Laureca\u0026rsquo;s barrow to Casa\u0026rsquo;s thorn-tree; from Casa\u0026rsquo;s thorn to the broad way; from the broad way along the head-acres to the fisher\u0026rsquo;s valley; from the fisher\u0026rsquo;s valley to the meadow; from the meadow out to the Wasa; from the Wasa out to the river, along the river to the weir at the nook; from the nook-weir to the western willow; from the willow to the plough-land; from the plough-land to the hay-way; from the hay-way through Bochland to Cyna\u0026rsquo;s spring; on to the head-acre; from the head-acre out to the tail; from the tail to the running moor; from the running moor to Ælfsige\u0026rsquo;s moor.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 957, indiction 15.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have granted the aforesaid gift unalterably. † I, Ælfsige, bishop, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Osulf, bishop, have set my seal. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have assented. † I, Byrhthelm, have confirmed. † I, Ælfsige, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Eadwold, thegn. In which year King Eadwig gave Wurthe to Eadric. # In the fourth year of his reign King Eadwig gave Wurthe, of 30 hides, to his thegn Eadric; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the church of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Wurthe. # Christ God reigning over heaven and earth for ever and ever. The human race is seen to decay, flowing from its birth even unto death. But the Lover of all virtues, who desires us to shun evil and follow good, daily shows us how to pass joyfully from this vale of tears to the heavenly kingdoms; for these exceed the comprehension of our minds, yet the eternal joys of the saints can now be penetrated by thought.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king of the Saxons, grant in perpetuity to one of my faithful thegns, called by the name of Eadric, 20 hides, there where in the English tongue it is called \u0026ldquo;at Wurthe\u0026rdquo;; that he may possess the aforesaid land, by my glad concession, during the journeys of his life, and thereafter may leave it to whatsoever heir succeeding him he shall choose, as I have said before, in eternal inheritance. Moreover, let the aforesaid estate be free from every worldly hindrance, with all things that are known to pertain to that place, both in great and in small — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — without military service and the building of bridge and fortress. But as for those who diminish or break this gift — which I pray may be far from the minds of the faithful — let their portion be with those of whom it is said on the contrary, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, you evil ones, into everlasting fire, which is prepared for Satan and his ministers,\u0026rdquo; unless he shall first have cleansed his guilt with worthy penitence to God by lawful satisfaction.\nThe aforesaid land is clearly bounded by these limits:\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries of the thirty hides at Wurthe. First to the stone bridge; from the stone bridge east along the Thames until it comes to the boundary of the Kingston men; south along the boundary until it comes to the head-posts; from the head-posts up on to Westman\u0026rsquo;s hill, to the thorn-tree; from the thorn along the march to the Ock; along the stream until it reaches the boundary of the men of Cearn; along the march until it reaches the boundary of the men of Heantun.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 958, indiction 16.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have granted unalterably. † I, Ælfsine, bishop, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have set my seal. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have assented. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have not refused. † I, Daniel, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Beorhtnoth, thegn. † I, Wulfhere, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. King Eadwig gave Drayton, of 10 hides, to Eadwold. # In the same year King Eadwig gave to his thegn Eadwold Drayton, of 10 hides; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the church of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Drayton. # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 958, indiction 1, I, Eadwig — by the disposing mercy of the All-Creator king of the English people, led by divine love and preordained by the same God and our Lord over peoples and tribes as king — in the fourth year of my reign was not unmindful of how, and how marvellously, the Ruler on high governs and guards all things in the sequence of unshaken reason.\nTherefore to a certain faithful thegn of mine, named Eadwold, I grant in perpetuity 10 hides, there where in the English tongue it is called \u0026ldquo;at Drayton\u0026rdquo;; that he may have and possess it so long as the vital breath shall nourish his body. But when the day of his dissolution shall have come, let him leave it to whatsoever heir he shall choose, in eternal inheritance. Let this my unalterable gift, then, remain blest with eternal freedom, together with all things pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — without military service or the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if any man shall strive to violate this my gift, flaunting the rashness of folly, let him be thrust down with heavy chains about his neck among the flame-vomiting hosts of foul demons, unless he has first preferred to come to satisfaction here.\nBoundaries of Drayton. # The aforesaid land is encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Drayton, acre by acre. First from Englaf\u0026rsquo;s ford to Dythmere; thence to Lacing; along Lacing to Chalkford; thence to the boundary-dyke; along the dyke to Mydeling; thence to Waneting; along Waneting to the Ock; thence to the old dyke; on to Englaf\u0026rsquo;s ford.\n† I, Ælfsine, bishop, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have set my seal. † I, Osulf, bishop, have assented. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have not refused. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Æthelgeard, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. King Eadwig gave Æscenær, of 4 hides, to Cynlaf the huntsman. # On the same day King Eadwig gave to his huntsman Cynlaf Æscenær, of 13 hides; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to the church of Abingdon, the aforesaid witnesses bearing witness.\nHow King Eadwig gave two hides to Cyneric. # Likewise, in the same year King Eadwig gave to his cupbearer Cyneric Cern, of two hides; and he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the church of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Cern. # Christ reigning eternally. For what is better in this life than by these earthly and perishing things to purchase things heavenly and abiding? For all that is seen fails in time, but that which is not seen shall endure without ceasing.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king of the English, and governor and ruler of the other peoples round about, grant in perpetuity to one of my most faithful cupbearers, named Cyneric, two hides, in the place where the country folk by ancient usage have bestowed the name \u0026ldquo;at Cern\u0026rdquo;; to the end that he may enjoy it well and possess it so long as he lives, and after him may leave it to whatsoever heir he shall choose, in eternal inheritance. Moreover, let the aforesaid estate be free from every worldly hindrance, with all things rightly pertaining to it, excepting common labour, military service, and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone shall attempt to infringe it — which God forbid — let him know that he shall render account before God and His angels, unless he has first preferred to make amends here by worthy satisfaction. This gift was completed freely in the year 958 from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, as the fourth year of my reign rolled on.\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries of Cyneric\u0026rsquo;s land at Cern, of the two hides. First, where the grove-brook runs into Cern; then from the grove-brook to the lone elder; then from the lone elder to Hoddic\u0026rsquo;s hanger; from Hoddic\u0026rsquo;s hanger to the lone oak; and from the oak to the temple-wood; then along the temple-wood to the thorn-tree; from the thorn to Hanig\u0026rsquo;s ham; from Hanig\u0026rsquo;s ham to Cern; then from Cern to the brook; from the brook to the heathen burial; from the heathen burial on to the heath-down; to the gate of the stud-ley; from the gate to the brook; along the brook back to Cern.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the Anglo-Saxons, have impressed this gift with the triumph of the holy Cross. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have consented. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have agreed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have signed. † I, Daniel, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfgar, the king\u0026rsquo;s kinsman, have testified. † I, Byrhtferth, his brother, have testified. † I, Ealdred, the king\u0026rsquo;s steward, have testified. † I, Ælfwig, the king\u0026rsquo;s cupbearer, have testified. † I, Ordgar, thegn. † I, Leofa, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Byrhtnoth, thegn. † I, Byrhtric, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. How King Eadwig gave Denchesworth to Wulfric. # he, with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent, gave it to God and St Mary and the church of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there, in pure and perpetual alms; and this is the king\u0026rsquo;s charter confirming this gift.\nCharter of King Eadwig concerning Denchesworth. # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever — the Creator of all things visible and invisible reigning for ever, and from the highest summit of heaven disposing all the laws of kingdoms. To all who discern the things that are true it is manifest that the prosperity of the present life is corrupted and brought to naught amid the tumult of the world. Now therefore, if temporal things be well dispensed, eternal justice is procured thereby.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king, governor and ruler of the English, grant in perpetuity to one of my most faithful thegns — who from the cradle of his infancy has received the name of Wulfric — 5 hides, in the place where the country folk by their appellative usage and jesting names have bestowed the name \u0026ldquo;at Denchesworth\u0026rdquo;. Let him have and possess my royal gift during the time of his life; and after he shall have gone the way of all flesh, let him leave it to whatsoever heir he shall choose, in eternal inheritance. Moreover, let the aforesaid land, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — be free, excepting common labour, military service, and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone — which we do not desire — shall seek to infringe or to change this our gift, may he feel the horrible dusky gates of hell, and wretchedly behold with his own eyes the terrible hosts of demons.\nBoundaries of Denchesworth. # This land appears to be encompassed by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Denchesworth. First to Cilla\u0026rsquo;s stream; then west to the moot-dyke; on Ordulf\u0026rsquo;s boundary to the chapman\u0026rsquo;s barrow; along the dyke to the land-brook; along the brook to the bounds of the northern Denchesworth; thence straight east back to Cilla\u0026rsquo;s stream; thence south where the ways meet; there the three hides in the northern Denchesworth lie undivided.\n† I, Eadwig, king of the English, have granted unalterably. † I, Ælfsine, bishop, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Byrhthelm, have set my seal. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have assented. † I, Daniel, bishop, have not refused. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. This charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 958, indiction 1.\nOf the Death of King Eadwig. # Eadwig therefore passing away without children, by the disposing mercy of God the illustrious King Edgar, his own brother, succeeded him in the kingdom. And this King Edgar, when now advanced to the throne of the realm and wielding sceptre-bearing power, so strove by continual meditation to put off the old man with his deeds, that in him both the lust of the eyes and the pride of life seemed utterly brought to naught. For although green youth and comely form, pre-eminent dignity, and abundance of riches are wont all too often to soften good morals and to root out the modesty of the heart, yet his gold was not dimmed by love of things that pass like flowing water; nay, in all things and through all things obeying the divine commandments, whatever increase of honour and dignity God mercifully bestowed upon him he was zealous wisely to turn wholly to His honour and to the welfare of his kingdom. Nor was there delay: straightway made a new soldier, King Edgar, marked out by the gifts of nature and of grace, like an armed champion stoutly sustained single combat against the Devil in this vale of tears, nor did he yield; for He was made his Helper and his Protector who gave to weak David the triumph over sturdy Goliath. To be brief: King Edgar, fitly instructed by the blessed Dunstan, and likewise by St Æthelwold and the other wise men of England, put down the wicked, rebuked the rebellious, loved the just and the modest from his inmost heart, renewed the ruined churches of God and honourably endowed them, and bade some 40 monasteries be built, casting the clerks out of the monasteries and gathering in hosts of monks and nuns. And so the king, advancing from virtue to virtue, became thenceforth so great and such a one that he was thought no less worthy of praise to the English than Romulus to the Romans, Cyrus to the Persians, Alexander to the Macedonians, Artaxerxes to the Parthians, and Charlemagne to the Franks.\nOf the Privilege and Charters of King Edgar. # Now we have thought it necessary to make mention of this king\u0026rsquo;s munificent liberality towards this most holy house of Abingdon, and likewise of the liberties and of the possessions belonging to the same abbey confirmed by his authority. First, then, his privilege itself must be set down; next, the charters by which he confirmed to this house the possessions that follow. Thirdly, the charters of his men, who with his consent bestowed upon this house charters confirmed by the said charters, and which from that time even to the present remain unshaken and by the grace of God shall obtain perpetual strength. Fourthly, we will append both his charters and those of his men confirming possessions once ours — which possessions, though at present they do not at all redound to our use, nevertheless it stood firm on the part of the king and of his men that their charters concerning the same possessions should obtain perpetual strength, had the craft of the ancient enemy and the blind covetousness of men, and above all the royal power, permitted it. The tenor, then, of King Edgar\u0026rsquo;s privilege is this.\nThe Privilege of King Edgar. # By the governance of the Moderator on high we are instructed in threefold wise, who as subject servants minister to Him who, disposing the fabric of the whole world in wondrous and ineffable order, at length fashioned the microcosm — Adam, to wit — out of fourfold matter, instinct with life-giving breath after His own likeness, and setting him over all things which He had formed in the lower world, one thing alone, for the proving of him, excepted and forbidden, placed him most fitly in the delight of paradise\u0026rsquo;s pleasantness, with a companion beside him, Eve to wit. Alas! — beguiled by the fiendish guile of seduction and by the smooth and shifting speech of the woman, in the recklessness of the curse he bit the forbidden apple, and, cast down into this troublous world, earned for himself and for his posterity perpetual death. For while the prophets prophesied, and the shining orthodox by their secret doctrine declared from heaven the long-hidden presages of the heavenly King, He who bears the blessing down from on high — not tongueless, as the seditious loquacity of the Jews confesses, but embracing the most charming eloquence of ancients and moderns alike, trampling down the Arrian and Sabellian trifles in anagogical speech, and calling us, by reason of the blindness of our darkened shadow, to the gladness of the heavenly patrimonies — having passed the angelic thresholds of heaven into the ear of the undefiled Virgin, is seen, as the words of the Gospel declare, to have sung wondrous songs; to whom the whole Church, that is, the Catholic, proclaims with one voice aloud: \u0026ldquo;Blessed are you, Virgin Mary, who believed; the things that were spoken to you by the Lord shall be accomplished in you.\u0026rdquo; Wondrous to tell! — the Word is made flesh and embodied, that Word of which the Evangelist, surpassing the height of all senses, saith, \u0026ldquo;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,\u0026rdquo; and the rest. By that incarnation, taken of the Virgin, the sin of the first woman is taken away, and upon all women is bestowed a bright glory surpassing in wonders. And so, while the divinity of Christ remained fragrant and untouched, and His humanity suffered, freedom mercifully came to bond-servants held in bondage.\nHence I, Edgar, by the aid of the Most High basileus of the English and of the other peoples persisting round about in threefold wise, that I may deserve to obtain the fellowship of this freedom through the mercy of the Moderator on high, have restored to the church of Abingdon the lands which were once granted by our predecessors and unjustly taken away in times past by unbelievers — to wit, 10 hides at Gainge, 15 at Gosie, 30 at Wurthe, 5 at Earmundesleah — and have granted them in eternal inheritance to our Lord and to His mother Mary, for the use of the monks dwelling therein. Moved likewise by the free grace of God, I grant to the monks dwelling by rule in the aforesaid monastery of Abingdon the eternal freedom of a monastic privilege, as our predecessors granted: to wit, that after the decease of the excellent abbot Æthelwold, in whose days this restoration of freedom was granted with Christ\u0026rsquo;s approval, the whole congregation of the aforesaid monastery may by fitting counsel choose for themselves, and lawfully appoint as abbot, one chosen out of the same band of brethren, according to the regular institutes of the blessed Benedict. Let the freedom of this privilege henceforth be held in perpetual use by all catholics; nor let any stranger, relying on tyrannical contumacy, usurp the exercise of power in the aforesaid monastery; but let the college of the same monastery glory, as I have said, in the privilege of perpetual freedom. Moreover, let the aforesaid monastery be free from all earthly servitude in the same tenor wherein it is set free by the ancient privilege of our catholic predecessors — to wit, by St Leo the pope and Coenwulf the catholic king, when abbot Rethun held the office. The lands indeed which for the use of the monks have been granted by right to our Lord Jesus Christ and His mother Mary, in ancient and in modern times, by kings and by devout persons of either sex, and by myself and by my uncle the most faithful King Eadred in the way of restoration — let them be of the same freedom for ever. For the aforesaid king restored to God\u0026rsquo;s church the estate which is called Abingdon, which King Ceadwalla in ancient times had granted with devoted heart to our Lord and to His mother Mary, and in which our predecessors, deceived by diabolical avarice, had unjustly built themselves a royal hall; and he forbade that any of the kings should ever demand entertainment there or build a hall there for evermore. Which I, Edgar, basileus of the English, acting on the counsel of my nobles, command to be fixed and done for ever, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, both in my days and in the days of my successors. For at the time when the lands which I have granted to the Lord with devoted heart had been unjustly taken from God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, certain faithless men usurped them and issued for themselves new hereditary charters; but in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we command that no catholic receive them, but that, repudiated by all the faithful, they be assigned to anathema, the ancient privilege ever remaining in force.\nBut if anyone so epileptic, seduced by the madness of avarice — which we do not desire — shall attempt with rash daring to infringe this bounty of our munificence, let him be alienated from the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, and also from participation in the most holy Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God, through whom the whole world was freed from the ancient enemy of the human race; and let him be assigned with Judas the betrayer of Christ to the company of those set on the left hand, unless he has first humbly repented here, with worthy satisfaction, that he presumed to act rebelliously against God\u0026rsquo;s holy church; and let the apostate obtain neither pardon in this active life nor rest in the contemplative, but, thrust into the eternal fires of the abyss, may he be most wretchedly tormented for ever.\nBoundaries of Gainge. # These are the boundaries of Gainge. First from the middle of Tilla\u0026rsquo;s spring to Lodder\u0026rsquo;s barrow; thence to the green lynch westward; from the lynch to Eame\u0026rsquo;s down westward; thence to the hollow dyke eastward; along the dyke two furlongs northward; then east by the headland two furlongs; along the furrows to the little spring; along the spring to the Lacing brook; along the brook back to the Gainge brook; along the brook to the springs; then along the highway to Friday\u0026rsquo;s tree; from the tree along the water-valley west to the deep valley; from the valley to the red stone; from the stone back to Tilla\u0026rsquo;s spring.\nBoundaries of Gosie. # These are the boundaries of Gosie. First to the boundary-dyke eastward; then into the Teal-bourne; along the Teal-bourne until into the Ock; along the Ock until into the boundary-dyke; from the boundary-dyke until into the furrow; from the furrow until into the little stream; from the stream until into the land-brook; along the land-brook forth outside the ham, back to the boundary-dyke eastward.\nBoundaries of Wurthe. # These are the boundaries of Wurthe. First from the Ock to the boundary-stream; along the stream, west of the grove of the men of Cearn, by the head to Eadwulf\u0026rsquo;s pit; then along the slade to the head-acre northward; thence along the acre to the head; then to the heathen burial, on to the old dyke; along the dyke to the port-way; then to the deep furrow; then to the stone bridge on the Thames; along the Thames to the thorn-stump at the boundary of the men of Kingston; then to the heathen burial; then to the boundary-dyke east of Ælfsige\u0026rsquo;s cots; along the dyke ever to the path; then over the moor to the heads; then to the wain-way; along the way to the thorn-stump by the road; then on to the Ock at the moor-slade eastward; along the Ock until back to the boundary-stream.\nBoundaries of Earmundesleah. # These are the boundaries of Earmundesleah. First from Sandford to the foul stream; along the boundary-hedge out to the cots; thence along the boundary to the hazel-dyke; along the street out to the sturgeon pool; along the dyke east to the Wasa; thence to Hroca\u0026rsquo;s ley northward; along the dyke on to the upper part of Haydown; then up on to Snodd\u0026rsquo;s hill, to its upper part, to the hoar-stone; thence to the three old Wulfhagas; then along the slade until to Ticca\u0026rsquo;s ford; then along the Lucrine back to Sandford.\nThis deed of munificence was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 958, indiction 2, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below, according to the dignity of each, crosswise in both orders, by the Lord\u0026rsquo;s disposing.\n† I, Edgar, monarch of the English of Britain, have confirmed this with the mark of the holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have consented to the same king\u0026rsquo;s goodwill. † I, Oscytel, illustrious primate of the church of York, have confirmed this royal gift. † I, Osulf, bishop, have cheerfully subscribed with my own hand in canonical subscription. † I, Byrhthelm, servant of the people of God, at the king\u0026rsquo;s command have gladly impressed the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Athulf, bishop, undaunted, have confirmed this gift under the vault of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have made firm this royal donation with the trophy of the holy Cross. † I, Æthelstan, watchman of the law of God, have inscribed this blessing with my own hand. † I, Daniel, overseer of the peoples committed to me, have consented joyfully. † I, Eadgifu, grandmother of the same king, have made firm this gift with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Æthelwold, abbot of the monastery of Abingdon, triumphing have drawn up this document. † I, Ælfwold, by the Lord\u0026rsquo;s grant abbot, have given my assent to this bounty. † I, Ealdred, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s favour abbot, have joyfully set the form of the Cross. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Oswig, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Wulfhere, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Leofing, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Cyneric, thegn. † I, Wihtsige, thegn. † I, Eanulf, thegn. † I, Leofa, thegn. † I, Ælfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ceoleah, thegn. † I, Byrhtric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Eadwig, thegn. † I, Ordgar, thegn. † I, Ælfmær, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Ordnoth, thegn. † I, Ordwald, thegn. † I, Osmær, thegn. † I, Leofing, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Byrhthelm, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Byrhtwold, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Eadwulf, thegn. † I, Sigelm, thegn. † I, Æthelm, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Marcham. # The Scripture of sacred authority confirms us, saying: \u0026ldquo;Naked came I out of my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return there\u0026rdquo;; and again: \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, and truly neither can we carry anything out of it.\u0026rdquo;\nWherefore, not unmindful of slippery dominion, I, Edgar — by Christ\u0026rsquo;s conferring king and chief of all Albion, presiding over the summit of the realm with humble mind — for the reward of a greater recompense do freely grant a modest portion of land, comprising 50 hides, which by firm agreement is called by the name of Marcham, to the church of St Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place which is called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall by any impulse of rashness in anywise break this gift of our devotion. Moreover, let the aforesaid land, which I with the consent of my nobles have granted to the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, excepting these three: to wit, military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone, impelled by a fiendish spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or to change this gift, unless as the guilty party he shall have repented with worthy satisfaction before his death, let him be cast down into the eternal fires of the abyss and mournfully punished for ever with Judas the betrayer of Christ.\nThe aforesaid estate is encompassed on this side and on that by these bounds.\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries of the fifty hides at Marcham. First from the Ock to the common moor; from the common moor up on to the white moor; from the white moor to the hawk\u0026rsquo;s meadow; from the hawk\u0026rsquo;s meadow to Tubba\u0026rsquo;s ford; from Tubba\u0026rsquo;s ford along the moor to Appleton, to the brook; from the brook to the path; from the path to the old hedge; from the old hedge to Pyrta\u0026rsquo;s moor; from Pyrta\u0026rsquo;s moor back to the Ock.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 965, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted the aforesaid donation. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have impressed the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have set my seal. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have assented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Oslac, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Ælfstan, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Eadwine, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. Frilford, Appleton, and Lea were in King Edgar\u0026rsquo;s time members of Marcham; the boundaries of these are in part marked out here, in part elsewhere.\nBoundaries of Lea. # First from the hatch to Dudemær\u0026rsquo;s hollow; from Dudemær\u0026rsquo;s hollow to the boundary-ley; from the boundary-ley to the stone-ley; from the stone-ley to the down-ley; from the down-ley straight back into the hatch.\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Cumnor. # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever, who by the Father\u0026rsquo;s governance disposes all things alike, by the life-giving grace of the Holy Spirit. For although the words of priests and the decrees of judges endure ever in strength of firmness, nevertheless, on account of the uncertain mutability of future years, they must be strengthened by the attestation of written instruments.\nWherefore I, Edgar, basileus of all Britain, have granted in eternal inheritance a certain portion of land — to wit, 30 hides — in the place called by the well-known name of \u0026ldquo;at Cumnor\u0026rdquo;, to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His holy church dedicated to the blessed Mother of God Mary, in the place called by the well-known name of \u0026ldquo;at Abingdon\u0026rdquo;, for the use of God\u0026rsquo;s monks dwelling therein, with all appurtenances — to wit, meadows, pastures, woods — Osgar being abbot. Moreover, let the aforesaid estate be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, excepting three: to wit, military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf anyone, therefore, shall wish to transfer this our gift to another use than we have ordained, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, be mournfully punished for ever in the eternal fires of the abyss with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices; unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for what he transgressed against our decree.\nBoundaries. # The aforesaid estate is encompassed on this side and on that by these bounds.\nThese are the boundaries of Cumnor. First from the sturgeon pool to the dyke; along the dyke to the inlet, ever by the boundary, to the Thames; along the Thames to the woad-ley; from the woad-ley on to the old dyke; along the dyke to the four boundaries; from the four boundaries to the rough ley; from the rough ley to the hoar-stone; from the stone on to the Wasa; from the Wasa back to the sturgeon pool.\nThis deed of donation was written in the year 968 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Edgar, king of all Britain, have confirmed the aforesaid donation with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have set my seal to the same king\u0026rsquo;s donation with the triumph of the holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have impressed the triumphant trophy of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of the church of London, have set my seal. † I, Æthelwold, bishop of the church of Winchester, have consented to the aforesaid gift. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have set my seal. † I, Oswold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wynsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. How Wytham, Seacourt, Hinksey, and Eaton were members of Cumnor. # Now Wytham, Seacourt, Hinksey, and Eaton were members of Cumnor in the time of Edgar king of England, comprising 25 hides; but now Hinksey is a member of Barton, Wytham and Seacourt are given to knights, and Eaton is wholly taken away.\nBoundaries of Eaton. # First from the Cherwell to the end of the cliff; from the end of the cliff to the small acres; from the small acres to Eaton; from Eaton along Dude\u0026rsquo;s way to the end of the long moor; from the end of the long moor to the green barrow; then to the old thorn; from the old thorn back to the Cherwell, over against Cyric\u0026rsquo;s barrow.\nCharter of King Edgar concerning the 20 hides at Drayton. # The Scripture of sacred authority confirms us, saying: \u0026ldquo;Naked came I out of my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return there\u0026rdquo;; and again: \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, and truly neither can we carry anything out of it.\u0026rdquo;\nWherefore, not unmindful of slippery dominion, I, Edgar — by Christ\u0026rsquo;s conferring king and chief of all Albion, presiding over the summit of the realm with humble mind — for the reward of a greater recompense do freely grant a modest portion of land, comprising 20 hides, which by firm agreement is called by the name of Drayton, to the church of St Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place which is called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall by any impulse of rashness in anywise break this gift of our devotion. For my uncle King Eadred formerly granted the aforesaid 20 hides in eternal inheritance to a certain soldier devoted to him, named Eadwold; and afterwards, when the king had departed this life, he restored them to the same monastery. Moreover, let the aforesaid land, which I with the consent of my nobles have granted to the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, excepting these three: to wit, military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone, impelled by a fiendish spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or to change this gift, unless as the guilty party he shall have repented with worthy satisfaction before his death, let him be cast down into the eternal fires of the abyss and mournfully punished for ever with Judas the betrayer of Christ. The aforesaid estate is encompassed on this side and on that by these bounds.\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries of Drayton. First from Englaf\u0026rsquo;s ford to Dythmere; thence to Lacing; along Lacing to Chalkford; thence to the boundary-dyke; along the dyke to Mydeling; up from Mydeling northwards to the herd-grove; then straight on to Waneting; along Waneting to the Ock; thence to the old dyke; along the dyke to Englaf\u0026rsquo;s ford.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 960, with these witnesses consenting whose names are noted below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Edgar, basileus of the English, have confirmed. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have assented. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelwold, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Oswig, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Hanney, of 20 hides. # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever, who by the Father\u0026rsquo;s governance disposes all things alike, by the life-giving grace of the Holy Spirit. For although the words of priests and the decrees of judges endure ever in strength of firmness, nevertheless, on account of the uncertain mutability of future years, they must be strengthened by the attestation of written instruments.\nWherefore I, Edgar, basileus of all Britain, have granted in eternal inheritance a certain portion of land — to wit, 20 hides — in the place called by the well-known name of \u0026ldquo;at Hanney\u0026rdquo;, to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His holy church dedicated to the blessed Mother of God Mary, in the place called by the well-known name of \u0026ldquo;at Abingdon\u0026rdquo;, for the use of God\u0026rsquo;s monks dwelling therein, with all appurtenances — to wit, meadows, pastures, woods — Osgar being abbot. Moreover, let the aforesaid estate be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, excepting three: to wit, military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf anyone, therefore, shall wish to transfer this our gift to another use than we have ordained, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, be mournfully punished for ever in the eternal fires of the abyss with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices; unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for what he transgressed against our decree.\nThe aforesaid estate is encompassed on this side and on that by these bounds.\nBoundaries of Hanney. # These are the boundaries of Hanney. First to the old dyke at the thorn-head posts; along the dyke to the Waneting; then along the stream to the red mere; to Cyllerithe; then it turns there east; then along the stream until it runs into the Ock; then along the Ock until it runs into the old Waneting; then it turns there west along the stream until it runs into the middle of Snodd\u0026rsquo;s fleet; then it turns west on to the heads until it comes to the small way; then along the way until it goes back to the old dyke.\nThis deed of donation was written in the year 968 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ; with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Edgar, king of all Britain, have confirmed the aforesaid donation with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have set my seal to the same king\u0026rsquo;s donation with the triumph of the holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have impressed the triumphant trophy of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of the church of London, have set my seal. † I, Æthelwold, bishop of the church of Winchester, have consented to the aforesaid gift. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have set my seal. † I, Oswold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wynsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. Of Ora. # Likewise, at Ora the same king granted to the church of Abingdon, by a like donation, in the same year and with the same supporters, 10 hides.\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Ora, of 10 hides. # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever, who by the Father\u0026rsquo;s governance disposes all things alike, by the life-giving grace of the Holy Spirit. For although the words of priests and the decrees of judges endure ever in strength of firmness, nevertheless, on account of the uncertain mutability of future years, they must be strengthened by the attestation of written instruments.\nWherefore I, Edgar, basileus of all Britain, have granted in eternal inheritance a certain portion of land — to wit, 10 hides — in the place called by the well-known name of \u0026ldquo;at Ora\u0026rdquo;, to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His holy church dedicated to the blessed Mother of God Mary, in the place called by the well-known name of \u0026ldquo;at Abingdon\u0026rdquo;, for the use of God\u0026rsquo;s monks dwelling therein, with all appurtenances — to wit, meadows, pastures, woods — Osgar being abbot. Moreover, let the aforesaid estate be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, excepting three: to wit, military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf anyone, therefore, shall wish to transfer this our gift to another use than we have ordained, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, be mournfully punished in the eternal fires of the abyss with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices; unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for what he transgressed against our decree.\nThe aforesaid estate is encompassed on this side and on that by these bounds.\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries at Ora. First from Wintermere along the straight boundary to the boundary-grove; thence along the hedge out through the broad ley, to the head-posts; thence to Wealcot\u0026rsquo;s ley northward; thence along the hedge to Sanda\u0026rsquo;s valley; thence to the bishop\u0026rsquo;s way; along the way back to Wintermere.\nThis deed of donation was written in the year 968 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ; with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Edgar, king of all Britain, have confirmed the aforesaid donation with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have set my seal to the same king\u0026rsquo;s donation with the triumph of the holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have impressed the triumphant trophy of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of the church of London, have set my seal. † I, Æthelwold, bishop of the church of Winchester, have consented to the aforesaid gift. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have set my seal. † I, Oswold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wynsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, abbot. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Bedene. # The Scripture of sacred authority confirms us, saying: \u0026ldquo;Naked came I out of my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return there.\u0026rdquo; And again: \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, and truly neither can we carry anything out of it.\u0026rdquo;\nWherefore, not unmindful of slippery dominion, I, Edgar — by Christ\u0026rsquo;s conferring king and chief of all Albion, presiding over the summit of the realm with humble mind — for the reward of a greater recompense do freely grant a modest portion of land, comprising 5 hides, which by firm agreement is called by the name of Bydene, to the church of St Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place which is called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall by any impulse of rashness in anywise break this gift of our devotion. Moreover, let the aforesaid land, which I with the consent of my nobles have granted to the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, excepting these three: to wit, military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone, impelled by a fiendish spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or to change this gift, unless as the guilty party he shall have repented with worthy satisfaction before his death, let him be cast down into the eternal fires of the abyss and mournfully punished for ever with Judas the betrayer of Christ.\nThe boundaries of this estate lie in the book of Cenwulf. This charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 965, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted the aforesaid donation.\n† I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed with the sign of the holy Cross.\n† I, Æthelwold, bishop, have set my seal.\n† I, Ælfstan, bishop, have assented.\n† I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed.\n† I, Ælfhere, ealdorman.\n† I, Ælfheah, ealdorman.\n† I, Æthelwine, ealdorman.\n† I, Oslac, ealdorman.\n† I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman.\n† I, Æscwig, abbot.\n† I, Osgar, abbot.\n† I, Ælfstan, abbot.\n† I, Byrhtferth, thegn.\n† I, Ælfsige, thegn.\n† I, Ælfweard, thegn.\n† I, Æthelweard, thegn.\n† I, Wulfstan, thegn.\n† I, Leofwine, thegn.\n† I, Ælfric, thegn.\n† I, Æthelsige, thegn.\n† I, Æthelweard, thegn.\n† I, Ælfric, thegn.\n† I, Eadwine, thegn.\n† I, Ælfric, thegn.\n† I, Wulfgeat, thegn.\n[Of Denchworth] # [Likewise, the same king gave to Abingdon 2 hides of land at Denchworth, in the same year aforesaid from the Nativity of the Lord, with the same counsellors in favour.]\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Denchworth # The Scripture of sacred authority confirms us, saying: \u0026ldquo;Naked came I forth from my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return thither\u0026rdquo; [Job 1:21]. And again: \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, neither indeed can we carry anything out of it.\u0026rdquo;\nWherefore, not unmindful of slippery power, I, Edgar, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s bestowal king and chief ruler of the whole of Albion, presiding over the height of the realm with humble mind, for the reward of a greater recompense freely grant to the church of the Blessed Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there, a certain small portion of land, amounting to 2 hides, which is declared by a settled agreement under the name of Denchworth; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or of lower degree, shall by any impulse of rashness in any wise break up this gift of our devotion. Moreover, let the aforesaid land, which I with the consent of my nobles have bestowed on the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly service, three things only excepted, namely the fixed military service, and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone, impelled by a devilish spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or to alter this gift, unless in his guilt he repent with due satisfaction before his death, let him be cast down into the eternal fires of the abyss and punished mournfully for ever with Judas the betrayer of Christ.\nThe aforesaid land is girded about on either side by these bounds. This charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 965.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted the aforesaid gift. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have impressed the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have signed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have assented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Oslac, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Ælfstan, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Eadwine, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning 10 hides at Spersholt # For although whatever things are defined by wholesome counsel according to the decrees of the canons and the ordinances of the Church might suffice by word alone without writing, yet because in our times the storms and whirlwinds of secular affairs frequently batter even the gates of the Church, we have therefore thought it worth while, as a safeguard for the future, to attach to the pages of scripture those things which have been defined, lest, being delivered to oblivion, they should afterwards lie unknown.\nWherefore I, Edgar, relying on the royal dignity given by the Lord, have bestowed in perpetual inheritance upon my chamberlain, named Æthelwine, a certain small portion of land, namely 10 hides, in the place called Spersholt, and one hide with a quantity of 12 acres which are in the place called Bathalacing, and also a mill at Hirdegrafe with a portion of 12 acres belonging to that mill. And I have granted it by conveyance on this condition: that he may possess it until the last day of his life, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, meadows, pastures, woods — and after him may leave it to whatsoever heir he shall choose, in perpetual right. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every royal tribute, except military service and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone, led astray by greed, shall attempt to make void or to break the ordinance of this decree, let him know that he shall render account in the dread judgement. Moreover, the aforesaid land appears to be girded round on every side by these bounds.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries: first at Sunemann\u0026rsquo;s worth; from the worth straight to the head-stakes; from the head-stakes on to the rugged ridge on the upper side; thence straight to Bryxstan\u0026rsquo;s gore on the south side; from the gore to Dudda\u0026rsquo;s dean; from the dean to the old gore on the south side; thence straight to the broad stones; from the stones to Hodan\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from the barrow to Hremnes\u0026rsquo; burh on the west side; from Hremnes\u0026rsquo; burh to Leacumb; thence straight along the stream to Tealeburna; along Tealeburna; then to the rill; along the rill to the thorn-stump at Bulandic; along the dyke to the king\u0026rsquo;s sheepfolds; from the sheepfolds to the rush-bed; from the rush-bed to the king\u0026rsquo;s thorns; thence straight to the bean-furlong; thence to the upper part of Snelle\u0026rsquo;s lynch; from Snelle\u0026rsquo;s lynch, back again to Sunemann\u0026rsquo;s worth; and there belongs thereto a homestead of one hide at Bathalacing, and one hide of land and 12 acres of meadow, and a mill at Hirdegrafe and 12 acres of land.\nThis document was written in the year 963 from the Incarnation of the Lord; and the consenting parties to this gift were those whose names appear written below.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king, with my own hand have made the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have consented. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have consented. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have consented. † I, Wulfric, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Eanulf, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ordgar, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Eastun # By the voice of the Gospel we are promised the heavenly fatherland, if, despising transitory things, we cleave to those which are eternal.\nExulting therefore, and relying on the gift of this wisdom, I, Edgar, king and leader of the English race and of the barbarians and the nations, to the praise of Christ who saith, \u0026ldquo;They twain shall be one flesh\u0026rdquo; [Matt. 19:5], have bestowed in eternal possession upon my consort and my beloved, whose name is Ælfthryth, a certain estate of my realm amounting to 10 hides, in the place which by the voices of the ancients is named Eastun. This land, therefore, with all its appurtenances — woods and fields, pastures and meadows — I have granted by the counsel of my thegns, bishops, ealdormen, and soldiers, in the year 964 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the fifth year of my reign, to my aforesaid consort with so great a liberty that she may possess it, as long as she lives, without worldly tribute; and after the death of the flesh she may leave and assign it to whatsoever heir shall please her, in everlasting inheritance.\nBut if anyone (which God forbid), puffed up with a devilish spirit, shall attempt to infringe this gift of my disposition and confirmation, let him know that on the last and great day of judgement he shall perish in everlasting shame amid the devouring flames of ineffable torments with Judas the betrayer, who is called the Son of Perdition, unless by unceasing prayers here he first deserve to obtain the desired pardon.\nNow the aforesaid land is clearly bounded by these limits:\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Eastun: first from Hatch brook to the rugged dyke; then along the way to the foul ford; from the foul ford to Eanulf\u0026rsquo;s thorn; from the thorn to the white holm-way; from the white way along Hingan down; then back to the stony way; from the way to the spring; thence straight to the brook-hill slade; from the slade to Hieca\u0026rsquo;s thorn; thence over Bleobyrig down to Hneccel\u0026rsquo;s dyke; then along the dyke back again to Hatch brook.\n† I, Edgar, ruler of the whole island of Albion, have marked this my gift aforehand with the emblem of the Holy Cross, and have recorded it in an everlasting charter. † I, Dunstan, high priest of the church of Canterbury, have signed the royal gift with divine support. † I, Æthelwold, bishop of Winchester, have impressed the triumphant seal of the undivided Trinity, and have added the subscription of my own hand. † I, Osulf, bishop, have signed. † I, Oswald, bishop, have assented. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have not refused. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Athulf, bishop, have impressed. † I, Eadelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have marked it aforehand. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Ælfstan, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Ordbriht, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Ordgar, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Eanulf, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Wihtsige, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Leofsige, thegn. † I, Ælfhelm, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Wulfheah, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ætheric, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Æscesburh # For although the decrees of royal dignity and the most wholesome counsels of kingdoms, while the record of their immunity remains, remain ever fixed and firm, yet because the storms and whirlwinds of the world, beating upon the frail course of human life, sometimes dash them against the divine ordinances of heavenly affirmation and lawful rights, they must therefore be strengthened by the ordering of letters and by sheets of charters, lest the progeny of successors, through some chance and ignorant of the charter of their forefathers, should fall into the inextricable gulf of dreadful abysses.\nWherefore I, Edgar, governor and ruler of the whole of Britain, restore in perpetuity to a certain thegn who is called by the learned by the name Wulfric the estates which had been forbidden to him on account of a certain offence, granting him eternal freedom, so that he, as long as he dwells in this mortal world, may possess them freely without the burden of any charge, and after the end of his life may leave them undefiled to whatsoever heirs he shall choose. These indeed are the names of those lands which the aforesaid king freed for ever for Wulfric: Æscesburh and Denchworth, Garanford, Clifonlea, Stanmere, Ceadelanworth, Boxora, Berniasham, Ingles, Ticeburna, Stedham, Tullington, Pæccingas, Puningas, Intimbre.\nIf anyone, then (which we do not desire), weighed down by the malice of covetousness, shall strive to violate this our freedom, let them, fallen among the hosts of foul darkness, hear on the day of judgement the voice of the Judge saying to them: \u0026ldquo;Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire\u0026rdquo; [Matt. 25:41]; where with the devils they are cruelly tormented in iron frying-pans in punishment, unless before death they have amended this by worthy penance. For the aforesaid thegn gave the aforesaid king 120 mancuses of most tried gold on account of this freedom.\nNow this charter of freedom was written in the year 960 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below according to the dignity of each.\n† I, Edgar, king, have granted this freedom. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Athulf, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelwold, abbot, have inscribed it. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Wulfhere, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfheah, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Leofing, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. [The same king granted to a certain thegn of his, named Wulfstan, 10 hides at Wiscelea, on this condition, that after his decease he should have by royal authority freedom of the gift to bestow it upon whatsoever heir he wished. Whereupon he made this church of Abingdon his heir after the end of his life, with the aforesaid supporters consenting, in the year 968 from the Incarnation of the Lord.]\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Wiscelea # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. It is known to all who diligently examine the mysteries of the heavenly gifts that not only is the state of this world corrupted and brought to decay by the fraud and contrivance of the ancient enemy, but also, when the course of this present life draws near its end, human prosperity is straitened by the keen malice and anguish of wicked men. Now therefore, while we have time to come, let us hasten with all our strength to avoid the snare of death, and while we possess an earthly patrimony, let a spiritual trading be exercised, whereby among the angelic choirs we may deserve to obtain joys that shall abide without end.\nWherefore I, Edgar, king of the English and governor and ruler of the other peoples dwelling round about, grant in perpetuity to a certain faithful thegn of mine, named Wulfstan, 10 hides in that place where of old the dwellers in that land gave it the name Wiscelea; so that he may have and possess it as long as the breath of life shall nourish his body. But when the day of his dissolution shall come, let him leave it, as we have said above, to whatsoever heir he shall choose, in everlasting inheritance. Moreover, let the aforesaid gift be free from every worldly encumbrance, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — excepting these three: military service, and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if any man shall strive to infringe this my gift by boasting with the rashness of folly, let him be weighed down with heavy chains about his neck among the flame-breathing troops of foul demons, unless he first choose to come to satisfaction here.\nThis charter of gift was written in the year 968 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, with these witnesses consenting, whose names appear inscribed below.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king of the whole of Britain, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have signed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the triumph of the Holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have impressed the triumphant trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have signed. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Oswald, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Wynsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have assented. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Lechlade # Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of hosts, reigning for ever. Forsooth, all abundance of riches and possession of temporal treasure, which the anxious solicitude of predecessors gains by unwearying strivings of labour, is sometimes left — alas! — to uncertain heirs, often unworthy of the hopes cherished. As the Psalmist, reproaching the improvident sloth of the human race, rebukes: \u0026ldquo;He heapeth up treasure, and knoweth not for whom he gathereth it\u0026rdquo; [Ps. 39:6]; and likewise the sage sophist of divine speech and doorkeeper of the heavenly library sang in a catalectic verse, relying on metrical eloquence.\nWherefore I, Edgar, king of the English and of the other peoples dwelling round about, have bestowed in perpetual inheritance a certain small estate of land, namely 10 hides, to which the inhabitants of this province gave the ancient name Lechlade, upon a certain freeborn matron who is joined to me by kinship of worldly blood, who is called by the people of this country by the elegant name Ælfgifu, for her most devoted service; that she, during her life, may have it at her will with all its utensils — namely meadows, pastures, woods; and after the end of her life may leave it free to whatsoever heirs she shall choose. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service; three things excepted, namely the fixed military service, and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nIf therefore anyone shall wish to transfer this our gift to another purpose than we have appointed, let him be deprived of the fellowship of the holy Church of God and punished mournfully for ever in the eternal fires of the abyss with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he have amended by fitting satisfaction what he offended against our decree. This land is girded by these bounds.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Lechlade: from Lechlade along the river to the ford of the Yttingas; from the ford along the street to Trumbald\u0026rsquo;s tree; from the tree along the street to the middlemost barrow; from the barrow along the street to the seven barrows; from the seven barrows to the single barrow; from the single barrow to the head of the barley croft; from the head to the middle of the boundary-dean at the rill; from the rill by the heads of the acres to the old dyke; along the dyke back into the river.\nThis charter of gift was written in the year 966 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Edgar, king of the whole of Britain, have confirmed the aforesaid gift with the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have signed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the triumph of the Holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have impressed the triumphant trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of the church of London, have signed. † I, Æthelwold, bishop of the church of Winchester, have consented to the aforesaid gift. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have signed. † I, Oswald, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Wynsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Ordbriht, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Hamstede # In the name of the Most High Thunderer. For since the happiness of this passing world is seen to be continually mingled and troubled with adverse fortunes, and all the visible and delightful ornaments of this cosmos daily pass away from their lovers, therefore every happy and wise man desires with these transitory riches of the world to obtain joys that endure for ever.\nWherefore I, Edgar, governor and ruler of the whole of Britain, have bestowed in perpetual inheritance a certain small portion of land, namely 3 hides, in the place called by the famous name Hamstede, upon a certain thegn exceedingly faithful to me, who is called by the people of this country by the noble name Eadric, for his most devoted service; that he, during his life, may have it at his will with all its utensils — namely meadows, pastures, woods; and after the end of his life may leave it free to whatsoever heirs he shall choose. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service, three things excepted, namely the fixed military service, and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone shall wish to transfer this our gift to another purpose than we have appointed, let him be deprived of the fellowship of the holy Church of God and punished mournfully for ever in the eternal fires of the abyss with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he have amended by fitting satisfaction what he offended against our decree.\nThe aforesaid land is girded about on either side by these bounds.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of the 3 hides at Hamstede: first from the south of the five acres to the rill; on to the withies; from the withies to the head-stakes; thence along the hedge to Grecceleah eastward; thence along the hedge to the rush-mere; thence to Beonatleah where the boundary-way runs out; thence along the way to Geccleah; thence along the way to the ford; from the ford along the hedge; then back to the five acres.\nThis charter was written in the year 961 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are noted below.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted. † I, Dunstan, archbishop. † I, Oscytel, archbishop. † I, Osulf, bishop. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop. † I, Athulf, bishop. † I, Oswald, bishop. † I, Æthelwold, bishop. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning the 7 hides at Kingestun # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the year 970 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, I, Edgar, by the disposing mercy of the All-Creator king of the English, led by divine love and ordained by the same God and our Lord over peoples and tribes as a flock, grant for ever to a certain faithful deacon of mine, named Byrhteah, 7 hides, in the place which in the English tongue is called Kingestun, that he may have and possess it as long as the breath of life shall nourish his body. And when the day of his dissolution shall come, let him leave it in everlasting inheritance to whatsoever heir he shall choose. Let this my immovable gift therefore remain joyous in eternal freedom, with all things that pertain to it — fields, pastures, meadows — without military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nBut if any man shall strive to infringe this my gift by boasting with the rashness of folly, let him be weighed down with heavy chains about his neck among the flame-breathing troops of foul demons, unless he first choose to come to satisfaction here.\n† I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted the aforesaid gift. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have impressed the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have signed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Oslac, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Ælfstan, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Eadwine, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Bragenfeld # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the year 967 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the tenth indiction, I, Edgar, by God\u0026rsquo;s favourable grace king and chief of the English, do most willingly grant in perpetual right to my ealdorman Byrhtnoth a small portion of land, reckoned by its inhabitants at a certain number of hides, in the place called Bragenfeld, excepting fortress, bridge, and military service; so that he may possess it during the days of his life; and after him leave it to whatsoever heir he shall choose.\nBut if anyone (which we do not desire) shall attempt to annul the charter of this gift, let him acknowledge that he shall render account before Christ. And the consenting parties to this gift were those whose names appear inscribed below.\n† I, Edgar, king of the English, have bestowed this gift. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Wynsige, bishop, have consented. † I, Oswald, bishop, have consented. † I, Osulf, bishop, have consented. † I, Eadelm, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Ordwald, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Ælfhelm, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Hocanedisce # By the favouring rule of the Governor on high, having obtained the government of the whole of Albion far and wide, and not unmindful that gifts have been granted to me in return, that by these earthly things I might gain eternal ones:\nWherefore I, Edgar, king, have bestowed in perpetual inheritance a certain small portion of land, reckoned at 5 hides, in the place called by the famous name Hocanedisce, upon a certain thegn exceedingly faithful to me, who is called by the people of this country by the noble name Wulfnoth, for his most devoted service; that he, during his life, may have it at his will with all its utensils; and after the end of his life may leave it free to whatsoever heirs he shall choose. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service; three things excepted, namely the fixed military service, and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nIf therefore anyone shall wish to transfer this our gift to another purpose than we have appointed, let him be deprived of the fellowship of the holy Church of God and punished mournfully for ever in the eternal fires of the abyss with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he have amended by fitting satisfaction what he offended against our decree.\nThe aforesaid land is girded about on either side by these bounds.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Hocanedisce: first out to Beona\u0026rsquo;s field; on Beona\u0026rsquo;s field to the border-way; from the border-way to the old head-hedge; from the hedge to the fern-meadow by the half-wood; in the fern field that projects into the Thames; along the Thames till it comes to the stocks; along the furrow to Esasawaford; up along the furrow to the green way; thence to Beona\u0026rsquo;s field.\nThis charter was written in the year 963 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are noted below.\n† I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have granted. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have granted. † I, Osulf, bishop, have granted. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have granted. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Ætheredingtun # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever; the Creator of all things visible and invisible reigning for ever, and from the highest summit of heaven disposing all the rights of kingdoms. It is manifest to all who discern true things that the prosperity of the present life is corrupted and brought to decay by the tumult of the world. Now therefore, from temporal things, if they be well dispensed, eternal justice is acquired.\nWherefore I, Edgar, king of the English, and governor and ruler of all the peoples dwelling round about, grant in perpetuity to a certain faithful thegn of mine, named Ælfric, 9 hides, in the place which in the English tongue is called Ætheredingtun. Moreover, let him have and possess this my royal gift as long as he lives; and after him leave it for ever to whatsoever heir he shall choose. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly encumbrance, with all things which are known to pertain to that place, in great as in small — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — without military service and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone shall strive to infringe it (which God forbid), let him know that he is guilty all the days of his life, and shall not escape dark Tartarus, unless he first choose to make amends here by worthy satisfaction.\nThe aforesaid land is encompassed by these bounds:\nThese 9 hides lie intermixed with other allotted field-land held in common, meadow in common, and arable land in common.\nThis aforesaid gift was executed in the year 961 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the fourth indiction.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted the aforesaid gift. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have impressed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the Holy Cross. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop of the church of Winchester, have subscribed and confirmed beneath the canopy of the Holy Cross. † I, Osulf, bishop, have signed. † I, Oswald, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have not refused. † I, Athulf, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have assented. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Eanulf, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Wulfhere, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Wihtsige, thegn. † I, Ordgar, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Mordun # Christ God reigning over heaven and earth for ever and ever. The human race seems from its birth to decline and ebb away unto death; but the Lover of all virtues, who desires us to shun evil and to follow good, daily shows us how to pass happily from the vale of tears to the heavenly kingdoms, which exceed the senses of our minds, since the eternal joys of the Saints can even now be entered by contemplation.\nWherefore I, Edgar, king of the English, grant in perpetuity to a certain faithful thegn of mine, named Eadwine, 20 hides, in the place which in the English tongue is called Mordun, that he may possess the aforesaid land during the course of his life by my favourable grant; and thereafter leave it to whatsoever succeeding heir he shall choose, as I have said before, in everlasting inheritance. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly encumbrance, with all things which are known to pertain to that place, in great as in moderate affairs — fields, pastures, meadows, woods — without military service and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut for those who diminish and break this gift (which I pray may be far from the minds of the faithful), let their portion be with those of whom it is said on the contrary: \u0026ldquo;Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which is prepared for Satan and his ministers\u0026rdquo; [Matt. 25:41], unless they first make amends with lawful satisfaction by penance worthy of God.\nNow the aforesaid land is clearly bounded by these limits:\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Mordun: first at Higford; from Higford along Hreodburna to Worf; along the stream to Purtanige westward; on to Purtanige northward; back out to the wolf-stream; along the stream to the wood bridge; thence out to the ash-stream where the watercourse flows out into Worf; up against the stream to the east end of the long furlongs; then east to the old dyke; from the old dyke to Grindewell\u0026rsquo;s stream, one furlong; thence to Ætdenpæn, to the elder-stub; thence along the edge to the meadowland; from the meadowland down to the old willow at Ættanpæn\u0026rsquo;s stream; thence to the hart\u0026rsquo;s ford; from the ford to Filica\u0026rsquo;s slade; along the slade to the old spring; then out to Headdandun\u0026rsquo;s slade; along the slade to the broad way; from the broad way along the slade out to Hagford.\nThis charter was written in the year 962 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below:\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted unalterably. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop and prelate, have impressed the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Byrhthelm, bishop, have signed. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have not refused. † I, Oswald, bishop, have assented. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelwold, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Eadmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Leofsige, thegn. † I, Eanulf, thegn. † I, Ælfhelm, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Byrhtric, thegn. † I, Ordgar, thegn. † I, Leofa, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Dudingtun # In the year 958 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the first indiction, I, Edgar, by God\u0026rsquo;s favourable grace king and chief ruler of the Mercians, do most willingly grant in perpetual right to Eanulf, my thegn, a small portion of land, reckoned at 14 hides, and also 40 acres, in the place called Dudingtun, free excepting fortress, bridge, and military service; so that he may possess it during the days of his life; and after him leave it to whatsoever heir he shall choose.\nBut if anyone (which we do not desire) shall attempt to annul the charter of this gift, let him acknowledge that he shall render account before Christ. And this portion of land appears to be girded round by these bounds:\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Dudingtun: 14 hides, and the old church at Æstlea, and with it 40 acres, and Bynanlea all belonging to Dudingtun. First from Dudingtun to the weir; along the weir to the bend; from the bend to the old stream; along the stream to the north river; along the stream to lower Fulgorhyrst; thence to the old dyke; along the dyke south back to the weir; up against the stream to the old ford; from the ford up on to the rill one furlong south of the church; along the rill to the root-stocks; thence out through the hedge to upper Burldic; from the dyke to the old rood; from the rood to Scott\u0026rsquo;s nook; from the nook to Wenburh\u0026rsquo;s bridge; from the bridge to the dyke; along the dyke to the Easthæm boundary; to the bend at the head; to the goat-thorn; from the thorn to the black thorn; to the dyke; from the thorn to the root-stocks, to the furrows; along the furrows to the old dyke at the elder; along the dyke to the other elder; from the elder to the apple-tree; thence to Ægleswelle brook; up against the stream to Stanford; from the ford to Fugelshed; from the slade to Colwell brook; along the brook to the Swyll hills; from the hills to Hasting\u0026rsquo;s stream; along the stream to the river-stream. And two hams at Loppedethorn belong to Dudingtun.\nAnd the consenting parties to this gift were those whose names appear inscribed below:\n† I, Oscytel, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Dunstan, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Cynsige, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Athulf, bishop, have consented and subscribed. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ufa, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Wynsige, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. [Of Boxora] # [Likewise, the same king granted to another of his thegns, named Ælfwine, 10 hides at Boxora, on the aforesaid tenure, and thus his right came to this church, in the same year and confirmed by the same witnesses, as aforesaid.]\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Boxora # The Creator of all creatures, when in the constitution of the declining world He had created all things out of nothing, and had completed on the sixth day the perfection of the work He had begun, adding the name of the Holy Trinity, said: \u0026ldquo;Let Us make man in Our image and likeness\u0026rdquo; [Gen. 1:26]. And when from the side of the sleeping man He had produced woman from the rib taken away, and had brought her to him as a help, He called her name Virago, because she was taken out of her man. Wherefore whatever is acquired by the sweating frailty of the man is given to his fruitful wife, for the begetting of children and for his faithful ones. And if the love of the flesh is loved so greatly, much more should the love of the Eternal King be loved, who gives to whom He will sons, servants, and free men, and nourishes all at His nod and suffers them to grow.\nWherefore I, Edgar, by the grace of God peaceable king of the English, give and deliver to a certain thegn of mine, named Ælfwine, for his faithful service, namely 10 hides, in the place to which former inhabitants gave the name Boxora; on this condition, namely, that after the dissolution of his body he may grant it in perpetual inheritance to whatsoever friend shall please him. Let the aforesaid estate therefore remain free from every secular service, with all things attached to it; excepting three: common military service, the restoration of the roadway bridge, and the building of the royal fortress.\nIf therefore anyone, goaded by the stings of envy, shall attempt to invade this my gift, let him be anathema, that is, cut off from the fellowship of Christians, unless he hasten to come to satisfaction with the fruit of penitence.\nNow the aforesaid land appears to be girded round by these bounds:\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Boxora: first at Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree; then along the army-path to the deep pit; thence up on to Æscmor\u0026rsquo;s hams on the south side; from the hams along the boundary out on to the rough field on the east side; then out on to Lindan on the north side; thence along the boundary to Wecce\u0026rsquo;s thorn; from the thorn along the boundary to Lambourn; on to Clatford; from Clatford to the head of Meos brook; thence to Alla\u0026rsquo;s staple; thence along the army-path out on to the marsh; then by the marsh to the farm in the hedgerow; then to the dyke out on to the bourne; thence up on to the black grove; from the grove to Rinda\u0026rsquo;s spring; from the spring to the three thorns; then along the way back to Wine\u0026rsquo;s tree, where it first began.\nThis charter was inscribed in the year 968 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, the king confirming it with all his nobles, whose names appear written below.\n† I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, gladly sign with my own hand our king\u0026rsquo;s precept with the banner of the Holy Cross. † I, Oswald. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, assent. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, confirm. † I, Osulf, bishop, confirm. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, confirm. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, bear witness. † I, Wynsige, bishop. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. [Moreover, in the gifts which this same king Edgar conferred upon this church of Abingdon under the holy father Æthelwold, one may conjecture how much reverence and love he bore towards him, since he so honoured the place where he dwelt. For he bestowed there Bedewind, consisting of 72 hides.]\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Bedewind # I, Edgar, with the help of the High-Throned One, king of the English and of the other peoples dwelling round about far and wide, that I may deserve to obtain a share in the clemency of the Governor on high in this bounty, have bestowed in eternal inheritance — designating it to the church of Abingdon, to our Lord and to His Mother Mary, Æthelwold being abbot — a certain portion of land measured out at 72 hides, which the inhabitants of this province call Bedewind, with all the profits rightly pertaining to it — fields, woods, meadows, pastures, fisheries — for the use of the monks dwelling there. Moreover, let the aforesaid land, which I with the consent of my nobles have devoutly granted, be released from every yoke of earthly service, three things only excepted: military service, and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone, so epileptic, seduced by the madness of avarice (which we do not desire), shall attempt with rash daring to infringe this bounty of our munificence, let him be cut off from the fellowship of the holy Church of God, and also from participation in the most holy Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, through whom the whole world was freed from the ancient enemy of the human race, and let him be placed on the left hand with Judas the betrayer of Christ; unless first here with worthy satisfaction he humbly repent that he presumed to act rebelliously against the holy Church of God; and let the apostate obtain no pardon in this active life, nor any rest in the contemplative, but cast into the eternal fires of the abyss let him be most miserably tormented for ever.\nFirst from Bedewind to the grey grove on the north side, up at the dyke-gate; at grey dean; forth then by the root-stocks where the hedge runs out, by the root-stocks to the wood path; thence past Helm\u0026rsquo;s tree; then to Æmbriht\u0026rsquo;s stream; then past the gate; then to lower Hunda dean; then past Hoc\u0026rsquo;s burial-place; then to the white ridges; then on to Abba\u0026rsquo;s spring, thence to the swallowing pit; thence to the front of Pender\u0026rsquo;s cliff on the Pæl way; then past the earthwork; then past the bur-brook; then past the ivy field; then past Byde\u0026rsquo;s ham; then past Rodleah\u0026rsquo;s mere; then to the seat-gate; then to the bracken-dean gate; then to Wædel\u0026rsquo;s mere; then to the meeting-lea eastward; then out to the broad lea, where Cuthheard\u0026rsquo;s way runs out; then to Bagga\u0026rsquo;s gate; then to the heath-field gate; then to the lead-red tree; then to the gate of Harmin\u0026rsquo;s dean; then to the horse-nook gate out on to Beocc\u0026rsquo;s nook; thence to Bedewind.\nThis charter was inscribed in the year 968 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, the king confirming it with all his nobles, whose names appear written below.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king of the English realm, confirm this present gift with the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, bishop of the church of Canterbury, gladly sign with my own hand our king\u0026rsquo;s precept with the banner of the Holy Cross. † I, Oswald, archbishop, confirm. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, assent. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, confirm. † I, Osulf, bishop, confirm. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, confirm. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, bear witness. † I, Wynsige, bishop, impress. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. [Of Hysseburna] # [Likewise, at Hysseburna, the same king bestowed there 50 hides under the same abbot, with 13 estates situated in the city of Winchester, belonging to the aforesaid estate of Hysseburna.]\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Hysseburna # All the oracles of sacred eloquence instruct us by frequent admonitions that we should serve Him devotedly with all our endeavour, Who, founding all things by the divine word, set man — the little world, formed of fourfold matter — over all the manifold creation of the whole cosmos. For the authority of divine Scripture exhorts us with manifold admonition, saying: \u0026ldquo;Naked came I out of my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return thither\u0026rdquo; [Job 1:21]. And again: \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, and neither can we carry anything out\u0026rdquo; [1 Tim. 6:7].\nWherefore, not unmindful of slippery power, I, Edgar, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s bestowal king of the whole of Albion, presiding over the height of the realm with humble mind, for the recompense of a greater reward have bestowed in eternal inheritance upon the church of Abingdon, honourably dedicated to the Blessed Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, for the use of the monks dwelling there according to the Rule and devoutly serving our Lord, a certain small portion of land, namely 50 hides, in the place called by the famous name Hysseburna, with all the produce which the God of heaven brought forth on the surface of that land — namely meadows, pastures, woods, and groves of woods. And let the 13 estates which are situated in the city of Winchester, pertaining to the aforesaid land, rejoice in the same freedom of the aforesaid church of God, the most devout Æthelwold holding the abbacy of the same place. Moreover, let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service, three things excepted, namely the fixed military service, and the recovery of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone shall refuse to consent to or obey the aforewritten statutes, let him know that he is cut off from the fellowship of the holy Church of God and from the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the authority of the blessed Apostle Peter and his companions, unless he first make amends here by worthy penance before death.\nThe aforesaid land is girded about on either side by these bounds:\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Hysseburna: first at Begmere; from Begmere to Coga\u0026rsquo;s mere; from Coga\u0026rsquo;s mere to the head of Gutte\u0026rsquo;s combe; thence to the gate of Hengest\u0026rsquo;s path; from the gate along the hedge to Standene; from Standene to hen dean; from hen dean to Thyrra\u0026rsquo;s mere; from Thyrra\u0026rsquo;s mere to Thore\u0026rsquo;s mere; from Thore\u0026rsquo;s mere to Lilia\u0026rsquo;s ridge; from Lilia\u0026rsquo;s ridge to the rough barrow; from the rough barrow to Wea\u0026rsquo;s lynch; and from Wea\u0026rsquo;s lynch past the hangers; to Cissa\u0026rsquo;s narrow path; from Cissa\u0026rsquo;s narrow path to the white hawthorn; then to goose dean; from goose dean along the dean to Bitta\u0026rsquo;s knoll by the wood; from Bitta\u0026rsquo;s knoll to Wocc\u0026rsquo;s gate; from Wocc\u0026rsquo;s gate to the swing-gate; from the swing-gate to Wesanham on the south side; thence to Tanmere; from Tanmere to Begmere.\nThen these are the boundaries of the 15 hides at Eastun: first at the boar-fern on to the red dyke; then to the sloping barrow; then along the street to the chapmen\u0026rsquo;s portion; from the chapmen\u0026rsquo;s portion to the portmen\u0026rsquo;s hound-hill; then to the great winding; then along by the root-stocks on to Sotceorl\u0026rsquo;s acre; from Sotceorl\u0026rsquo;s acre to the wonstock; from the stock athwart over the broad lea; then to the horse-lea dean; from the dean to the bottomless pit; from the pit to Haca\u0026rsquo;s pound-fold; from Haca\u0026rsquo;s pound-fold back again to the boar-fern.\nFor the 15 hides and these 50, with a small strip lying between them, are divided off, girded separately by their own bounds, as appears clearly marked above.\nThis charter was written in the year 961 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below:\n† I, Edgar, monarch of the English of Britain, have confirmed this gift with the marvel of the Holy Cross.\n† I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have approved the same king\u0026rsquo;s bounty.\n† I, Oscytel, distinguished primate of the church of York, have confirmed this royal gift.\n† I, Osulf, bishop, have cheerfully subscribed with a canonical subscription in my own hand.\n† I, Byrhthelm, servant of the people of God, at the king\u0026rsquo;s command have gladly impressed the sign of the Holy Cross.\n† I, Athulf, bishop, undaunted beneath the canopy of the Holy Cross, have confirmed this gift.\n† I, Ælfstan, bishop, have made firm the trophy of the Holy Cross.\n† I, Oswald, overseer of the law of God, have inscribed this eulogy with my own hand.\n† I, Æthelwold, abbot.\n† I, Ælfhere, ealdorman.\n† I, Ælfheah, ealdorman.\n† I, Æthelstan, ealdorman.\n† I, Æthelwold, ealdorman.\n† I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman.\n† I, Eadmund, ealdorman.\n† I, Æthelmund, ealdorman.\n† I, Ælfgar, thegn.\n† I, Ælfwine, thegn.\n† I, Byrhtferth, thegn.\n† I, Æthelsige, thegn.\n† I, Æthelwine, thegn.\n† I, Osweard, thegn.\n† I, Æthelsige, thegn.\n† I, Osulf, thegn.\n† I, Wulfgar, thegn.\n† I, Æthelsige, thegn.\n† I, Ælfsige, thegn.\n† I, Wulfhelm, thegn.\n† I, Ælfsige, thegn.\n† I, Ælfred, thegn.\n† I, Ealdred, thegn.\n† I, Ælfwold, thegn.\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Southampton # In the name of the blessed and undivided Trinity. All the patrimonies of the world are left to uncertain heirs among our descendants; and all the glory of the world, as the end of this life draws near, fades away reduced to nothing. For this reason we have resolved, under the Lord\u0026rsquo;s protection, to gain with earthly and perishable possessions the ever-enduring rewards of the heavenly fatherland.\nWherefore I, Edgar, king of all Britain, admonished by the prompting of God, have with great effort of mind procured that all the advantages of this present life should be devotedly bestowed upon the monastery of Abingdon — which I, by the help of our Creator, restored to the regular life — through our bounteous donation: namely, the vineyard situated near Wincet, with its vine-dressers, and the land pertaining to it, compassed by its own bounds; also the royal rent to be rendered year by year to the aforesaid monastery; and at Southampton the fishing of one ship and the royal toll; and at Hwitanclife that of a second ship, and at Portmonna Hithe a fishery and a salt-work and one hide of land; and, out of the king\u0026rsquo;s wood, the repair of the weir which is called Brunwicweir. All these I have granted as an everlasting inheritance to our Lord Jesus Christ and His mother Mary, for the use of the monks dwelling therein, for the remission of our misdeeds and the reward of eternal blessedness, Abbot Æthelwold then holding the abbey.\nMay the company of monks, enriched in common by these gifts, keep their appointed watch in the Lord with rejoicing, ever glad in the fulfilment of their vow, and earnestly beseech the Lord with frequent supplication, interceding to obtain pardon for our transgressions. Moreover, whoever shall be willing to increase this bounty of our generosity, may the Lord increase his life and prosperity both here and for ever.\nIf therefore anyone shall be minded to divert this our donation to any use other than we have appointed, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church, be punished everlastingly, mourning, in the eternal fires of the abyss together with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for having offended against our decree.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 962, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Edgar, king of the English, have cheerfully confirmed this gift by the token of the Holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have sealed the benevolence of so great a king with the impress of the Holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, rejoicing have marked this gift of the same king with the sign of the Cross. † I, Osulf, bishop by the grace of God, have confirmed the generous bounty of the beloved king with the sign of the Cross. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop by the gift of God, consenting to so great a bounty, have devoutly impressed the sign of the Cross. † I, Ælfwold, bishop. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop. † I, Oswold, bishop. † I, Ælfstan, bishop. † I, Athulf, bishop. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Beorhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. Concerning Fifield # Likewise, at Fifield the king himself granted 25 hides to Abingdon, Abbot Osgar obtaining it from him. This was established in the year 968 from the birth of Christ, the aforesaid bishops and other worthy witnesses assenting that it was granted.\nof priests and the decrees of judges should endure for ever in unimpaired force, nevertheless, by reason of the uncertain mutability of the years to come, they are to be confirmed by the testimony of written deeds.\nWherefore I, Edgar, king of all Britain, have granted as an everlasting inheritance a certain portion of land, namely 25 hides, in the place known by the famous name of Fifield, to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His holy church dedicated to the blessed Mary, Mother of God, in the place known by the famous name of Abingdon, for the use of the monks of God dwelling therein, with all appurtenances — namely meadows, pastures and woods — Abbot Osgar then holding the abbey.\nLet the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service, three things excepted, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf therefore anyone shall be minded to divert this our donation to any use other than we have appointed, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church, be punished everlastingly, mourning, in the eternal fires of the abyss together with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for having offended against our decree.\nThe aforesaid land is compassed on every side by these boundaries.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of the 25 hides at Fifield: first from the Eoccan to the short dyke; from the short dyke to Ælfthryth\u0026rsquo;s dyke; along the dyke to the moor; from the moor to the old dyke; from the dyke into the stream of the Thames; to the streamlet; along the streamlet to Wase; from Wase to Cudd\u0026rsquo;s bend; from Cudd\u0026rsquo;s bend over the rye down to Pate\u0026rsquo;s way; from the way to the common moor; from the moor back again to the Eoccan.\nIn the year 968 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ this deed of gift was written, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king of all Britain, have confirmed the aforesaid donation with the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have sealed the same king\u0026rsquo;s donation with the triumph of the Holy Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have impressed the triumphant trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of the church of London, have sealed it. † I, Æthelwold, bishop of the church of Winchester, have consented to the aforesaid gift. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have sealed it. † I, Oswold, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Winsige, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Easthall # All the patrimonies of the world are left to uncertain heirs among our descendants, and all the glory of the world, as the fated term of death draws near, fades away reduced to nothing. For this cause let us, with the Lord\u0026rsquo;s help, gain with earthly and perishable possessions the ever-enduring rewards of the heavenly fatherland.\nWherefore I, Edgar — mindful of my frail dominion, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s bestowal king and chief ruler of all Albion, occupying the summit of the realm with a humble spirit — for the recompense of a greater reward do freely grant a certain little portion of land, namely 4 hides, in the place well known as Easthall, to the church of the blessed Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall in any wise break up this gift of our devotion through any impulse of rashness. Let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service, three things excepted, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf therefore anyone shall be minded to divert this our donation to any use other than we have appointed, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church, be punished everlastingly, mourning, in the eternal fires of the abyss together with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for having offended against our decree.\nThe aforesaid land is compassed on every side by these bounds.\nBoundaries # (963) These are the boundaries of the 4 hides at Easthall: east along the stream out to the sea; and from old Hræthe out to the boundary; along the down, and Snæp, and Scammandun, and Shortwood, into Easthall.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 963, with these witnesses consenting whose names are noted below.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted it. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Oswold, bishop, have assented. † I, Æthelwold, abbot. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Ælfwold, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Beorhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. Likewise, in the same year the king added this also to his gift to the church itself, namely 3 hides at Hennerithe, whose bounds lie not in one piece but as scattered acres intermingled with those of others.\nCharter of King Edgar concerning the three hides at Hennerithe # With the Most High reigning for ever. To all who with intent striving of mind diligently search out the study of wisdom it becomes perfectly clear that, with the dangers of this life pressing in with overwhelming terror, the appointed end of the world is known to draw near, as the truthful sentence of Christ proclaims when He says, \u0026ldquo;Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom\u0026rdquo; [Matt. 24:7], and so on.\nWherefore I, Edgar, king of all Britain, have granted as a perpetual inheritance a certain portion of land, namely 3 hides, in the place known by the famous name of Hennerithe, to the holy church of God dedicated in Abingdon to the blessed Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, with all appurtenances — namely meadows, pastures and woods. Let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service, three things excepted, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf therefore anyone shall be minded to divert this our donation to any use other than we have appointed, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church, be punished everlastingly, mourning, in the eternal fires of the abyss together with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for having offended against our decree.\nThe aforesaid land is compassed on every side by these bounds.\nBoundaries # The boundaries of this land are held in common, so that it ever runs acre adjoining acre.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 962.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted it. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelwold, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. Concerning Henneritha, 10 hides # After the venerable abbot Æthelwold himself had been established in the episcopal see, King Edgar did not cease to bestow the works of his munificence upon this place. For in the year which is 964 from the birth of Christ we find the testament of the same king written as follows.\nCharter of King Edgar concerning the 10 hides at Henneritha # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour. Seeing that the mutability of this passing world daily grows less even as it increases through the progress of the times, and is diminished as it is enlarged, and that, with ever-multiplying sudden descents of ruin, a near end is seen to be appointed for all things at hand; therefore with vain and transitory things the everlasting rewards of the heavenly fatherland must be purchased.\n(964) Wherefore I, Edgar, king of the English and governor and ruler of the other peoples round about, have granted as an everlasting inheritance to the holy church honourably dedicated in Abingdon to the Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, 10 hides of excellent land in the place known by the famous name of Henneritha, for the use of the monks dwelling therein. Let moreover the aforesaid land, which I have devotedly granted to our Lord Jesus Christ and His mother, the ever-Virgin Mary, be released with perpetual freedom from every yoke of earthly service, together with all the appurtenances belonging to that land — meadows, pastures and other necessaries — three things excepted, namely military service and the construction of bridge and fortress.\nIf moreover anyone shall desire with hostile zeal to corrupt this charter written by my right, let him not doubt himself renounced and excommunicated by all in my kingdom who serve God, now and then and for ever, to be tormented without end; whence after death, seized by hellish ministers, he shall be shut up in the infernal depth of pestilential death within a flaming house, and there, with limbs bound, shall be cast into a certain cauldron of Vulcan which is declared to be filled with continually boiling pitch; and by such breakers or diminishers it is felt most intolerably and cruelly, without any mercy, unless before death he shall have made amends with the laments of repentance.\nThe aforesaid land appears to be compassed by these bounds.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of the 10 hides at Henneritha: first to the little spring; from the spring to Rypelin\u0026rsquo;s mound; from the mound along the headland until it comes to the headland on the west side of the three barrows; then from the headland to the great thorn-stump; from the stump to Hoco mere; from the mere to the Wantage brook; along the brook until it comes to the dyke at the boundary of Stifingham; along the one headland eastward until it comes to the ealdorman\u0026rsquo;s boundary; thence south along the heads to the rush-brook; across the rush-brook along the head until it comes to Lacing Brook; to the little spring; along the brook to the other spring; then south along the heads to Abbanbyrh; along the heads to the south side of Black Hill; from the hill two furlongs west to the headland; along the heads until it reaches the dyke along the brook; west along the brook back to the little spring where it began. The meadow on the west side of Wantage belongs to these 10 hides.\nThis aforesaid donation was made in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 964, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Dunstan, primate of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed it by the token of the Cross. † I, Oscytel, archbishop of the church of York, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelwold, bishop of the church of Winchester, have sealed this royal gift with the Lord\u0026rsquo;s sign. † I, Osulf, bishop, have given my assent. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of London, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Oswold, bishop. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop. † I, Æthelm, bishop. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Ordgar, ealdorman. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Osferth, thegn. Concerning Burhhece # In the same year, and with the same witnesses, the same king granted to this church the land of Burhhece, namely 20 hides.\nCharter of King Edgar concerning Burhhece # fashioned likewise of fourfold matter, quickened by the holy breath after His own likeness, and set over all that He had created in the world below — one thing alone excepted and forbidden for his proving — He placed him most gloriously with his wife in the pleasantness of paradise. But he, alas! impelled by a devilish spirit, being cast down into this sorrowful world, deserved perpetual death for himself and for his descendants.\nWherefore I, Edgar, governor and ruler of all Britain, that I, redeemed by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be able to escape the barrier of this misery which the first-formed man, ensnared, deserved, have granted as an everlasting inheritance a certain portion of land, namely 20 hides, in the place known by the famous name of Burhhece, to the church of Abingdon, honourably dedicated to the blessed Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, for the use of the monks living there according to the Rule and devotedly serving our Lord, with all the appurtenances which the God of heaven brought forth upon the face of that land — namely meadows, pastures, woods and groves of woodland. Let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service, three things excepted, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf moreover anyone shall be minded to divert our donation to any use other than we have appointed, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church, be punished everlastingly, mourning, in the eternal fires of the abyss together with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for having offended against our decree.\nThe aforesaid land is compassed on every side by these bounds.\nBoundaries # first to the wall-way; then to the earthwork; then forth along the foot of the bank to the boundary-way; then to the west side of Wifelesham; then forth along the borough-brook; then to the west side of the spring-meadow; then to the boundary-way; then west to Igfled\u0026rsquo;s way; to the oak at Filethemnbe; then along the hedge to the east side of Bidanham; then along the hedge out to the west side of Rodley; then to the heathfield gate.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 961, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, monarch of the English of Britain, have confirmed this gift by the token of the Holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have consented to the same king\u0026rsquo;s benevolence. † I, Oscytel, illustrious primate of the church of York, have confirmed this royal gift. † I, Osulf, bishop, have gladly subscribed with my own hand by canonical subscription. † I, Byrhtelm, servant of the people of God, at the king\u0026rsquo;s command have joyfully impressed the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Athulf, pontiff, have fearlessly confirmed this gift beneath the vault of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed this king\u0026rsquo;s donation with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Oswold, watchman of the law of God, have inscribed this blessing with my own hand. † I, Æthelwold, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfred, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Wasingetune # With the Most High reigning for ever. To all who with intent striving of mind diligently search out the study of wisdom it becomes perfectly clear that, with the dangers of this life pressing in with overwhelming terror, the appointed end of the world is known to draw near, as the truthful sentence of Christ proclaims when He says, \u0026ldquo;Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom\u0026rdquo; [Matt. 24:7], and so on.\n(963) Wherefore I, Edgar, king of all Britain, have granted as a perpetual inheritance a certain portion of land, namely 24 hides, in the place well known by the name of Wasingetune, to a certain prelate who is known to the people of this country under the familiar name of Æthelwold, for the everlasting recompense of my soul; that for the duration of his life he may possess it as his own, and after the end of his life may leave it, free of all claim, to whatsoever heirs he shall choose. Let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service, three things excepted, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf therefore anyone shall be minded to divert this our donation to any use other than we have appointed, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church, be punished everlastingly, mourning, in the eternal fires of the abyss together with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for having offended against our decree.\nThe aforesaid land is compassed on every side by these bounds.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Wasingetune: first from Horninga Dean to Benna\u0026rsquo;s barrow; then to the old Christ\u0026rsquo;s-rood; from the rood to the black pool; from the pool to Dunna\u0026rsquo;s head; thence to Hunne\u0026rsquo;s knoll, to Geocburna; thence to Dunham lea; from the lea to the red spring; from the spring to Lidgeard\u0026rsquo;s barrow; then to Tatemann\u0026rsquo;s burying-place; from the burying-place to Hathburg\u0026rsquo;s mound; then up to the stony ridge; from the stony ridge to the weir-stead; thence to the entrenchment; from the entrenchment west to the two thorn-trees; thence to Remne\u0026rsquo;s down; from the down to Short Dean; thence to Wiga\u0026rsquo;s field; from Wiga\u0026rsquo;s field back again to Horninga Dean.\nAnd these are the swine-pastures belonging to it: first Wærburg\u0026rsquo;s spear; then the western Crochurst; then the second Crochurst; then the third Crochurst; then Horsham; then Yfeles Lea; then Haselwick; then Gatewick; then the riding-fold; then Scacelwick; then Hundredingfold, forth to the ridge.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 963, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Edgar, king of the English, have granted it. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Eadelm, bishop, have assented. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. Charter of King Edgar concerning Rimecunda # The gracious Creator of the fabric of the whole world, arranging things above and below in one ineffable order, fashioned man likewise of fourfold matter, quickened by the holy breath after His own likeness, and set him over all that He had created in the world below — one thing alone excepted and forbidden for his proving — and placed him most gloriously with his wife in the pleasantness of paradise. But he, alas! impelled by a devilish spirit, being cast down into this sorrowful world, deserved perpetual death for himself and for his descendants.\nWherefore I, Edgar, governor and ruler of all Britain, that I, redeemed by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be able to escape the barrier of this misery which the first-formed man, ensnared, deserved, have granted as an everlasting inheritance a certain portion of land, namely 22 hides, in the place known by the famous name of Rimecunda, to the church of Abingdon, honourably dedicated to the blessed Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary, for the use of the monks living there according to the Rule and devotedly serving our Lord, with all the appurtenances which the God of heaven brought forth upon the face of that land — namely meadows, pastures, woods and groves of woodland. Let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly service, three things excepted, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf moreover anyone shall be minded to divert our donation to any use other than we have appointed, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy Church, be punished everlastingly, mourning, in the eternal fires of the abyss together with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he shall have made amends by fitting satisfaction for having offended against our decree. The aforesaid land is compassed on every side by these bounds.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Rimecunda: from the bridge to the west stream; along the stream to Hicanpool; from the pool to Dyrnanford; then the meadow is held in common from the ford to Luca\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from the barrow to Pistete\u0026rsquo;s oak; from the oaks to Brocleaford; from the ford to the stile; from the stile to Cutlesmead; from the mead straight up to the Woodbury lynch; from the lynch to Lindford; from the ford to the sea-trough; from the trough to the heathen burial-place; from the burial-place up to Windgate; from Windgate to Sponford; from the ford to the foul ford; from the ford to Mulescombe; from Mulescombe to the military road; along the military road to the thieves\u0026rsquo; combe; from the combe to Hlæpeburna; from the stream to Leofa\u0026rsquo;s mark; to the dyke; from the dyke to the bramble-thorn; from the thorn to the hill at Ridingford; to the mead-leat; from the leat to the grey willow; then the mead is held in common from the willow straight up to Sandford; from the ford to Æthelwold\u0026rsquo;s boundary; from his boundary to Undernbeorh; from the hill to the grey willow; from the willow back again to the bridge; and of this land there are in all 22 hides.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 961, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\nWitnesses # † I, Edgar, monarch of the English of Britain, have confirmed this gift by the token of the Holy Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have consented to the same king\u0026rsquo;s benevolence. † I, Oscytel, illustrious primate of the church of York, have confirmed this royal gift. † I, Osulf, bishop, have gladly subscribed with my own hand by canonical subscription. † I, Byrhtelm, servant of the people of God, at the king\u0026rsquo;s command have joyfully impressed the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Athulf, pontiff, have fearlessly confirmed this gift beneath the vault of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed this king\u0026rsquo;s donation with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Oswold, watchman of the law of God, have inscribed this blessing with my own hand. † I, Æthelwold, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwold, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Edmund, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmund, ealdorman. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Osweard, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Osulf, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Alfred, thegn. † I, Ealdred, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. Concerning Saint Æthelwold # Now it remains for us to make mention of the venerable man Æthelwold, in King Edgar\u0026rsquo;s time the most holy abbot of this place: how, after the ample possessions bestowed by Edgar, most illustrious king of the English, he ordered this house most fittingly, as a prudent and vigilant steward of our Lord Jesus Christ — that is to say, as regards the observance of the Rule, and the ordinances most necessary for it, and likewise customs worthy of all remembrance.\n(965) In the first place, then, the blessed Æthelwold, in the reign of Edgar, built a splendid church in honour of the holy Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary in this place, and likewise brought it to completion as had been vowed. When it was finished, the blessed Æthelwold, having already gathered together a number of brethren there, by their common consent and with one accord sent one of his monks, named Osgar, to the parts beyond the sea, to the abbey of Fleury, to learn the Rule of Saint Benedict, under which the brethren of this place might worthily serve God and fight the good fight. The blessed Æthelwold also carefully heeded that prophetic saying, \u0026ldquo;Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thy house\u0026rdquo; [Ps. 26:8] — taking it, for the present, of the outward house — and enriched this house, as splendidly as he could, with most precious ornaments. For, as we have learnt from the testimony of ancient books, he gave a golden chalice of immense weight for the honour and reverence of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. He also gave three very beautiful crosses of silver and pure gold, which were broken up in the time of King Stephen\u0026rsquo;s war, as our monks who have entered upon the way of all flesh bore witness. He adorned the church also with texts both of pure silver and of refined gold, and likewise with most precious stones, with censers and cruets, cast basins and candlesticks of wrought silver, and many other good things, both those pertaining to the monks\u0026rsquo; use about the altar and those pertaining to the seemliness of the church. With the help also of the most pious King Edgar, of worthy memory, Abbot Æthelwold had a silver table made, valued at the price of 300 pounds, whose material was surpassed by its artistic workmanship, and which remained unharmed and unbroken until the time of Abbot Vincent. Meanwhile the man of God, like the valiant woman of Scripture, made a piece of cloth, sold it, and delivered it to the Canaanite, while by his holy way of life and devotion he set an example of good works to his disciples, changed from good to better. He also made two bells with his own hands, it is said, which he placed in this house together with two other larger ones which the blessed Dunstan is also said to have made with his own hands. Moreover the venerable Æthelwold made a certain wheel full of little bells, which they call the \u0026ldquo;golden\u0026rdquo; one because of its gilded plates, and ordered it to be turned on festival days to stir up greater devotion. All these ornaments enumerated above, together with an increase of other goods, remained in this church until the coming of the Normans into England. For at that time there were in this house certain monks and sacrists from the monastery of Jumièges, who fraudulently carried off with them into Normandy a great many of the ornaments, gold as well as silver, laboriously acquired by the blessed Æthelwold and bestowed upon this house, having first utterly stripped the precious metal from the wheel just mentioned.\nThe venerable man Æthelwold, moreover, heeding even more diligently that authoritative saying, \u0026ldquo;Let them who serve the altar live by the altar\u0026rdquo; [1 Cor. 9:13], and likewise that Gospel saying, \u0026ldquo;The labourer is worthy of his hire\u0026rdquo; [Luke 10:7], laid down for his sons labouring in the Lord\u0026rsquo;s vineyard a daily allowance of the following kind, under a fixed stipulation. Each of the monks of Abingdon sitting down at table is to receive his allotted loaf of pure wheat, equal in weight to five marks; whence that verse, \u0026ldquo;The bread of Abingdon weighs a full five marks.\u0026rdquo; Together with this bread he ordered a piece of cheese of a fixed size to be set before them daily, such that within 5 days the Abingdon weight — which then consisted of 22 stones, as we have learnt from the testimony of the ancients — would be entirely used up. He also appointed for the monks of this place, who were to serve God and the blessed Mary for ever, on each day two kinds of vegetables before the common dish, and a dish after the common dish — that is, one common dish and one pittance — whereby they might take their refreshment without excess. On days when albs were worn he appointed one pittance more than on other days; on days when copes were worn, two pittances besides the common dish; and on the principal feasts, three pittances besides the common dish. On the same days he also appointed artocrea, a kind of fine bread, and at supper the oblation-bread. In the season of Lent, in place of cheese, he appointed each brother one large eel daily with the common dish. In summer he appointed for the brothers\u0026rsquo; supper sour milk in most beautiful vessels called \u0026ldquo;Creches\u0026rdquo; in the common tongue, every day from the day called Hock Day until the feast of Saint Michael; but from the feast of Saint Michael until the feast of Saint Martin, sweet milk every second day. Now the vessel called a \u0026ldquo;Creche\u0026rdquo; holds 7 inches, measured in depth from the top of one side to the bottom of the other. He also appointed cakes for 5 days of Easter week, and for 5 days in the week of Pentecost, and on the day of Saint Mark the Evangelist, the three days of the Rogations, the day of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Ascension, and so on.\nAs for the measure of the monks\u0026rsquo; drink, the venerable man Æthelwold judged it very fitting to establish an allowance neither exceeding a certain reasonable sufficiency nor falling short of it. He therefore ordained a certain great cup, holding within it a full flask and a half — that is, two \u0026ldquo;charity\u0026rdquo; measures and more — which cup the ancients called Æthelwold\u0026rsquo;s Bowl. With this measure the monks\u0026rsquo; cups were filled twice a day, at dinner and at supper. On festival days, too, whether in albs or in copes, he appointed them mead: namely, a sextary among six brothers at dinner, and a sextary among 12 brothers at supper. But on the principal days which we keep as chief feasts — namely Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption of Saint Mary and her Nativity, the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints — he appointed wine for them in the same measure as was previously prescribed for the mead, and mead at supper. These things and others like them he ordained so abundantly and so prudently that not only were the monks sufficiently maintained in their manner of life, but the poor also might be the more liberally refreshed from their leavings.\nMoreover the venerable man, seeing that truths had in great part been diminished from the sons of men and would be diminished more and more in time to come, fearing for himself and his people lest the customs assigned aforetime should in process of time either deteriorate, or be changed for the worse, or even be utterly annulled, did what he could, and strictly forbade, under threat of anathema, that any of his successors should presume to change or alter them for the worse — unless perchance, kindled by the zeal of charity, he should resolve to improve those same customs from good to better. He also offered a prayer for this house before he was called to the bishopric of Winchester. The tenor of that prayer is this.\nThe Prayer of Saint Æthelwold # O eternal God, before whose face the angels stand, and by whose nod all things are governed, protect, O Lord, I beseech You, this place which has been built in Your name and that of the blessed Mary; and by the power of Your Name may there depart from it the power of enemies, the shadow of phantoms, the onslaught of whirlwinds, the stroke of lightnings, the hurt of thunders, the calamity of tempests, and every spirit of storms. Moreover I beseech You, O Lord, that fire may not consume this house, nor a hostile man destroy it through pride; but do You, most merciful God, preserve it and govern it, and may it grow rich with the manifold abundance of fruits, that all who dwell therein may praise You with voice and heart and magnify Your Name with sweet melody; and may Your blessing descend upon them and remain upon this place for ever, through our Lord.\nSaint Æthelwold was made Bishop by King Edgar # Meanwhile, while the life of the man of God, Abbot Æthelwold, showed itself day by day both acceptable to God and worthy of praise among men, he was chosen by the aforesaid King Edgar as bishop of the church of Winchester, in the year 963 from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation. In his place Osgar, a monk of the same church, was made abbot of Abingdon. And although he ascended the lofty seat of the episcopate, he in no way relaxed himself from the yoke of monastic discipline; whence the clergy, who at that time ought to have lived together canonically in the church at the seat of his bishopric, neglecting the rigour of religious life in their bishop, preferred to give up their places rather than live under stricter rule. Therefore, by the advice and authority of the aforesaid king and of the blessed Dunstan, then archbishop, he expelled them and introduced monks from Abingdon in their place, who to this day serve God according to the Rule in the same church. He did likewise with the church in the same city where the abbey is; for in it he first established monks and an abbot over them. Indeed, he also founded among the East Angles one monastery of monks on the isle of Ely, another in the place called Burh, that is Peterborough, and a third at Thorney. All these drew their training and support from the community of the monks of Abingdon, where that cultivator of piety and justice had planted so fruitful a vine, from which he propagated so many shoots through many places. But because he had left the church of Abingdon still to be dedicated before he took up the episcopate, after his consecration he consecrated it together with the blessed Dunstan and certain others of his fellow-bishops, in honour of the Mother of God, on the fifth day before the Kalends of January (28 December).\nOn the Death of King Edgar # When Edgar, most illustrious king of the English, had happily entered upon the way of all flesh — may God be merciful to his soul — his son Edward, a man of worthy memory, succeeded him in the inheritance. In the course of time he grew so strong both in gravity of manners and in holiness of life that, before his earthly end came, he was seen by all to lead an angelic life while still on earth. It was he who, during his reign, granted to the church of Abingdon 7 hides at Kingston, and confirmed the grant by this charter.\n\u0026ldquo;I shall return thither\u0026rdquo; [Job 1:21]; and again, \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, and truly neither can we take anything out of it\u0026rdquo; [1 Tim. 6:7]. Wherefore I, Edward — mindful of my frail dominion, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s bestowal king and chief ruler of all Albion, occupying the summit of the realm with a humble spirit — for the recompense of a greater reward do freely grant a certain little portion of land, comprising 7 hides, to which the name Kingston is given by firm stipulation, to the church of the blessed Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall in any wise break up this gift of our devotion through any impulse of rashness. Let the aforesaid land, which with the consent of my nobles I have granted to the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly service, these three things excepted, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf moreover anyone, impelled by a devilish spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or change this gift, unless he repent guilty with worthy satisfaction before his death, let him be cast down into the eternal fires of the abyss and punished mournfully for ever with Judas the betrayer of Christ.\nThe aforesaid land is compassed on every side by these bounds.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries, acre under acre: first from Eoccene to the boundary thorn; from the boundary thorn to the head-acres; then to Swanesig, to the middle of the old gore; from the old gore along the true boundary to Ælfred\u0026rsquo;s barrow; then along the true boundary into Kingston; straight on to the pit below Kingston; then along the true boundary to the thorn-tree; then out to the Thames; along the Thames to the old boundary; up along the boundary to Ælfthryth\u0026rsquo;s stone; from the stone along the dyke; from the dyke along the true boundary; then back again to Eoccene.\nThis charter was written in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 965.\n† I, Edward, king of the English, have granted the aforesaid donation. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oswold, archbishop, have impressed the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have sealed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have assented. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æscwig, abbot. † I, Osgar, abbot. † I, Æthelgar, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Eadwine, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. Likewise, the Charter of King Edward concerning 13 hides at Kingston # With our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. To all who search out from heaven the mysteries of the heavenly gifts it is known that not only is the state of this world corrupted, decaying through the deceit and machination of the ancient enemy, but also, the course of this present life being nearly run, the prosperity of the wicked besets mankind with sharp endeavour and anguish. Now therefore, while we have the time of pardon, let us make haste with all our strength to escape the snare of death; and while we possess an earthly patrimony, let spiritual commerce be practised, whereby among the angelic choirs we may deserve to obtain joys that shall last without end.\nWherefore I, Edward, king of the English and governor and ruler of the other peoples round about, do grant in perpetuity to a certain faithful bishop of mine, called by the name of Ælfstan, 13 hides, in that place where the country-dwellers long ago bestowed the name of Kingston, that he may have and possess it so long as the vital breath shall sustain his body; and when the day of his dissolution shall come, let him leave it to whatsoever heir he shall choose, as we have said above, in everlasting inheritance. Let the aforesaid donation be free from every worldly hindrance, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, pastures, meadows — excepting these three: military service and the construction of bridge and fortress.\nBut if any man shall strive, boasting with the rashness of folly, to infringe this my donation, let him, weighed down by heavy chains about his neck amid the flame-vomiting throngs of hideous demons, be punished, unless he should first prefer to come to satisfaction.\nThe aforesaid land appears to be compassed by these bounds.\nBoundaries # These are the boundaries of Kingston, acre under acre: first from Eoccene to the boundary thorn; from the boundary thorn to the head-acres; then to Swanesig, to the middle of the old gore; from the old gore along the true boundary to Ælfred\u0026rsquo;s barrow; then along the true boundary into Kingston; straight on to the pit below Kingston; then along the true boundary to the thorn-tree; out to the Thames; along the Thames to the old boundary; up along the boundary to Ælfthryth\u0026rsquo;s stone; from the stone along the dyke; from the dyke along the true boundary; then back again to Eoccene.\nThis aforesaid donation was made in the year 956 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n† I, Edward, king of the English, have granted the aforesaid donation. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oswold, archbishop, have impressed the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have sealed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have assented. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfnoth, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Sigar, bishop, have consented. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Eadwine, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmær, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Æscwig, ealdorman. † I, Osgar, ealdorman. † I, Æthelgar, ealdorman. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Ælfwold, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Byrhtmær, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Eardulf, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. How Abbot Osgar bought 20 hides at Kingston # Likewise, concerning this same land we have found the following written in English in most ancient and almost worn-out letters:\nEaldorman Ælfheah bequeathed 20 hides at Kingston to ealdorman Ælfhere; then Abbot Osgar asked ealdorman Ælfhere that he might be allowed to purchase that land from him for money, and the ealdorman granted him this. And the abbot then gave him a hundred mancuses of gold. Then after Easter a great assembly was held at Athelwaraburg, and it was there made known to the lords who were present — namely Bishop Æthelwold, and Bishop Ælfstan, and Abbot Æthelgar, and Eadwine, and Ælfric Cild, and Ælfric son of Siraf, and Brihtric his brother, and very many other thegns. And this was done in the presence of many witnesses; and the ealdorman Ælfhere took the counterpart of this writing as proof.\nEaldorman Ælfheah left by inheritance to ealdorman Ælfhere 20 hides at Kingston; then Abbot Osgar asked the same ealdorman Ælfhere that it might be permitted him to purchase that land for a price, to which the ealdorman assented. And the abbot gave him a hundred mancuses of gold. And it came to pass that at that time, about the Paschal season, an assembly was held at the place called Athelwaraburg; and this was reported to the elders who were present — namely Bishop Æthelwold, and Bishop Æthelstan, and Abbot Æthelgar, Eadwine, and Ælfric surnamed the Boy, and the other Ælfric son of Siraf, and Brihtric his brother — together with many others. And this was done in the testimony of many; and the aforesaid ealdorman received the counterpart of this writing as proof.\nConcerning Bishop Sideman # In the third year of this king, a council being assembled at Kirtlington at the Paschal season, Sideman, bishop of Devonshire, one of those who were present, was seized by a sudden illness and died there. His body, by order of the king and of Archbishop Dunstan, was brought to Abingdon, and was fittingly buried there in the portico of Saint Paul the apostle.\n(978) When Edward, king of the English, had been translated to the heavenly realm through martyrdom by the treachery of his stepmother Ælfthryth, his brother Æthelred, the son of Edgar and Ælfthryth, was consecrated to the height of the kingdom at Kingston by the holy archbishops Dunstan and Oswald and ten bishops. When he had obtained the power of ruling and commanding, he paid little heed to religion, gave himself over to the counsel of wicked men, and did many things at his own pleasure. So hostile did he prove to the church of Abingdon, at the prompting of evil counsellors, that whatever his father had devoutly bestowed there of his own lordly possessions he irreverently restored to his own use. While these things were happening in the kingdom, Æthelwold, that most holy bishop and most necessary defender of the churches, was snatched from the world; and the lord Osgar, of pious memory, who had been made abbot of Abingdon in his stead, likewise drew the last lot of life. Amid such misfortune this place was left without the bulwark of defence.\nConcerning Abbot Edwin # There was then a certain most powerful man, Eadric, master of the royal household, son of Ælfhere, ealdorman of the Mercians, who had a brother named Edwin, a monk by profession. He obtained from the king, by payment, that this brother of his should be set over Abingdon as abbot. Under his governance the substance of the abbey was scattered, and the fame of its much-to-be-proclaimed grace grew lukewarm within and without. Yet the vengeance of God was not long absent from these doings. For the man for whom the headship of the monastery had been bought not long afterwards incurred the king\u0026rsquo;s displeasure and was driven in exile from this country into Denmark; but returning not long after, he brought the Danes with him, who laid waste the land for a long time. Amidst all these calamities the monastery of Abingdon, but a little before most wealthy, now fell into jeopardy of losing a great part of its possessions.\nOn the Death of Abbot Edwin # But He who stretched forth His hand to the apostle Peter as he sank amid the waves of the sea deigned to relieve the perils of His church. For when nearly six years had been passed with the aforesaid adversities pressing in, Edwin, who had been set over the abbey, died, and the lord Wulfgar was appointed in his place, a man most eminent in probity and necessary at that critical juncture for the restoration of the church\u0026rsquo;s liberty. The king\u0026rsquo;s heart also, hitherto hardened against this monastery, was turned for the better; and for this reason he began to love and venerate the abbot for the goodness which he had learned was in him, and to submit himself to his admonitions. Wherefore the monastery of Abingdon was again venerated and cherished by all; and those who stood highest with the king daily put him in mind of the honour of that same place. By this continual admonition the king was so changed towards the fear of God and reverence for the church that in the presence of a great assembly he confessed that in the matters which had been reported to him he had grievously erred. He then took thought what should be a fitting restitution for the church\u0026rsquo;s possessions detained until then; and further, he put forth a charter of liberty, in which he forbade by perpetual anathema that any simoniacal dealing should take place concerning this place, both during his own life and while his successors reigned in time to come. The tenor of it was as follows.\nOn the Privilege of King Æthelred # In the name of the Most High Thunderer. By the admonition of the Church\u0026rsquo;s orthodox strength we are very frequently instructed to serve Him in utter subjection and submission, Who, ordering the fabric of the whole world in a wondrous and ineffable sequence, at length formed the microcosm — Adam, that is — of fourfold matter, quickened by a life-giving breath after His own likeness, and, setting him over all the things which He had formed in the lower regions (one thing alone excepted and forbidden to prove him), most fittingly placed him in the delightful pleasantness of paradise, with Eve as his companion and partner. He, alas! seduced by devilish cavil, enticed by the shifty and persuasive evasion of the woman, contrary to the sentence of the anathema bit into the forbidden fruit, and, cast down into this sorrowful world, deserved perpetual ruin for himself and his descendants. For when the prophets by their vaticinations, and the everlasting secret presages of the heavenly King by their teaching, were bringing forth these things for all the orthodox, the angel, gliding down from the heavenly thresholds and bearing a blessing from on high — not, as the seditious prattle of the Jews mutters, speechlessly, but encompassing the most delightful eloquence of ancients and moderns alike, trampling underfoot the Arrian and Sabellian trifles, instructing us in anagogical utterance, and calling us away from the dulled blindness of shadow to the eager desire of the heavenly patrimonies — into the ear of the inviolate Virgin, as the Gospel utterances proclaim, seems to have sung wondrous songs; to whom the whole Church, that is, the Catholic Church, cries aloud with one accord in high praise: \u0026ldquo;Blessed are you, Virgin Mary, who have believed! For those things shall be accomplished in you which were spoken to you by the Lord.\u0026rdquo; Wondrous to tell! The Word is made flesh and embodied — that Word of Whom the Evangelist, surpassing all in loftiness of sense, says, \u0026ldquo;In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God\u0026rdquo; [John 1:1], and so forth. By that Incarnation, that is, taken from the Virgin, the ancient woman\u0026rsquo;s sin is taken away, and honour is bestowed upon all women by these shining wonders aforesaid. Therefore, the divinity of Christ remaining inviolate while His humanity suffered, liberty mercifully came to His enslaved servants.\n\u0026ldquo;I, Æthelred,\u0026rdquo; it says, \u0026ldquo;assisted by the Most High, king of the English and of the other peoples established round about in divers places, not unmindful of the distresses which befell me and my nation in the seventh year of my reign and thereafter with ever-increasing frequency — after the death, that is, of Bishop Æthelwold of blessed memory and most beloved of me with an inward affection, whose industry and pastoral care, by the inspiration of the heavenly Creator, provided not only for my good but for that of all in this land, both prelates and subjects — began silently to revolve many things in my mind, and anxiously took care diligently to inquire what might be the cause of so great dangers. Urged therefore most earnestly by such great solicitude, and examining with diligent care every secret thing within me, at length, moved by the compunction of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s grace, I brought to remembrance that these misfortunes had befallen partly through the ignorance of my youth, which is wont to follow divers ways, and partly through the detestable greed of certain of those who ought to have taken counsel for my welfare. For among other things it came back to my mind that, at the request of certain such men — namely the late Bishop Wulfgar and Ealdorman Ælfric, who is still living — I had reduced the liberty of the holy monastery of Abingdon to servitude for the sake of a gift; which liberty the aforesaid Bishop Æthelwold of blessed memory had obtained from my predecessors — from King Eadred, my father\u0026rsquo;s uncle, and from my uncle King Eadwig, and no less from my father, King Edgar — as an everlasting inheritance and perpetual freedom for the use of the monks, deserved by their submission and obedience and the merits of their other virtues towards our Lord Jesus Christ and His mother Mary.\n\u0026ldquo;Turning these things over therefore within myself with a wakeful heart, and desiring to be delivered the more quickly from so great and so dreadful an anathema, in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 993, and the seventeenth year of my reign, I commanded a synodal council to be held at Winchester on the holy day of Pentecost; and to it I most graciously sent words of greeting and peace to the bishops and abbots and the rest of the chief men of my nobles; and, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s inspiring grace, I admonished them all that each should, with the Lord\u0026rsquo;s guidance, take common counsel on whatsoever things were worthy of the heavenly Creator, whatsoever befitted the salvation of my spiritual soul or were suitable to my royal dignity, and whatsoever also would profit all the English people; vowing moreover that, while life accompanied me, I would both restrain to the full my past negligences and, according to the decrees of my predecessors, restore to Jesus Christ our Lord and His Mother the ancient charter of liberty.\nGreatly delighted by this admonition and exhortation of mine — or rather of Christ — and having obtained their desire, they gave thanks to Christ the Saviour, and confirmed in a spiritual covenant all the salutary decrees that they had fittingly ordained.\nNow therefore I, Æthelred, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s aid king of the English, in order to fulfil in deed the debt of my vow, and that I may deserve, through the mercy of the Moderator on High, to obtain a share in eternal liberty, reject under perpetual anathema the price which the aforesaid ealdorman Ælfric paid me for the office of reeve of his brother Eadwine, whereby the aforesaid inheritance of Christ and of His holy Mother was sold into unjust servitude; and, inspired by the free grace of the Lord, and both at the petition and with the counsel of my nobles, lay and ordained alike, I grant to the church of the same holy Mother of Christ, and to the monks dwelling therein, an eternal freedom of privilege, to be renewed as by my predecessors.\nFor the authority of this renewal of freedom was granted and confirmed by Christ\u0026rsquo;s authority and by our bounty, on 17 July, in the oratory of the vill which is commonly called Gillingham; and, after the celebration of mass was completed, it was confirmed in the presence of these witnesses, I giving my assent — namely of abbot Ælsi, of my kinsman Æthelmær, and also of my uncle Ordulf; and the office of reeve over the aforesaid monastery of Abingdon I committed, by voluntary renewal, freely and without payment, into the hand and power of abbot Wulfgar, who is subject to me in most humble devotion; and this freedom of privilege I granted, with the impression of the Holy Cross, both to himself and likewise to the whole congregation of the same holy church, to be renewed for ever, in return for the 1,500 solemn masses and 1,200 melodies of the psalter which in spontaneous devotion they have chanted for the eternal redemption of my soul; to the end that after the decease of that same abbot Wulfgar, in whose days this restoration of liberty was granted with Christ\u0026rsquo;s aid, the whole congregation of the said monastery should, by fitting counsel, duly elect and establish as abbot from the same company of brethren whomsoever they may choose, according to the regular institutes of blessed Benedict.\nLet this freedom of privilege henceforth be held in perpetual use by all catholics, nor let any outsider, relying on tyrannical contumacy, arrogate and exercise power of jurisdiction in the aforesaid monastery; but let the community of that monastery glory, as I have said, in the privilege of perpetual freedom. And let the said monastery be free from every yoke of earthly service in the same terms in which it is recorded as freed in the ancient privilege by our catholic predecessors — namely by the holy pope Leo and the catholic king Cenwulf — when Retun was abbot.\nThe lands granted for the monks\u0026rsquo; use to Jesus Christ our Lord and His mother Mary, in ancient and modern times, by kings and religious persons of both sexes, and by myself and my father king Edgar, and his brother my uncle king Eadwig, and their uncle the most faithful king Eadred, by way of restoration, shall enjoy that same perpetual freedom. For the aforesaid kings, restoring to God\u0026rsquo;s church the estate called Abingdon — which king Ceadwalla had in ancient times granted with devout mind to our Lord and His mother Mary, and in which our predecessors, deceived by diabolical avarice, had unjustly built themselves a royal dwelling — forbade that any king should ever seek entertainment there or erect a building there for all time. This I, Æthelred, king of the English, acting on the counsel of my nobles, command to be fixed for ever in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, both in my own days and in the days of my successors. For at the time when the estates which I have with a devout mind restored to the Lord by this modern privilege were unjustly taken away from God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, certain faithless men usurped and published new hereditary charters for themselves. But in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we command that no catholic accept them; rather let them be repudiated by all the faithful and consigned to anathema, while the ancient privilege remains ever in force.\nBut if anyone, seduced by so epileptic a madness of avarice (which we do not desire), should attempt with rash daring to infringe this renewed freedom of our munificence, let him be cut off from the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church and likewise from participation in the most holy Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the whole world has been freed from the ancient enemy of the human race; and let him be set on the left hand with Judas the betrayer of Christ, unless he has first humbly repented here with worthy satisfaction for having presumed to rebel against God\u0026rsquo;s holy church; and may that apostate obtain no pardon in this active life nor any rest in the contemplative life, but, cast into the eternal fires of hell, be most miserably tormented for ever.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, as we have said, 993, indiction 6, at the most humble petition of the aforesaid devout abbot Wulfgar, was this privilege of renewed freedom written; with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below, according to each one\u0026rsquo;s dignity, of both orders alternately, as the Lord disposes.\n† I, Æthelred, monarch of the English of Britain, have confirmed this by the wonder of the Holy Cross. † I, Sigeric, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have subscribed the same king\u0026rsquo;s good will. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed this bounty of the king. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have confirmed this liberty of renewal. † I, Ælfric, bishop of the diocese of Coruina, in which the aforesaid monastery lies, have impressed the Holy Cross upon this gift. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Lichfield, have depicted the vault of the Holy Cross. † I, Æscwig, bishop of the church of Dorchester, have confirmed this royal gift. † I, Theodred, bishop of the East Angles, have given assent to this bounty. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of the church of Rochester, have set the Cross upon this bounty. † I, Ordbriht, bishop of the South Saxons, have marked the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Wulfsige, bishop of the church of Sherborne, have gladly consented. † I, Eadulf, bishop of the church of Worcester, have subscribed with cheerful countenance. † I, Athulf, bishop of the church of Hereford, have answered that it pleases me. † I, Sigar, bishop of the church of Wells, have deemed it worthy that this should be done. † I, Ælfwold, bishop of the church of Crediton, have not gainsaid this statute. † I, Ealdred, bishop of the church of Cornwall, have praised this decree by consenting. † I, Ælfthryth, mother of the same king, have been a supporter of this gift. † I, Æthelstan, son of the same king, have not refused that this should stand. † I, Ecgbyrht, son of the same king, have not delayed to give assent. † I, Edmund, son of the same king, have not forbidden that this should be done. † I, Eadred, son of the same king, have professed this to be pleasing to me. † I, Wulfgar, abbot of the monastery of Abingdon, have triumphantly dictated this instrument. † I, Ælfweard, abbot of Glastonbury. † I, Ælfsige, abbot of Nin. † I, Wulfric, abbot of Aug. † I, Byrhtnoth, abbot of Ely. † I, Lyfing, abbot of Chertsey. † I, Ælfric, abbot of Malmesbury. † I, Ælfhere, abbot of Bath. † I, Leofric, abbot of Muchelney. † I, Ælfhun, abbot of Middel. † I, Byrhthelm, abbot of Eaxc. † I, Æthelric, abbot of Æthel. † I, Wulfsige, abbot of Westminster. † I, Germanus, abbot of Ramsey. † I, Cenulf, abbot of Burh. † I, Godeman, abbot of Thorney. † I, Ælfwold, abbot of Uuind. † I, Leofric, abbot of St Albans. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhelm, ealdorman. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Byrhtwold, thegn. † I, Ordulf, thegn. † I, Wulfheah, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. Thus far concerning the liberty of the church; now something must be set down concerning the restoration of the lands.\nWith our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever, and governing all the kingdoms of the ages by the empire of His great rule, I, Æthelred, king of the English by His assisting grace, amid the various vicissitudes of this fleeting world have recalled to memory how things were done concerning me in the time of my boyhood, when my father king Edgar, going the way of all the earth, old and full of days, departed to the Lord; namely that all the nobles of both orders unanimously chose my brother Edward to the present government of the realm, and handed over to my own use the lands belonging to the royal sons. From these very lands my father, while he reigned, had granted certain ones to almighty Christ and His holy mother Mary at the monastery which is called Abingdon, for the redemption of his soul; that is, Bedewinde with all its appurtenances, Hisseburna with all its adjuncts, Burhbec, and all the revenues adjoining them. These lands were at once violently torn from the said holy monastery, by the decree and command of all the nobles, and, at their bidding, were subjected to my control. Whether they did this justly or unjustly, they themselves know. Then, when my brother departed this wretched world and received the reward of unending life predestined for him by God, I, with Christ\u0026rsquo;s consent, took possession of the lordship both of the royal lands and of those belonging to the royal sons.\nNow, however, because it seems to me a very grievous thing to incur and bear my father\u0026rsquo;s curse by retaining that gift which he bestowed on God for the redemption of his soul, and because God\u0026rsquo;s grace has deigned to bring me to the age of understanding and, by the decrees of my nobles, has bestowed on me an ample and abundant portion of lands, I therefore resolve, out of my own inheritance, to honour the said holy monastery with a suitable gift and to enrich it with a fitting bestowal of possessions; first, for the love of God Almighty and of His holy Mother, that she may deign to be a gracious intercessor for me with our Lord God; secondly, for love of my father\u0026rsquo;s soul and for the eternal redemption of my own soul; and also on account of my children, who are minded to draw those same lands to themselves and to subject them to their own control.\nThe names of the lands which I with willing mind grant to the said monastery are these: one at Feornebeorh, another at Wilmaleahtun, a third at Cyrne. These portions of land Ælfric, surnamed Puer, violently took from a certain widow named Eadflæd; and afterwards, when he stood accused in his ealdordom against me and against all my nation, both these portions that I have named and all the landed possessions which he had owned were subjected to my control, when all my nobles came together at the synodal council at Cirencester, and drove that same Ælfric, as one guilty of treason, in flight from this country, and all unanimously decreed that everything he had possessed should be lawfully possessed by me. Then I permitted the said widow, for love of my nobles who had been her advocates with me, to possess her inheritance with merciful kindness; and she at last, at the very moment of her passing, left to me again the possession of those same lands in perpetual inheritance, with a kind and willing mind. The land at Pyrian, moreover, which I also grant to that same monastery, is known to be one of those lands which Æthelweard, son of Ceolred, gave to me for my friendship, to be possessed for ever. It is well enough known to all the people far and wide how he and his brother stood accused against me, and how both, through their own offences, incurred my enmity.\nThis description of the aforesaid lands was made at the instigation of my uncle Ordulf, and of Æthelmær, who is bound to me by kinship, and of Wulfgat my beloved thegn, and also of my abbot Wulfgar, who is wholly kind and devoted to me; who by frequent suggestion, with the persuasion of the other faithful, admonished me that I should take care to renew and enlarge in some measure the inheritance of Almighty God. Which I have done, both for the love of Christ, who raised me to the kingdom, and of those who with friendly assiduity exhort me to my necessary and eternal salvation, and for the humble and kindly obedience which the said abbot is wont faithfully and gladly to show me.\nThis benefit of my will I also make openly known to all: that I grant the lands of these possessions, in every district in which they lie, together with all their appurtenances — whether in the dues of estates, or in tribute, or in toll, or in any other exaction that is customarily levied in different ways in each countryside — to be free in full freedom from every yoke of earthly service, just as my father granted the aforenamed portions of land to be free from all worldly service, save three things, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nThis also I command, with the authority of the Holy Trinity and of the Undivided Unity and of the blessed ever-Virgin Mary: that no man presume to alter this donation on any occasion, nor to bring forward against the writings of my munificence any deed of land or text of charter; but let all those old instruments, since the aforesaid offence so requires, be reckoned for ever hereafter as nothing, and, reduced to nothing, let them be trampled down, exposed to the spitting of all men, while the decrees of this privilege are strengthened with firm and unshaken solidity.\nBut if anyone, at the instigation of the Devil, should presume to violate these counsels, confirmed both by my authority and by divine authority — whether he be my son, or an ealdorman, or a bishop, or a thegn, or of whatsoever dignity — may Almighty God, and His holy mother the ever-Virgin Mary, and all the holy power of the heavenly hosts who praise the divine majesty with unceasing voice, despise him in this life, and, despised, destroy him without end in the world to come, unless before his death he has made fitting amends for having offended against God and holy Mary. Amen.\nLet this record of the privilege be kept for ever in the aforenamed monastery, that it may stand as an eternal warrant of liberty for all the aforesaid landed possessions which I have with a kind and willing mind granted to Almighty God and His holy mother Mary at that monastery, and, once granted, have commended to eternal stability.\nCharter of King Æthelred concerning Earnigcote. # With the Founder and ineffable Ruler of the universe, who by His unspeakable power disposes and governs all things, reigning for ever, I, Æthelred, by His gratuitous mercy and unaccustomed kindness made king of all Albion by birth and by right, have granted in perpetual inheritance to our Lord Jesus Christ and His mother the ever-Virgin Mary, for the use of the monks of the place which is called by the celebrated name of Abingdon, an estate which the inhabitants of this country call by the familiar name of Earnigcote, namely of the extent of 2 hides.\nIn the name of the blessed Trinity and the indivisible Unity I command that neither kings nor æthelings, nor any person of men, presume to take away the aforesaid land from God\u0026rsquo;s church.\nBut if any rash man shall so presume, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, be punished mournfully for ever in the eternal fires of hell together with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he has made fitting amends for his offence against our decree. Moreover, let the aforesaid estate be free from every yoke of earthly service, save three things, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nThese are the boundaries at Earnigcote: first, from the old slough up along the Giht; from the Giht to the streamlet; along the streamlet to the mere; from the mere back to the streamlet; along the streamlet to the hind-fold; from the hind-fold to the swine-hedge; from the swine-hedge to Pippan\u0026rsquo;s lea; from Pippan\u0026rsquo;s lea back to the swine-hedge; along the swine-hedge into the east corner; then by the herb-bank into the narrow way; along the narrow way; then back to the Giht, to the old slough where it first began.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 983 this charter was written; with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Æthelred, the king, have granted the aforesaid donation. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Oswald, archbishop, have marked it with the sign of the Cross. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have impressed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have assented. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have not refused. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have consented. † I, Athulf, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æscwig, bishop, have impressed it. † I, Wulfgar, bishop, have marked it with the sign of the Cross. † I, Ælfthryth, queen. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Thorod, ealdorman. † I, Ordbriht, abbot. † I, Sigeric, abbot. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Godwine, abbot. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Ordulf, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Ælfhelm, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Byrhtwold, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. Concerning Cyrne. Moreover, concerning Cyrne in particular, he drew up a testament of his authority in the following form. # Charter of King Æthelred concerning Cerne. # With our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever, who by the Father\u0026rsquo;s power disposes all things, the grace of the Holy Spirit likewise giving them life. For although the words of priests and the decrees of judges endure ever in the strength of firmness, yet on account of the uncertain mutability of future years they must be strengthened by the testimony of charters.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, king of all Britain, have granted in perpetual inheritance a certain parcel of land, namely 15 hides, in the place which is called by the celebrated name of Cyrne, to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His holy church of the blessed Mother of God Mary, which is called by the celebrated name of Abingdon, for the use of God\u0026rsquo;s monks dwelling there, with all its appurtenances — meadows, pastures, and watercourses — while Wulfgar is abbot. Moreover, let the aforesaid estate be free from every yoke of earthly service, save three things, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nNow this land of Cyrne is one of those little vills which a certain ealdorman named Ælfric formerly tore away from a certain matron named Eadflæd, and usurped into his own inheritance. And afterwards, as the course of the times changed — nay, at the instigation of the Devil, that most perverse tempter of the human race — he wretchedly committed many and unheard-of crimes against God and my royal authority; whereupon, by the unanimous lawful counsel and most just judgement of the bishops, ealdormen, and all the nobles of this realm, in the royal vill which in the English tongue is called Cirencester, he himself was condemned to exile from the country; and not only those lands which he had torn from the said woman, but also all the rest which he possessed by hereditary right, were forbidden to him and to all his posterity, and were assigned to me for ever, firmly and immovably, as my own right of having and giving.\nAnd I afterwards, with the counsel and at the entreaty of my best men, granted that the said widow should recover what had been torn from her, and possess it while she lived. Which she, humbly accepting and rightfully enjoying, restored entirely to me in good will at the last end of this fleeting life, into my own possession.\nBut if it shall happen at any time that any man produces openly any little charter for the annulment of this writing, I utterly forbid it in the name of the Holy Trinity among all Christians, in such wise that my gift stands confirmed with the seal of the Holy Cross, that it profit neither him nor others, but be erased by that everlasting pen. Finally, if anyone shall fraudulently attempt to violate the gift of our bounty, let him know that he shall render account before God at the last day of judgement, and shall suffer dreadful punishments with the reprobate, to whom it is said, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire\u0026rdquo; (Matthew 25:41), unless they have beforehand made amends with bodily lamentation. Now the aforesaid land is clearly defined by these bounds.\nBounds. # First at cat\u0026rsquo;s stone; from cat\u0026rsquo;s stone along the furrow to Hured\u0026rsquo;s moor; from Hured\u0026rsquo;s moor to the high street; along the high street to Motera\u0026rsquo;s ford; from Motera\u0026rsquo;s ford along the Motera stream; then to Oter\u0026rsquo;s ham; from Oter\u0026rsquo;s ham into the Cyrne; along the Cyrne to the nuns\u0026rsquo; pool; from the nuns\u0026rsquo; pool to the hoar stone; from the hoar stone to the hoar willow; from the hoar willow into the Thames; up along the Thames to Hode\u0026rsquo;s stream; along Hode\u0026rsquo;s stream up to the river-meadow which is called the west river; along the river-meadow which runs east to the Cyrne; up along the Cyrne to a small leat; along the leat; then back to cat\u0026rsquo;s stone where it first began.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 999, indiction 12, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Æthelred, king of the English, have confirmed this by the wonder of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfric, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have subscribed the same king\u0026rsquo;s good will. † I, Ealdulf, archbishop of the church of York, have consented with cheerful countenance. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have impressed the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Wulfstan, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æscwig, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ordbriht, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Godwine, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æthelstan, bishop, have assented. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, have marked it with the sign of the Cross. † I, Lyfing, bishop, have not refused. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfthryth, mother of the same king, have been a supporter of it. † I, Æthelstan, son of the same king, have not forbidden it. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhelm, ealdorman. † I, Leofsige, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Ælfweard, abbot. † I, Wulfgar, abbot, have gladly dictated it. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Cenulf, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Æthelnoth, abbot. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Ordulf, thegn. † I, Brihtwold, thegn. † I, Wulfheah, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning Mordun. # We know that in many things we all offend. If indeed we sometimes offend in ecclesiastical matters, the things which, with God\u0026rsquo;s help, we strive to amend, we ought to fortify with a most firm written record, lest again (God forbid) church property should be possessed by the hands of outsiders for the sake of greed.\nConcerning which matter, I, Æthelred, by God\u0026rsquo;s will king of the English, will have it known to all those subject to my rule that a certain soldier named Ælfgar, namely my own reeve and favourite, unjustly acquired a certain vill belonging to the monastery of the most holy Mother Mary of Abingdon, called by the inhabitants Mordun, amounting to 20 hides, namely in the time of abbot Eadwine, with my consent, though unjustly; and he gave it to his wife Ælfgifu as a hereditary dowry-gift. When he died, the aforesaid woman Ælfgifu was joined to another husband, named Wulfgeat. Both were justly accused by all the people of a most wicked crime, on account of their own plotting, of which nothing need now be said in detail. Because of that plotting, they justly lost all that they had unjustly acquired. Hearing this, Wulfgar, the shepherd of the said monastery, at once admonished me concerning that little vill which they unjustly possessed. And I, mindful of their unjust acquisition and of my own ill consent, with all my heart\u0026rsquo;s desire restored the said vill to the blessed Mother of God Mary. And I also hand over and grant to the same holy Mary in perpetual inheritance a small estate situated in the town of Cricklade, which I had formerly given to my said reeve.\nIf anyone produces openly against this charter another little charter, entitled with the ink of false greed, let it profit neither him nor his avarice, but let it be for ever pierced through by the divine pen; and let him remain excommunicated by the prohibition of me and of my bishops, cut off from the fellowship of Christians, and moreover severed from the Body and Blood of the Lord, until, abandoning the cunning of his plotting, he restores to the holy Mother of God Mary those two estates fourfold, with bodily penance. And that the husbandmen of the said land may always enjoy an inviolable strength of freedom, they are freed by royal precept from every secular yoke, save the services of three things: the national military service, the building of the bridge, and the fortification of the royal fortress.\nNow it must be said by what bounds the aforesaid land appears to be delimited all around.\nBounds. # These are the boundaries of Mordun: first at Higford; from Higford along Reed-brook to the Worf; along the stream to the west side of Purtanige; from the north side of Purtanige back out to the river Worf; along the stream to wood-bridge; thence out to ash-stream, where the ash-stream flows out into the Worf; up against the stream to the east end of the long furlong; thence east to the old dyke; from the old dyke one furlong along Grindewille\u0026rsquo;s stream; thence to Ættenpen to the elder-stump; thence always along the edge to the meadow-land; from the meadow-land down to the old willow at Ættenpen\u0026rsquo;s streamlet; thence to Hnottan\u0026rsquo;s ford; from the ford to Filican slade; along the slade to the old spring; thence out to Headdun\u0026rsquo;s slade; along the slade as far as the broad way; from the broad way along the slade out to Higford; and one enclosure in Cricklade, which the king has given in addition thereto.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 1008 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, indiction 6, so that this charter of our present donation may remain unshaken and undefiled in perpetual right against all the goads of the envious.\nWitnesses. # † I first, Æthelred, the king, entitle it round about and confirm it with the sign of the Holy Cross, and I openly command all my nobles to do the same. † I, Ælfgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s consort, confirm the aforesaid gift. † I, Æthelstan, the same king\u0026rsquo;s son, desire to be present as a true witness. † I, Edmund, the same king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Eadred, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, bear witness. † I, Eadwig, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, join in commending this gift of the king. † I, Edgar, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Edward, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Ælfheah, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, mark the same king\u0026rsquo;s donation with the trophy of the Holy Cross. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of the church of York, consent with cheerful countenance. † I, Lyfing, bishop, am present as a witness. † I, Osbriht, bishop, confirm it. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, assent with cheerful countenance. † I, Ælfhun, bishop, strengthen it with my own hand. † I, Ælfgar, bishop, am present as a most steadfast witness. † I, Brihtwold, bishop, bear witness to this with a glad heart. † I, Godwine, bishop, do not refuse. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, desire to be present as a true witness. † I, Godwine, bishop, do not refuse. † I, Æthelric, bishop, do not object. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Ælfweard, abbot. † I, Wulfgar, abbot, have composed this charter with a glad heart. † I, Brihtwold, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Germanus, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Ælfmær, abbot. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Eadwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfketel, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfhelm, thegn. These are the lands which King Æthelred gave to his servants, and they in turn to the church of Abingdon with the king\u0026rsquo;s consent. # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. While the times of this world slip away, and kingdoms pass away with kings in a most swift course, and though a thing seems to stand firm it is seen quickly to slide from its former state — it is unknown to no wise man — and the joys of this deceitful life are shaken and scattered.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, king of the English, have granted in perpetual inheritance to a certain thegn, who by those who know him is called by the name Leofric, a certain portion of woodland, encircled on all sides by its own bounds, that he may hold it as long as he lives; and after him may leave it to whatever heir he chooses, free of all charge. Moreover, let the aforesaid wood be free from every yoke of earthly service, save three things, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress.\nIf anyone, therefore, wishes to transfer this donation of ours to anything other than we have ordained, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, be punished mournfully for ever in the fires of hell together with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, unless he has made fitting amends for his offence against our decree.\nBy these bounds the aforesaid wood is encircled on this side and that.\nBounds. # This is the boundary of the wood which King Æthelred grants by charter to Leofric his thegn in perpetual inheritance. First from the day-brook to the old street west of Dunnincwic; along the street to the north of Wileard\u0026rsquo;s hurst, to the field; thence to the streamlet; along the streamlet to Æthelnoth\u0026rsquo;s boundary; then to the rood-way; along the way back again to the day-brook.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 962 this charter was written; with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Æthelred, king of the English, have granted it. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Oscytel, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Osulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Byrhtelm, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Oswald, bishop, have assented. † I, Æthelwold, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Ælfheah, ealdorman. † I, Æthelstan, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Beorhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtferth, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Wulfhelm, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning Ceorlatun. # From the sceptre-bearing majesty of God\u0026rsquo;s eternal governance, in whom all things have their living origin, comes an abundance of transitory happiness. Therefore it is left to those who possess it, that each should show himself the readier, with diligent eagerness of mind, to serve his Creator faithfully, through whom he sees that all other things are divinely made subject to him.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s consent king of the English nation, have joyfully granted to a certain thegn of mine named Ælfgar a certain small parcel of land, namely 5 hides, belonging to a certain place but forming part of the common land, which is called by the celebrated name of Ceorlatun; that he may possess the said land for the course of his life; and then may leave it in eternal inheritance to whatever heir succeeding him he may choose. Let this my unshakeable gift therefore remain pleasing in eternal freedom, with all the things which are known to pertain to that place, both in great and in small matters — fields, pastures, meadows, woods; save the common labour of military service and the building of bridge and fortress.\nIf anyone, therefore, seduced by the stain of hostile rapacity, shall attempt in any wise to overturn this gift of our munificence otherwise than we have ordained, let him, severed from the communion of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church and from participation in the eternal kingdom, swallowed up by the flames of hellish fire, be wrapped in the bitternesses of eternal damnation, unless he has repented with fitting satisfaction for having recklessly cared nothing about opposing our decree. For the aforesaid estate is but little marked off by clear bounds on every side, because the acreage lies joined together on either side.\nThe aforesaid gift was made in the year from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 982.\nWitnesses. # † I, Æthelred, king of the English, have irrevocably granted the aforesaid donation. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Oswald, archbishop, have pledged it. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have marked it with the sign of the Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have impressed it. † I, Æscwig, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelsige, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfhere, ealdorman. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmær, ealdorman. † I, Eadwine, ealdorman. † I, Ordbriht, abbot. † I, Sigeric, abbot. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Byrhtnoth, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Ælfheah, abbot. † I, Ælfhun, abbot. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning two hides at Drætun and one at Suttun. # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, reigning for ever, whose majesty neither begins nor ends for ever, and by whose providence the ordering of things divine and human is governed and guarded. For as long as the prosperity of the present life is known to accompany us, let us hasten, by heavenly aid, to break the snare of this exile and blindness, that we may be able to climb to the blessedness of the heavenly kingdom which is to be obtained by us hereafter.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, king of the whole English nation, and holding the primacy over the other nations dwelling round about, grant in perpetual inheritance to a certain faithful man of mine named Wulfgar a modest portion of land of my own right, that is 4½ hides, divided in two places in the common land — namely 3 hides in the place which in the English tongue is called Drætun, and 1½ hides in the vill which is called Suttun — that he may have and possess it while life accompanies him. But when he knows that the dissolution of his body is at hand, let him commend it, as we have said above, to whatever heir he pleases, in eternal possession. Moreover let the freedom of this our donation remain free from every fiscal tribute and secure without any obstacle, with all its appurtenances — fields, pastures, meadows, woods, and watercourses; save three things: military service, the building of the bridge, and the fortification of the fortress.\nFinally, if anyone — which I do not desire — weighed down by the envy of greed, shall be eager to violate this charter of liberty, let them, fallen among the hosts of foul darkness, hear on the day of the great judgement of examination the voice saying to them, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire\u0026rdquo; (Matthew 25:41), where with demons they are cruelly tormented in iron frying-pans, unless before death they have amended this by worthy penance.\nIn the year from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ 983, indiction 11. With these witnesses consenting, whose names are seen to be inscribed below.\n† I, Æthelred, king of the English, holding the summit of the whole realm, have freely granted the freedom of this donation. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed it with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oswald, archbishop of the church of York, have marked it with the wonder of the Cross. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have marked it with the sign of the Cross. † I, Æscwig, bishop, have consented. † I, Sigar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelsige, bishop, have impressed it. † I, Wulfgar, bishop, have assented. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Thureth, ealdorman. † I, Ordbriht, abbot. † I, Siric, abbot. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Leofstan, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning two hides at Dumbeltun. # With the Disposer of heaven and earth reigning for ever and ever, and triumphing over all things. The unstable state of the world reels whithersoever it turns, and is shaken by stiff whirlwinds; yet, by the omnipotence of the Godhead coming to its aid, it is strengthened by the support of mighty men, lest, by faltering, it should be seen to sink feebly and improvidently to ruin, while it is guided by the authority of so many princes, so long as the strength of the Christian name flourishes and the rights of kingdoms are governed by provident dispensation. Wherefore those whom the fortune of this age beguiles with the faint hand of exaltation must watch with utmost effort to obtain those joys which are not yearly but everlasting, that by the distribution of temporal treasures they may deserve to obtain the aids of eternal bounty.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, by God\u0026rsquo;s providence emperor of all Albion, grant in perpetual inheritance to a certain thegn most beloved by me, to whom the nobility of his parentage gave the name Wulfric, for the most faithful obedience with which he has courteously served me, a certain parcel of land, that is 2½ hides, in the place which the inhabitants call Dumaltun, that he may well enjoy and prosperously possess it so long as he is seen to run his course through this fleeting sojourn with vital breath and rolling motion; and after the passing of this fleeting life, let him leave it to whatever successor he pleases. Moreover let the aforesaid estate, which is situated in common land, be free from every worldly obstacle, with all the things which are known to pertain to that place, both in great and in small matters — fields, pastures, meadows, woods; save these three: military service and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut may the portion of those who diminish and break this my gift — which I pray may be far from the minds of the faithful — be with those of whom it is said on the contrary, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which is prepared for Satan and his angels\u0026rdquo; (Matthew 25:41), unless they first obtain pardon by worthy penance before God and lawful satisfaction. For what man\u0026rsquo;s memory passes over, the search of written letters preserves. Wherefore it must be made known to readers that this aforesaid estate came to the disposal of my right on account of a certain man\u0026rsquo;s offence of unspeakable presumption, in that he did not shrink from boldly binding himself by theft — a man to whom his parents gave the name Æthelsige, though he dishonoured the name with foul crime — and through me it was granted, as I have already said, to the reverend thegn; whose mark of infamy we have thought fit to record here in an English account.\nBounds. # This is how the land at Dumaltun was forfeited, which Æthelsige forfeited into the hands of King Æthelred. It came about because he stole the pigs of Æthelwine, son of the ealdorman Æthelmær; then his men rode thither and dragged the bacon out of Æthelsige\u0026rsquo;s house, and he fled to the woods, and so he was outlawed, and the land and his goods were adjudged to King Æthelred. Then he gave that land to Hawas his man in perpetual inheritance, and Wulfric son of Wulfrun afterwards exchanged it with him for what was more pleasing to him, with the king\u0026rsquo;s leave and the witness of his witan.\nThis aforesaid gift was made in the year 995 from the Incarnation of our Lord, indiction 8; and in the seventeenth year of the aforesaid king\u0026rsquo;s reign this charter was written, with these consenting who are noted below.\n† I, Æthelred, king of the English, have irrevocably granted and confirmed the aforesaid donation under the seal of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfric, by God\u0026rsquo;s grace chosen for the archbishopric of the church of Canterbury, have established the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift by the wonder of the Cross. † I, Ealdulf, chosen for the bishopric of the church of York, have confirmed the king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the impression of the Holy Cross, blessing it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of the church of London, have sealed it. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have confirmed it. † I, Æscwig, bishop of the church of Dorchester, have confirmed it. † I, Athulf, bishop of the church of Hereford, have confirmed it. † I, Wulfsige, bishop of the church of Sherborne, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhelm, ealdorman. † I, Leofsige, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Ælfweard, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Brihtelm, abbot. † I, Wulfgar, abbot. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Ordulf, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Brihtwold, thegn. † I, Wulfheah, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Æthelnoth, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Wulfmær, thegn. † I, Fræna, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning Osanlea. # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! The ruler of the heavenly country distributes far and wide in diverse degrees His most bounteous gift of lavish generosity — to kings, bishops, princes, abbots, reeves — that each in his own order, for the talent of earthly gain entrusted to him, may on the day of examination present the business doubled, no sloth prevailing.\nTherefore I, Æthelred, king of the English and governor and ruler of the other nations dwelling round about, hand over in perpetuity to a certain thegn of mine, upon whom the name Ælfheah is bestowed, 2 hides, there where common speech says \u0026ldquo;at Osanlea\u0026rdquo;; as long as he is seen to have the body animated here, let him claim the privilege of our gift; and finally let him bestow it in perpetuity on whatsoever heir he chooses, with fields, pastures, meadows, woods, save the common labour of military service and the joint building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone should attempt to infringe this (God forbid), let him know that he shall render account before God and His angels, unless he has first chosen to make amends here by satisfaction.\nBounds. # These are the boundaries of the two hides which belong to Osanlea: first to the lane, and then along the slade to the black pit; from the pit to the loam-pit; along the boundary; from the pit out to birch-slade; from birch-slade to the old dyke; from the old dyke to Henna\u0026rsquo;s stream; from Henna\u0026rsquo;s stream up along the slade to Ipanlea; from Ipanlea to the broom-way; along the way to the lanes, and the wood of the two hides into the common land.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 984, indiction 13, this deed of gift was written.\n† I, Æthelred, king of the English, have impressed the banner of the Cross. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have consented. † I, Oswald, archbishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have set the Holy Cross upon it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have marked it with the sign of the Cross. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Athulf, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æscwig, bishop, have impressed it. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelsige, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Wulfgar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtwold, ealdorman. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ordulf, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Byrhtwold, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning Eardulfes lea. # Whatever is done by worldly men that is to remain for ever must be firmly fortified by written documents, because men\u0026rsquo;s frail memory forgets in dying what the writing of letters preserves by keeping.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, by God\u0026rsquo;s grace king of the English, will have it known to all my faithful that I hand over by hereditary right to a certain soldier of mine named Æthelwig 5 hides, in the vill which by those who know it is called Eardulfes lea; that he may possess them while life accompanies him, and after his last day has closed his eyes, may leave them in perpetual possession to whatever friend he chooses. Moreover let the present gift be absolved from every servile yoke, save only three things: the national military service, the building of the fortress, and the repair of the bridge.\nNow how the present land came into my hand, I wish to explain in a brief account. Three brothers were sitting at a certain banquet; one of their men, named Leofric, at the instigation of the Devil stole a bridle. When it was found in his bosom, those who had lost the bridle came at a run, and the three brothers, the lords of the said thief, swiftly rising, entered into combat with them. Two of the brothers, namely Ælfnoth and Ælfric, being slain in the fight, the third, Æthelwine, barely escaped with the aforesaid robber, entering the church of St Helen. And the neighbours round about hearing these things, Æthelwig my reeve at Buckingham and Winsige the reeve at Oxford buried the aforesaid brothers among Christians. Then ealdorman Leofsige, hearing of this affair, came into my presence, accusing the said reeves, because the slain brothers had not rightly been buried among Christians. But I, being unwilling that Æthelwig should be grieved, because he was dear and precious to me, both permitted the buried men to rest together with Christians, and granted the aforesaid land to him in perpetual inheritance.\nBut if anyone, inflated with the zeal of greed, shall attempt to destroy this charter of my donation, let him be anathema maranatha, that is, estrangement from the fellowship of Christians, unless he repents and penitently repents of what he craftily attempted to do. And commanding this, I command that no leaf of other charters be seen to excel our charter, but let it lie hidden and be abolished for ever.\nBounds. # These are the boundaries of the five hides at Eardulfes lea: first, from the great dyke to Æthelwold\u0026rsquo;s lea; to the boundary; from the boundary along the dean into the Sexig brook; from the Sexig brook into Uffewell brook; from the brook to the green dyke; from the dyke south of the earthwork; then to Cwichelm\u0026rsquo;s barrow; from the barrow to the port-street; from the port-street opposite little Ciltene for an acre\u0026rsquo;s breadth; then to the green way that runs to the hay-ford; after the green way, straight opposite Cynewynn\u0026rsquo;s spring; from the spring into the great dyke; along the dyke into the Buna; along the Buna to the old ford; from the ford into Eardulfes lea; from the lea back again to the great dyke.\nThis leaf was written in the year from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 995, indiction 14, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Æthelred, king, monarch of the English, holding the summit of the whole realm, willingly grant or bestow the freedom of this gift, and consent or cheerfully confirm it. † I, Siric. † I, Ælfstan, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have confirmed it. † I, Æscwig, bishop of the church of Dorchester, have dictated it. † I, Ælfric, bishop of the church of Wilton, have confirmed it. † I, Ealdulf, bishop of the church of Worcester, have assented. † I, Osbriht, bishop of the South Saxon church, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Lichfield, have gladly consented. † I, Athulf, bishop of the church of Hereford, have assisted it. † I, Ælfwold, bishop of the church of Crediton, have upheld it. † I, Wulfsige, bishop of the church of Sherborne, have gladly given it with goodwill. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman, exultantly fortify or affirm it, and stand by as a present witness. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman, impress or uphold the sign of the Cross. † I, Ælfhelm, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Leofsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfweard, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Brihtnoth, abbot. † I, Brihtelm, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, abbot. † I, Cenulf, abbot. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Ælfhun, abbot. † I, Germanus, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ordulf, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Wulfheah, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. † I, Æthelnoth, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Ceolmund, thegn. † I, Wihtsige, thegn. † I, Æthelwig, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred. # With our Lord Jesus Christ reigning for ever. Whereas by the providence of our Creator every creature was formed very good in the beginning, and created in beauty and fashioned in splendour, above and beneath the heavens, both in angels and also in men, and in manifold and diverse kinds of cattle, animals, fishes, and birds, all of which render the dues of their nature at the will of the Creator — save man alone, who was fashioned in His image and set over all things, yet through transgression fell into ruin and death, and, wretchedly despising the Lord\u0026rsquo;s command, lost the first stole of immortality. Therefore those riches are to be loved which never deceive their possessor, nor are lost even in death itself, but abound the more while that which is loved is beheld.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, by the favour of the divine will an industrious king of the English and of the other nations dwelling round about, to a certain faithful thegn of mine named Brihtric, for his amiable service and his pleasing fidelity, will freely grant and bestow 8 hides beside the river which is called the Kennet, namely that estate which a certain rustic named Æthelric is known to have held before; that he may well enjoy it and possess it in perpetuity, so long as he passes unharmed through the course of this fleeting age and the vital spirit cleaves to corruptible flesh; and after him may leave it, as we have said, to whomsoever he chooses, in eternal inheritance.\nMoreover let the aforesaid estate be free from every worldly obstacle, with all the things which are known to pertain to that place, both in great and in small matters — fields, pastures, meadows, woods, and the diverted courses of waters — save these three: military service and the joint building of bridge and fortress. But to those who diminish and break this my donation, let their portion be with those of whom it is said on the contrary, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which is prepared for Satan and his angels\u0026rdquo; (Matthew 25:41), unless they first make amends by worthy penance before God and lawful satisfaction.\nThe aforesaid land appears to be encircled by these bounds.\nBounds. # First on the Kennet at Sceolle\u0026rsquo;s old cottages; then up along the stream as far as Eadgifu\u0026rsquo;s boundary; then north into the Hyden; thence north to the boundary of the Lambourn men; then east along the boundary to Ælfwig\u0026rsquo;s boundary; then south along the boundary to the Hyden; then south by the boundary; then back into the stream of the Kennet.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 984, indiction 12, with these witnesses consenting, whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Æthelred, king of the English, holding the summit of the whole realm, have freely granted the freedom of this donation. † I, Ælfthryth, mother of the same king, have granted freedom to this donation. † I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed it with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oswald, archbishop of the church of York, have marked it with the wonder of the Cross. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have marked it with the sign of the Cross. † I, Æscwig, bishop, have confirmed it. † I, Æthelsige, bishop, have impressed it. † I, Wulfgar, bishop, have assented. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Thureth, ealdorman. † I, Ordbriht, abbot. † I, Siric, abbot. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning Ættune. # Through the divine wisdom of the All-ruling One, it is agreed that the order of all the elements was rationally disposed; and the first-formed earth-born man, though wrought of the dusty covering of a frail body, yet, set over the rest by the reason of a most beautiful mind, stands composed for so wondrous and so clear a delight of contemplative contemplation, that through the roughness of this sojourn — so long as we sail upon the sea of the passing age in the bark of the flesh, with Christ as our helmsman — cursing the shameful bilge-water of avarice, refreshing the poverty of the needy by the distribution of our goods, and treading step by step, in right actions, the level path of justice, we may deserve to behold the God of gods in Zion in visible, heavenly form, and may we be deemed worthy diligently to enjoy such great joys of Olympian loveliness.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, by the favour of Christ\u0026rsquo;s mercy basileus of the whole circle of Britain, grant to a certain thegn beloved by me, Leofwine, a certain small portion of land — namely 10 hides — in the place called in the English tongue \u0026ldquo;at Wootton\u0026rdquo;, as an eternal inheritance: that he may enjoy it well and possess it perpetually while he passes unharmed through the course of this fleeting life, and the breath of life dwells in his corruptible flesh; and after himself may he leave it to whatsoever heir he wishes for ever, as we have said, as an eternal inheritance. Moreover let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly burden, with all things known to pertain to that place, both in great and in small matters — fields, pastures, meadows, woods, and the flowing courses of waters — excepting these three: military service, and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if — which we do not desire — it should happen that anyone, puffed up by the breath of pride, kindled by the firebrands of avarice, armed with the teeth of envy, should attempt to infringe, diminish, or in any wise destroy by contempt this charter of my donation, let him know that at the last day of examination he shall perish under the curse of anathema with Judas the betrayer, the lover of unjust gain, the surety of eternal punishments, unless he first make amends by worthy penitence to God and lawful satisfaction.\nThe aforesaid land appears to be bounded by these boundaries.\nBoundaries. # …ford to Ceolba\u0026rsquo;s hanger; from the hanger to the water-slade; from the water-slade to the spring at Sceobba\u0026rsquo;s edge; from the spring at Sceobba\u0026rsquo;s edge to Wrolit\u0026rsquo;s hanger; from Wrolit\u0026rsquo;s hanger to Cybba\u0026rsquo;s stone; from the stone to the bridge-way; along the way to Colmenora; from Colmenora to Wendel\u0026rsquo;s combe; from the combe to the swan-way; from the way to upper Rush-lea; from Rush-lea to the rough way; from the way to the loam-pit; from the pit to the head of the combe; from the head of the combe to the port-way, as far as the great thorn; from the thorn to the upper combe of the fox-holes; from the combe to the black grove, to the upper part of the dyke; along the dyke to Hearth-hamm; from Hearth-hamm to Woodford; from Woodford to Pott\u0026rsquo;s tree; from the tree along the boundary to the moor; then up along the brook to the cold spring; from the cold spring to the thorn-row; from the thorn-row back again into Gorgraf\u0026rsquo;s slade.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 985, this charter was written, indiction 13, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Dunstan, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Oswald, archbishop of the church of York, have marked it with the wonder of the Cross. † I, Ælfstan, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Æthelgar, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have consented. † I, Æscwig, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Sigar, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Ælfric, bishop, have not refused. † I, Æthelsige, bishop, have set my mark. † I, Wulfgar, bishop, have assented. † I, Æthelwine, ealdorman. † I, Byrhtnoth, ealdorman. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Thured, ealdorman. † I, Ordbriht, abbot. † I, Siric, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, abbot. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, thegn. † I, Wulfsige, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Æthelsige, thegn. † I, Ælfric, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Ælfelm, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Leofstan, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning Bensington. 996. # All things that are given in this world for the solace of mortal life are temporal; but those promised to the Saints in the kingdom of heaven shall endure without end. Therefore with these earthly and perishing things we earnestly purchase heavenly and abiding rewards.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, relying on the royal dignity bestowed by the Lord, for the sake of the reward of a greater prize, grant a certain quite modest little parcel of land — namely 2 hides, in the place which the inhabitants call Bensington-land — to my three brothers, men named Eadric, Eadwig, and Ealdred, to possess as a paternal inheritance: that they may cheerfully possess it while life accompanies them, and after they have gone the way of all flesh may freely leave it in perpetual right to whatsoever heirs they wish. Let the aforesaid parcel of land be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, three excepted — namely established military service, and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nIf anyone therefore shall wish to transfer this our donation to anything other than we have established, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, be punished for ever in the eternal flames of the abyss, mournful with Judas the betrayer of Christ and his accomplices, if he does not make amends by fitting satisfaction for having transgressed against our decree.\nBoundaries. # The aforesaid land appears to be enclosed by these bounds: first from the small spring, east by the head, along the boundary until it comes into Chalcseath\u0026rsquo;s way; and so along the way into Acwulf\u0026rsquo;s dean; along the dean to the wood-way of the open land; along the way to the middle of the bright hill; from the hill along the dean to Waddene; along Waddene to Wyrthe; from Wyrthe along the way to the high linch; to the rough hedge; so along the hedge-row to Abba\u0026rsquo;s spring; thence back to the small spring.\nThese are the bounds of the wood that belongs to the land: first along the acre-way to the reed-slade; along the slade to Gega\u0026rsquo;s dean; along the dean to Gopa\u0026rsquo;s lea, eastward of the lea; along the burgh-path; to the burgh-way; thence to the hedge-way out into the open field; and so athwart over the fern-field to Wynstan\u0026rsquo;s hamm; from the hamm always along the wolf-run back to the acre-way.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 996, indiction 9, this charter was written, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Æthelred, king of the English, have granted the liberty of this gift. † I, Ælfric, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed by the sign of the Cross. † I, Wulfstan, bishop of the church of London, have confirmed. † I, Ealdwulf, archbishop of the church of York, have confirmed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Winchester, have confirmed. † I, Æscwig, bishop of the church of Dorchester, have dictated. † I, Athulf, bishop of the church of Hereford, have supported. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of the church of Lichfield, have assented. † I, Wulfsige, bishop of the church of Sherborne, have consented. † I, Ordbriht, bishop of the southern church, have subscribed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop of the church of Crediton, have supported. † I, Æthelweard, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhelm, ealdorman. † I, Leofsige, ealdorman. † I, Ælfweard, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Byrhtnoth, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Byrhthelm, abbot. † I, Ordulf, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. † I, Wulfheah, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Æthelnoth, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Wihtsige, thegn. † I, Godwine, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning 3 hides in Drayton and 2 in Sutton. # Peace and victory to the worshippers of the apostolic faith for ever. We pray that the authority of the Catholic Church may abide constant and unfailing. Moreover diverse gifts are commanded to be cast and offered at the holy sanctuaries in the treasury of the Lord, for, as it is written, \u0026ldquo;to the King born of the heavens the kings of the earth offered gifts.\u0026rdquo;\nWherefore I, King Æthelred, wish it to be unknown to none who bend the knee to me that I bestow as an offering upon the sanctuary of the monastery of Abingdon — Abbot Wulfgar obtaining it — the lands of 5 hides: 3 in the vill of Drayton and 2 in Sutton, with one mill, fields, pastures, and meadows, in the right of perpetual inheritance, just as Wulfgar, namely my butler, obtained them. And expressly commanding concerning this rural land, I command that they remain free, three causes being set apart: namely hostile service, the founding of the royal fortress, and the restoration of the bridge.\nBut if any envious man, kindled by the fire-bearing flames of avarice, shall attempt to superimpose upon this truthful little document another little document inked all round by the deceit of cupidity, let him be anathema maranatha — that is, cut off from the fellowship of Christians — until, coming to his senses, he repent of what he had approved in the malice of envious deceit. This charter was therefore executed in the year 1000 from the Incarnation of the Lord, indiction 13.\nAnd that this charter may obtain the solidity of inviolable firmness:\nWitnesses. # † I, the king, first confirm the same with my royal right hand, and command it to be confirmed by the hands of all subject to me. † I, Æthelstan, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, bear witness. † I, Edmund, affirm. † I, Eadred, bear witness. † I, Eadwig, do not object. † I, Ælfric, archbishop of Canterbury, commend. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of York, subscribe. † I, Ælfheah, bishop of Winchester, confirm. † I, Lyfing, bishop, bear witness. † I, Ordbriht, bishop, approve. † I, Ælfhun, bishop, bear witness. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhelm, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Leofsige, ealdorman. † I, Wulfgar, abbot, commend. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Kenulf, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Ordulf, soldier. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Wulfheah, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Goda, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning Haseley. # In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every state of this world is ended by a fixed end, and things that are defective fall in swift ruin, but those that endure flourish with the inexhaustible vigour of perpetuity. Therefore each and every man must diligently strive, while the allotted spaces of time granted by God\u0026rsquo;s will sustain him, lest we pass those same appointed days without the fruit of spiritual virtues.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, by favour of the heavenly Power king of the English and of the other peoples round about, grant 10 hides — called by the inhabitants \u0026ldquo;at Haseley in the lower settlement\u0026rdquo; — to a certain faithful thegn named Godwine, for his loving service and acceptable payment — that is, 30 mancuses of pure gold — with all things rightly pertaining to it: fields, pastures, meadows, and the courses of waters; that he may have and possess it while life accompanies him, as long as he enjoys the course of this fleeting life. And after his end, let him leave it to whatsoever heir he pleases. Moreover let the aforesaid land be free from every worldly burden, three excepted — that is, military service and the building of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone shall strive to overthrow this my gift, or shall produce another deed, whether an old one or a new, let it profit neither him nor others, but let it be blotted out in the everlasting record, and let him not be written with the just; and let him consider that at the last day of judgement he shall render account before God, and shall suffer with the reprobate in dreadful torments, unless he has first made amends with bodily lamentation.\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries of the 10 hides at Haseley in the lower settlement: first at Hroppa\u0026rsquo;s ford; then along Wicga\u0026rsquo;s dyke until it reaches Weorra\u0026rsquo;s ford; so along the moor as far as the broad army-path; then to the heads of the rills, until it reaches the Humber; along the Humber to Hroppa\u0026rsquo;s brook, opposite the stone-quarry; along Hroppa\u0026rsquo;s brook to the hawk-passage; back along Hroppa\u0026rsquo;s brook until it comes to Hroppa\u0026rsquo;s ford, where it first began.\nThis aforesaid donation was executed in the year 1000 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, indiction 14; and these are the names of the witnesses which follow.\n† I, Æthelred, king of the English, have confirmed my gift with my own seal. † I, Ælfric, archbishop of Canterbury, have confirmed with the sign of the Cross. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of York, have attested with the heavenly sign. † I, Ælfgifu, the king\u0026rsquo;s consort, have consented. † I, Æthelstan, the same king\u0026rsquo;s son, have confirmed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have attested. † I, Ordbriht, bishop, have set my mark. † I, Athulf, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Godwine, bishop, have assented. † I, Lyfing, bishop, have not refused. † I, Ælfhelm, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have assented. † I, Wulfgar, abbot, have dictated. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhelm, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmær, ealdorman. † I, Ordulf, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. † I, Wulfheah, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Wulfgar, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ordmær, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Æthelstan, thegn. † I, Godwine, thegn. † I, Godric, thegn. † I, Godwine, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Æthelwig, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. Who founded the abbey of Burton. # In those days a certain thegn of Æthelred, king of the English, called Wulfric Spot, built an abbey called Burton, and gave it all his paternal inheritance, valued at 700 pounds. And that this donation might be held valid, he gave King Æthelred 300 mancuses of gold for his confirmation, and to each bishop 5 mancuses, and to the two archbishops 10 mancuses; and moreover to Ælfric, archbishop of Canterbury, the vill of Dumbleton, which had been unjustly taken from the church of Abingdon by his predecessors; and to each abbot a pound of gold, and also to each abbess 5 mancuses.\n…the fabric of all things is contained, made by Him, the monarchy of the Godhead ordering all. We most wretched, poor little men, strangers and pilgrims on the earth, dust and ashes and embers, and subject to the inevitable bond of death — our first father Adam being exposed to the vicissitude of his own transgression — are compelled to go forth hence naked amid lamentable misfortunes, carrying nothing of this world with us except our sins; unless anyone, saved solely by the mercy of God and fortified beforehand by the impregnable arms of faith, hope and charity, through the manifold prevailing worth of good merits, may deserve to be presented by angelic spirits before the tribunal of so great a Judge, so that he may obtain immortal retribution for his own labour — according to what our most patient Job proclaims prophesying in the hour of his bereavement: \u0026ldquo;Naked came I forth from my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return thither\u0026rdquo;; and again, \u0026ldquo;The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so it is done. Blessed be the name of the Lord.\u0026rdquo;\nIf therefore that most holy man, amid the bitter loss of his distress, did not hesitate to render such honourable thanks to his Maker, what remains for me — surnamed Æthelred by the peoples who everywhere lie beneath our royal sway — upon whom an abundantly overflowing power has been conferred by the Distributor of all dignities Himself, if I do not delay, after the pattern of the aforesaid man of God, to extol His name with worthy praise, and with most ready devotion to distribute to His faithful the things which come to me from Him day by day, according as each one\u0026rsquo;s need shall demand? But that the beginning of this discourse may be brought to a sure conclusion: a certain land of my own possession, namely 24 hides, called by the inhabitants \u0026ldquo;at Dumbleton\u0026rdquo;, lying apart in three places, I grant to my very faithful archbishop Ælfric — which he obtained from me for 120 talents by a weighty reckoning of public assay. A certain portion of this land has been subjected to common tenure through the fornicating transgression of a certain woman. And so, as we have said, it is divided in three places: containing 17 hides on the western side of the river Isbourne, and 2 on the eastern side of the same stream, assigned by lot to the common people at Easton, and also 5 in wooded places on either side of the rivulet which is called Pidwell, the surname of which place is called \u0026ldquo;at Fleferth\u0026rdquo;. And we determine that the aforesaid bishop may possess this gift for himself, as long as he lives, entirely free from every worldly service, with all things rightly pertaining to it — fields, woods, meadows, pastures, and wooded confines — three excepted: military service and the building of fortress or bridge.\nWhoever shall wish to increase this, may heavenly blessing be increased upon him; but whoever attempts to diminish it, or brings in anything else in contrariety, or perchance produces an older deed, let him be anathematised from Christianity and charged with the crime of robbery, unless he quickly repents.\nThis land is bounded by these boundaries.\nBoundaries. # First to Dumbleton eastward on the Isbourne; thence south of the Isbourne; westwards along the dyke; then so straight up to Daga\u0026rsquo;s edge; then so along the stony brook into the boundary dyke; then so along to the sedge-mere; then so from the sedge-mere due east into the Isbourne at Dynna\u0026rsquo;s ford.\nThen these are the boundaries at Pidwell: from Pidwell to the chalk-pits; from the chalk-pits due south along the ridge to Titta\u0026rsquo;s down; from Titta\u0026rsquo;s down west to the cold spring; thence to the winterbourne; so to Pidwell; from Pidwell to Eomer\u0026rsquo;s meadow; and so to the other winterbourne; then to Pidwell; and thence inward within the enclosure toward the town; and so along Pidwell up to the chalk-pits.\nThis donation was executed and recorded in the year of Christ\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 1002, indiction 15, with the consent of these wise men whose names are seen inscribed below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Æthelred, king of the English, have bestowed this bounty. † I, Æthelstan, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Ecgbyrht, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Edmund, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Eadred, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Eadwig, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Edgar, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Ælfric, archbishop, obtained it by purchase. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have attested. † I, Wulfstan, bishop, have assented. † I, Ælfheah, bishop, have assented. † I, Athulf, bishop, have assented. † I, Æscwig, bishop, have affirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Lyfing, bishop. † I, Æthelric, bishop. † I, Ælfgar, bishop. † I, Godwine, bishop. † I, Ordbriht, bishop. † I, Ealdred, bishop. † I, Ælfhelm, bishop. † I, Ælfweard, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Wulfgar, abbot. † I, Kenulf, abbot. † I, Godwine, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Germanus, abbot. † I, Eadnoth, abbot. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Wulfric, abbot. † I, Leofric, abbot. † I, Ælfgar, abbot. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfhelm, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Ordulf, thegn. † I, Wulfheah, thegn. † I, Wulfric, thegn. † I, Wulfgeat, thegn. † I, Freana, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Byrhtric, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. Thus the king\u0026rsquo;s gift of Dumbleton passed into the archbishop\u0026rsquo;s possession; and when he himself had come to the last of life, he appointed the church of Abingdon — whence he had been a monk — as his heir, laying his authority upon it, lest any presumptuous man should make his testament void. A copy of it was composed in such English writing as follows.\nThe Testament of Ælfric the Archbishop. # Here is declared how Ælfric the archbishop drew up his will.\nThat is, first, as the payment for his soul he bequeaths to Christ\u0026rsquo;s Church the land at Wylla, and at Burna, and at Hrisenbeorgas; and he bequeaths to his lord his best ship and the tackle thereto, and 60 helmets and 60 coats of mail; and he desired, if it were his lord\u0026rsquo;s will, that he would grant to St Alban the land at Kingsbury, and that he himself should receive Eadulfingtun in exchange for it. And he bequeaths the land at Dumbleton to Abingdon, and Ælfnoth is to hold 3 hides of it for his day, and afterwards it is to go with the rest to Abingdon; and he bequeaths to them 10 oxen and 2 men, and may they remain in the lordship to which that land belongs. And he granted the land at Wallingford which he had bought to Ælfweard, and after his day it is to go to Ceolsey; and he bequeaths to St Alban the land at Tew — and the agreements between the abbot and Ceolric which were previously agreed with the archbishop are to stand: that is, that Ceolric is to have that portion of the land which he holds for his day, and also that portion which the archbishop let to him for payment — that was 8½ hides, for £5 and 50 mancuses of gold — and after his day it is all to go together to St Alban. And their covenant was that Osney after Ceolric\u0026rsquo;s day should also go thither. And the land in London which he had bought with his money he bequeaths to St Alban, and all his books he also bequeaths thither, and his carriage. And he directed that from the money that was to hand first every debt should be paid, and afterwards there should be provided for his heriot what was needed. And he granted one ship to the folk in Kent, and another to Wiltshire; and for the rest, in other things, if anything remained, he asked that Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Leofric should dispose of them as seemed best to them. And the lands to the west, at Fittington and at Newton, he bequeaths to his sisters and their children; and the land of Ælfheah, Esa\u0026rsquo;s son, is to go to his kin. And he bequeaths to Archbishop Wulfstan a pectoral cross, and a ring and a Psalter; and to Bishop Ælfheah a cross. And for God\u0026rsquo;s favour he forgave the Kentish people the debt that they owed him, and likewise the people of Middlesex and Surrey the money that was due to him. And he wills that every condemned bondman who had been forfeited in his time be freed after his day.\nIf anyone changes this, may he have to reckon with God. Amen.\nWhich is thus rendered in Latin.\nHere is declared how Ælfric the archbishop made the testament of his goods at the end.\nFirst he gave to the church of Christ at Canterbury the land at Wella, and at Burna, and at Hrisenbeorga.\nTo his lord one of his best ships, with the armaments pertaining to it; and 60 helmets, with as many coats of mail.\nAnd he pleaded with his lord that he would grant to the church of St Alban the land at Kingsbury, and that he himself should receive Eadulfingtun in exchange.\nTo the church of Abingdon, the land at Dumbleton — where he granted to a certain Ælfnoth 3 hides to hold only for his days, and afterwards it was to return with the rest of the land to the power of the church of Abingdon; moreover also 10 oxen with 2 men.\nAlso to a certain man named Ælfweard, the land which he had bought at Wallingford, that he might possess it as long as he lived, and after his decease the church of Ceolsey should obtain dominion over that land. To the church of St Alban the land at Tew and at Osney, with the land in London which the same archbishop had bought. All of which a certain Ceolric then held, but according to the agreement which he had with the archbishop, after the end of that man\u0026rsquo;s life everything was to return to the aforesaid church of the martyr. He also bequeathed all his books thither; and commanded that whatever had been received on loan from anyone should be repaid from his own means, and the rest expended on his funeral. He ordered one ship to be given to the people of Kent, and another to the people of Wiltshire. All the rest that appeared to be his, he asked the lord Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Leofric to distribute by their providence as best they might judge. To his sisters and their children he gave the land of Fittington and of Newton; and the land which had belonged to Ælfheah, Esa\u0026rsquo;s son, he restored to be held by those to whom it properly belonged. To the lord Wulfstan the archbishop, one phylactery, with one ring and a Psalter; but also to Bishop Ælfheah he gave one cross in memory of him. The debts which were owed to him by many in various places he forgave.\nAnd if anyone, according to the custom of the land of England, had fallen into any servitude during the time of his power, he ordered him to be released, freedom being wholly granted to him. Whosoever shall pervert these things otherwise than as has been stated, let him have his contention with God. Amen.\nCharter of King Æthelred concerning Waltham. # Honour and glory to the Creator of all creatures, who for the sake of peace so set apart the human race in charity toward one another, that both servants and lords, subjects and prelates, might dwell together throughout the ends of the earth; and infused into the hearts of lords and prelates so great a sweetness of charity that they loved their little servants and subjects as their own little children.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, king of the English, wish to make known to all dwelling round about the bounds of the English region that a certain man of mine — namely my reeve, called by the well-known name of Ælfgar — came into the presence of my sight, asking me to grant him 8 hides in the place called in the English tongue \u0026ldquo;at Waltham\u0026rdquo;, weighing out moreover a weight of ruddy gold and a gift of purest silver, which he valued at 300 gold mancuses, and with devoted hands offered it in the sight of my presence. I therefore, seeing the devotion of his mind and remembering his former acceptable service, assented to his petition according to the wish of his will. I have therefore granted him the aforesaid land, that he may possess it during the whole course of his life; and for the rest, may leave it as a perpetual inheritance to whatsoever heir he wishes.\nLet the aforesaid land be free from every worldly burden, except military service and the building of bridge and fortress. Moreover, to all detractors of this present donation and their offspring let there be an everlasting scandal of malediction, until they make amends for the vice of their machination with lawful satisfaction.\nBut if anyone shall wish to set before this charter a new or a most ancient document, let it become the destruction of himself and of his own cunning, and let it remain for ever consumed by the fire of the divine lightning.\nThe aforesaid land is clearly encompassed by these boundaries.\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries of Waltham: that is, first at Goda\u0026rsquo;s enclosure; from Goda\u0026rsquo;s enclosure to Egel\u0026rsquo;s stile; to the white enclosure; from the white enclosure to the great stock; from the great stock to Wassa\u0026rsquo;s hamm; from Wassa\u0026rsquo;s hamm to Bibba\u0026rsquo;s thorn; from Bibba\u0026rsquo;s thorn to Ceagga\u0026rsquo;s nook; from Ceagga\u0026rsquo;s nook to Wifel\u0026rsquo;s spring; from Wifel\u0026rsquo;s spring back east to Goda\u0026rsquo;s enclosure.\nThis charter of donation was executed in the new town which is called by the king\u0026rsquo;s name \u0026ldquo;Beorchore\u0026rdquo;, in the year 1007 from the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation, indiction 5, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\nWitnesses. # † I, Æthelred, king of the English, encompass and confirm this same charter with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfgifu, the same king\u0026rsquo;s consort, confirm the aforesaid gift. † I, Æthelstan, the same king\u0026rsquo;s son, subscribe. † I, Edmund, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Eadred, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Eadwig, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Edgar, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Edward, the king\u0026rsquo;s son. † I, Ælfheah, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, consent. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of York, confirm. † I, Ordbriht, bishop, confirm. † I, Lyfing, bishop, do not refuse. † I, Ælfhun, bishop, confirm. † I, Æthelwold, bishop, assent. † I, Brihtwold, bishop, subscribe. † I, Ælfgar, bishop, bear witness to this. † I, Godwine, bishop, approve. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, attest. † I, Æthelric, bishop, set my mark. † I, Godwine, bishop. † I, Ælfweard, abbot. † I, Wulfgar, abbot. † I, Brihtwold, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Germanus, abbot. † I, Æthelnoth, abbot. † I, Eadnoth, abbot. † I, Ælfhere, abbot. † I, Brihtwold, abbot. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Eadric, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Æthelwold, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Eadwine, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Ulfkytel, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Eadric, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Leofric, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ælfhelm, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Godric, thegn. † I, Goda, thegn. † I, Ordeh, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning Whitchurch. # The golden ages once, it is said, were hardly infected by the poisons of human wickedness, but are known to have used no territorial boundaries, pure simplicity flourishing everywhere, with rivalries far removed. But our age, darkened by the livid malice of mortals and beset by manifold calamities, for the avoiding of disputes desires to enjoy the boundaries of its own land — which nevertheless must be amended by justice, governed by prudence, held by temperance, and strengthened by fortitude; and in this fleeting life eternal things must be purchased by mortals with the utmost zeal.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, basileus of all Albion, by the nod of Almighty God ruling, generously grant to a certain thegn of mine faithfully obedient to me, Leofric by name, a certain parcel of land — namely 10 hides — to be possessed by his own right, in the vill famously called by the countryfolk \u0026ldquo;Whitchurch\u0026rdquo;, situated in the province of Oxfordshire beside the bank of the river Thames: that he may possess it freely, attaining his desire while life accompanies him, and leave it to whatever heir he pleases. Let this land with its appurtenances be free from every burden of secular service (except those common to all, namely military service and the restoration of bridge and fortress), to remain by our authority to him and his heirs for all time.\nAnd if perchance anyone — which God forbid — is eager to annul this our donation, and prefers wickedly to subject it to his own dominion, let him know that he shall stand accused at the examination of Christ the most just Judge, unless perchance before the last day he purges himself of the stain of this offence.\nThis land, moreover, was once, even in our days, by right of paternal inheritance the property of a certain owner named Leofric; but he, living wickedly — that is, by rebelling against my soldiers in my expedition, and by unaccustomed rapine and adultery and many other nefarious crimes — condemned himself and his possessions alike. And therefore we will that this charter, by our power, shall in every way condemn any earlier title-deeds, if they be found, so that they may nowhere prevail against our authority.\nBoundaries. # With these boundaries, therefore, the aforesaid land is known to be surrounded, the countryfolk being witnesses.\nFirst from Blæcca\u0026rsquo;s ford on the Thames; along the boundary to the southern bank; from the southern bank along the boundary to Ceacca\u0026rsquo;s spring-head; from Ceacca\u0026rsquo;s spring-head along the boundary to Beamster\u0026rsquo;s mere; from Beamster\u0026rsquo;s mere along the boundary to Headda\u0026rsquo;s stile; from Headda\u0026rsquo;s stile along the boundary to Leofrun\u0026rsquo;s boundary; from Leofrun\u0026rsquo;s boundary along the boundary back to Blæcca\u0026rsquo;s ford.\nThis our donation was written in the year 1012 after the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, indiction 10, in the month of June, with these witnesses whose names are noted below.\n† I, Æthelred, king by God\u0026rsquo;s governance, ordered this donation to be written. † I, Æthelstan, ætheling, stood by as faithful witness. † I, Edmund, ætheling, was present. † I, Eadred, ætheling. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop, set the mark of the Holy Cross. † I, Lyfing, bishop. † I, Eadnoth, bishop. † I, Ælfgar, bishop. † I, Ælfmær, bishop. † I, Godwine, bishop. † I, Æthelstan, bishop. † I, Eadric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfric, ealdorman. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman. † I, Germanus, abbot. † I, Wulfgar, abbot. † I, Ælfric, abbot. † I, Godemann, abbot. † I, Ælfsige, abbot. † I, Brihtwold, abbot. † I, Æthelwine, abbot. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Æthelweard, thegn. † I, Æthelwine, thegn. † I, Ordmær, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Goda, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Godwine, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. Charter of King Æthelred concerning Chilton. # The kind and ineffable and nourishing majesty of the Godhead, remaining immutable in itself, granted free will to all mortals, so that living holy and justly and piously, they might either enjoy angelic beatitude at the summit of the heavens, or, being disobedient to His commandments, be shut up with the ministers of Tartarus in infernal calamity. Therefore we must strive with all our strength, that those who abound in worldly riches may with earthly things earn Olympian dwellings, with perishing things lasting ones, and with transitory and momentary things eternal habitations, where the all-holding Creator of the universe, existing essentially in three Persons and subsisting substantially in one Name, sits on a shining throne of ineffable and unfathomable splendour, surrounded on every side by hymn-singing choirs of angels; where also the glittering companies of patriarchs, the truthful crowd of prophets and apostles, the victorious host of blessed martyrs, and also the glorious band of confessors and virgins, and the most famous family of all the heavenly virtues, shall reign for ever in everlasting glory with that same Author and Redeemer of ours, the bounteous Giver of all good things.\nDelighted by the sweetness of this inexhaustible felicity, I, Æthelred, relying on the royal dignity by the loving-kindness of the most high God, freely bestow upon a certain beloved bishop of mine, who from the very cradles of his infancy is called by the name Beorhtwold, a certain parcel of land estimated by the inhabitants at 5 hides, in that place where the inhabitants by customary usage name it \u0026ldquo;Chilton\u0026rdquo;: that he may have and possess it as long as he endures in the span of this fleeting life; and after him freely leave it to whatsoever heir he pleases.\nFor a certain thegn, Wulfgeat by common report, had once possessed the aforesaid land, but because he joined himself as an associate in plots to the king\u0026rsquo;s enemies, and the due satisfaction of the law also failed him in the matter of the crime, he therefore wholly lost the substance of the inheritance; and from it the aforenamed bishop received the aforewritten little vill, by my grant.\nLet this our immovable gift therefore remain joyful in eternal freedom, with all things known rightly to pertain to the same place, both in great and in small matters — fields, meadows, pastures, woods — three causes excepted, namely military service, the building of the bridge, and the fortification of the fortress.\nBut if anyone, in the progress of the times, kindled by the tinder of envy or the heats of avarice, shall attempt either to diminish or in any wise to alter my royal donation of power, let him be made a partaker with the parasites of infernal darkness, to burn in everlasting fires with the Devil and his accomplices, unless, desisting from this wickedness, he cease by repenting.\nFor the aforesaid land is bounded by these confines.\nBoundaries. # First from Wardun along the way to the pasture-settlement; so along the dyke of the pasture-settlement to the way on the east of the settlement; so along the way to the dyke\u0026rsquo;s corner; so along the dyke into the ash-tree; from the ash into the old mere; from the old mere into the broken ground; from the broken ground along the brook into the clearing-stumps; so from the clearing-stumps to Lodder\u0026rsquo;s thorn; so from Lodder\u0026rsquo;s thorn to the flag-stone; from the flag-stone to the fern-gore; from the fern-gore back to Waddun to the old brook.\nAnd these are the bounds of the woodland at Thackley which belong hereto: first from the hatch to Dudemær\u0026rsquo;s hollow; from Dudemær\u0026rsquo;s hollow to the boundary-lea; from the boundary-lea to the stony-lea; from the stony-lea to the down-lea; from the down-lea so back into the hatch.\nFinally, this deed of donation was written, the years from the Saviour\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation having run to 1015, indiction 13, with the favour of those whose names, poured forth and proclaimed by the beak of the pen, lie plainly open below to all who look upon them.\n† I, Æthelred, industrious basileus of the English, have granted this my donation to the beloved bishop with a joyful spirit as a perpetual inheritance. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop of the church of York, have pre-inscribed the king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the mark of the Cross. † I, Lyfing, bishop of the church of Canterbury, have consigned with the sign of the Cross. † I, Edmund, offspring of royal stock, with the others gave my assent. † I, Edward, ætheling, consenting with a willing spirit, was present at this blessing. † I, Ælfun, bishop of the church of London, confirmed the king\u0026rsquo;s benevolence. † I, Ælfsige, bishop of the city of Winchester, confirmed this bounty. † I, Beorhtwold, bishop of the church of Wilton, willingly assented to this donation. † I, Eadnoth, bishop of the church of Crediton, confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. † I, Beorhtræd, abbot, willingly consented. † I, Byrhtmær, abbot, did not refuse. † I, Wulfgar, abbot, attested. † I, Ælfsige, abbot, pledged. † I, Eadric, ealdorman, gave consent. † I, Uhtred, ealdorman, subscribed. † I, Leofwine, ealdorman, confirmed. † I, Godric, ealdorman, confirmed. † I, Æthelweard, thegn, did not refuse. † I, Oda, thegn, consented. † I, Ceolric, thegn, set my name. † I, Leofwine, thegn, consented to these things. Concerning Ælfgifu, who restored Chelgrave and Bultesworth. # A certain matron in those times, named Ælfgifu, granted to this church of Abingdon the land of Chelgrave and of Bultesworth; of which grant the witnesses were,\n† Oswald, archbishop, and † Ælfheah, bishop, and † Æscwig, bishop, and † Æthelsige, bishop, and † Ordulf, bishop. Also Ealdorman Thured and many of the chief men, the king also favouring, and Abbot Eadwine presiding there.\nConcerning Ælfled, who restored Winkfield. # Likewise, another noble matron, named Eadflæd, bestowed on the church of Abingdon the land of Winkfield, and of Wickham, and of Hidesdun, with a shrine of holy relics and a text of the Gospels adorned with silver and gold, with also a silver chalice and a priestly vestment.\nConcerning Edwin, who restored Bedene. # Likewise, a prince of the South Saxons, Edwin by name, dying at the place of Abingdon, is buried there. By the grant of his testament, the lands of Bedene and of Hordeuilla were left to the same.\nConcerning the Prophecy of Saint Dunstan. # Now in the time of this Æthelred, as I have said before, when the blessed Dunstan set the diadem upon his head, a sudden change of the realm came to pass. For within a short space six archbishops — namely Dunstan, Lyfing, Ælfgar, Siric, Ælfric, and Ælfheah — having attained the archiepiscopal see of the church of Canterbury, departed to their fate, perchance for this reason deprived of this light, lest the loving mercy of pious fathers should see sons rising up against them who had degenerated. Nor this only; but upon the greater in birth and the more powerful in dignity — indeed, of whatsoever condition, both men and women throughout all England — sudden fear and devastation alike rushed in. For a barbarian people (that is, of the Danes) is reported to have come into England by ship with their king Swein, who exercised such ferocity everywhere, and likewise impiety, that they spared neither dignity nor age, neither sex nor condition. When the English people saw that they could least of all resist their depopulation and assault, some through fear of death, others for the sake of preserving their goods, some even traitorously, betook themselves to the king of the Danes. And so it came to pass that the kingdom, divided against itself, was wretchedly desolated. What more? King Æthelred, seeing himself estranged both from the fidelity and the fellowship of his men, made for Normandy with hasty steps, together with his wife and children. Swein therefore reigned in England for a few days, because by the divine judgement he was deprived of both kingdom and life in short space. But after his death King Æthelred of the English, returning as quickly as he could from parts beyond the sea, with none contradicting, regained the kingdom he had held before.\nNow King Æthelred took in marriage the daughter of Richard, count of the Normans, named Emma, whom the English surnamed Ælfgifu Imma; of whom he begot Edward and other children, a man of great piety. The brother of the same queen was called Richard the younger, of whom was born Robert, the father of William, who afterwards attacking England usurped the kingdom there.\nMeanwhile so great and so frequent a change of ecclesiastical and secular affairs came to pass in this country in those times as anyone among the English had hitherto never heard. For under the same king\u0026rsquo;s reign, six patriarchs successively succeeding one another exchanged the summit of the see of Canterbury by death: namely Dunstan, Ælfgar, Sigeric, Ælfric, Ælfheah, Lyfing. And among the greater persons of secular rank, divers turns of fortune befell. For the Danish people with their king Swein, landing in England, poured out their ferocity and impiety everywhere so greatly, man by man, that they gave up all things to plunder, burning, and slaughter. No reverence was then paid either to dignity, or to age, or to sex. Every perverse betrayer of justice had refuge with the enemy; others through fear did the same. Thus King Æthelred, progressively abandoned by his own, sought Normandy together with his wife, and entrusted himself to Richard the younger, count of the Normans, whose sister he had in marriage. But Swein, usurping the kingdom of England, was received as lord; yet he was not permitted to rejoice therein long, since he is deprived of both kingdom and life soon by God\u0026rsquo;s judgement. After whose death the king of the English, returning from beyond the sea, regained the kingdom he had before held.\nConcerning the Death of King Æthelred, and the Reign of King Edmund, his Son. # Likewise, the Danes, accomplices of the dead Swein, conspiring together with the English against their rightful lord, submit themselves to Cnut, the son of the same king, give their faith, and promise to proceed readily to whatever he wished. Vexed again by such deceits, the anxious king is seized by illness, and having completed 36 years in the kingdom — years entangled in the varied outcome of dangers — he dies. Without delay Edmund his son is crowned by those who had adhered to his father. He, attempting to scatter Cnut\u0026rsquo;s party by war, persuaded the minds of many to bring aid, so that they might repel the dominion of the barbarian race from themselves by a vigorous hand. A multitude therefore having been gathered to him, he made war on his adversaries five times in the same year. Yet he could not prevail over them; rather it happened that they increased and he declined, and also that a very great number of nobles was slain on both sides. Wherefore the armies of both princes resolve to follow that counsel whereby peace might be established by oath and faith on both sides; lest, namely, any further shedding of so much blood of their own men should come about through desire of ruling. He was consulted and brought to the very place of the matter; and so, the kings being reconciled with one another, Edmund should rule over the West Saxon peoples, Cnut over the Mercians.\nWhen these things had thus been accomplished, Edmund departed this life, not more than six months\u0026rsquo; course having run since he had taken the helm of the kingdom. Then Cnut obtained the monarchy of all Britain, and indeed the dominion of Denmark and Norway likewise. Amid these movements so widely discordant in England — God\u0026rsquo;s mercy protecting here, and Abbot Wulfgar\u0026rsquo;s industry keeping watch there — the monastery of Abingdon remained immune from the devastation of the Danes, while the enemy\u0026rsquo;s incursion on right and left everywhere undermined all places, or, if it grew more benevolent, suffered the inhabitants to redeem themselves at a very great price.\nConcerning the Death of Abbot Wulfgar. # About the same time the lord Wulfgar — \u0026ldquo;The shepherd failing, weeping made his end; whom the devoted flock tenderly treated and loved\u0026rdquo; — was succeeded in the pastoral office by the lord Æthelwine, a proven champion of equity and of very great intimacy with Cnut, for which reason he attained his desire. Whence the king conducted himself towards the place of Abingdon as though a private man, diligently bestowing his reverence there. Which is still proclaimed by a celebrated token, in that he caused a shrine of silver and gold, handsomely adorned, to be made in honour of the martyr and deacon Vincent of Spain, that therein the relics of the same martyr might be placed, to be venerated openly with the highest reverence by all seeking heavenly aid thereby. On it also inscriptions were carved, of which this is the form: — In the upper part there was an image; and these writings were contained beneath:\n\u0026ldquo;This was accomplished in the time of the lord father Æthelwine, in honour of the martyr Vincent.\u0026rdquo;\nThis aforenamed queen Imma indeed — namely Ælfgifu Imma — was first joined in wedlock to King Æthelred; whom afterwards Cnut, when his kingdom was established, took in marriage, and begot Harthacnut from her. To this pious benefaction King Cnut added, in that he then gave there two bells of a rather full tone, which were indeed much praised at the time. Moreover Abbot Æthelwine made another casket, after the form of that which had been made by the king, of nearly equal size, into which he placed the relics of saints which he had sought out.\nConcerning Abbot Siward. # He therefore departing this life received as successor Siward, a monk indeed of the monastery of Glastonbury, strongly supported in both secular and ecclesiastical vigour. Mention of him is thus contained in a certain charter of the same king.\nCharter of King Cnut concerning Mytun. # In the name of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 1034, indiction 2, I, Cnut, king of the English and, by heavenly grace assenting, governor and ruler of the whole circle of Britain, chosen as king over the peoples and tribes by the same God and our Lord Jesus Christ, in the 19th year of my reign, was asked by the venerable abbot of the church of Abingdon, by name Siward, that I should freely grant a certain land of 3 hides, in the place called by the inhabitants Mytun, to the monastery of the most blessed Mother of God and ever-Virgin Mary which is situated at Abingdon; for the sake of His love who says, \u0026ldquo;Ask, and it shall be given you.\u0026rdquo; Let this our immovable gift therefore remain joyful in eternal freedom, with all things rightly pertaining to it, both in known and unknown causes, in small and in great — fields, meadows, pastures, and the courses of waters — excepting these three: military service and the restoration of bridge and fortress. And we command in the name of God the Father Almighty, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that no man, puffed up with pride, or by any malicious instigation, shall dare to alter this aforesaid donation and liberty into the molestation of any burden. And if anyone refuses to assent to these written letters, let him be delivered into the deep chaos with fiery bonds, and let his memory be covered with the darkness of death. And let him know that he is estranged from the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church by the authority of the blessed Apostle Peter and of all his companions, unless before death he has made amends here by worthy satisfaction for what he wrought by malicious machination against our decree. But if anyone shall wish to increase this, may God increase his portion in the land of the living.\n† I, Cnut, king of the English, have granted. † I, Ælfgifu, the queen, most gladly obtained this liberty from my lord the aforesaid king. † I, Æthelnoth, archbishop, and I, Ælfric, with all the rest, have confirmed. Charter of King Cnut concerning Mytun. 1033. # The Scripture of sacred authority confirms us, saying: \u0026ldquo;Naked came I forth from my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return thither\u0026rdquo;; and again, \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, and neither can we carry anything out of it.\u0026rdquo; Wherefore I, Cnut — not unmindful of the slippery dominion — by Christ\u0026rsquo;s gift king and primicerius of all Albion, presiding over the summit of the kingdom with a humble mind, for the sake of the reward of a greater prize, freely grant a certain small parcel of land, furnished with 3 hides, in the place whose name is set forth by sure stipulation as Mytun, to the church of Blessed Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place called Abingdon, to Abbot Siward and the brethren there serving God; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall in any wise, by any impulse of rashness, break this gift of our devotion. Let the aforesaid land be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, three excepted — namely established military service and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nIf anyone therefore shall wish to transfer this our donation to anything other than we have established, let him, deprived of the fellowship of God\u0026rsquo;s holy church, be punished for ever in the eternal flames of the abyss, if he does not make amends by fitting satisfaction for having transgressed against our decree. But if any envious man, kindled by the fire-bearing flames of avarice, shall attempt to superimpose upon this truthful little document another little document inked all round by the deceit of cupidity, let him be anathema maranatha — that is, cut off from the fellowship of Christians — until, coming to his senses, he repent of what he had approved in the malice of envious deceit.\nThe aforesaid land is girded here and there by these boundaries.\nBoundaries. # These are the boundaries of the 3 hides at Mytun: first on the Leomene, always by the middle of the stream; so from the Leomene to Dodda\u0026rsquo;s pasture; from the pasture to the grey thorn; from the thorn to the Broad-mere; from the mere to Tæcel\u0026rsquo;s brook; always by the middle of the stream on the Avon; along the Avon always by the middle of the stream; back to the Leomene.\nIn the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 1033, indiction 1, the charter was written, with these witnesses consenting whose names are inscribed below.\n† I, Æthelnoth, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed the royal gift with the mark of the Holy Cross. † I, Ælfric, archbishop of the city of York, have established the generosity of this bounty with the sign of the adorable Cross. † I, Brihtwold, bishop, have assented. † I, Ælfwine, bishop, have assented. † I, Æthelric, bishop, have supported. † I, Bryhtmær, bishop, have consented. † I, Bryhtheh, bishop, have not refused. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Ælfwine, abbot. † I, Ælfweard, abbot. † I, Stigand, priest. † I, Eadwold, priest. † I, Godwine, ealdorman. † I, Leofric, ealdorman. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Tocig, thegn. † I, Osgod, thegn. † I, Thured, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Tokig, soldier. † I, Godric, reeve. † I, Totig. † I, Ælfweard, reeve. † I, Owine. † I, Tofig. † I, Osmund, reeve. † I, Karl, soldier. † I, Ulf, soldier. Charter of King Cnut concerning Linford. # Peace and victory to the worshippers of the apostolic faith for ever. We pray that the authority of the Catholic Church may abide constant and unfailing. Moreover diverse bounties are commanded to be cast and offered at the holy sanctuaries in the treasury of the Lord, since to the King new-born of the heavens, as it is written, \u0026ldquo;the kings of the earth offered gifts.\u0026rdquo;\nWherefore I, Cnut, by the free favour and kindly sovereignty of the divine monarchy king of all Albion, bestow as a perpetual inheritance upon our Lord Jesus Christ and His ever-Virgin Mother Mary, for the use of the servants of God in the place called Abingdon, a small parcel of land which is called by the inhabitants of this region \u0026ldquo;at Linford\u0026rdquo; — namely consisting of 2 hides — and a certain small monastery consecrated in honour of Saint Martin the bishop, with a small adjoining estate in the city which is called by the famous name Oxford; commanding in the name of the holy Trinity and indivisible Unity that no man of any rank shall presume to take away the aforesaid donation from the aforesaid monastery. Let this small portion of land therefore remain free, three causes being set apart: namely hostile military service, the building of the royal fortress, and the restoration of the bridge.\nBut if any envious man, kindled by the fire-bearing flames of avarice, shall attempt to superimpose upon this truthful little document another little document inked all round by the deceit of cupidity, let him be anathema maranatha — that is, cut off from the fellowship of Christians — until, coming to his senses, he repent of what he had approved in the malice of envious deceit.\nThe aforesaid land is said to be thus delimited by the inhabitants dwelling round it.\nBoundaries. # First from the Eocce east along the old dyke to the loam-pits; from the pits east by the boundary to Byttman\u0026rsquo;s dyke; from the dyke east by the boundary to Cyllrith; along Cyllrith to Botta\u0026rsquo;s island; from Botta\u0026rsquo;s island by Leofric\u0026rsquo;s boundary to Winegar\u0026rsquo;s post; from the post to the western side of Wihtluf\u0026rsquo;s hamm; back to the Eocce.\nThis plot of land Æthelwine bequeathed to Abingdon, and the enclosure in Oxford which he himself built, in the presence of many witnesses.\nThis little bit of land Æthelwine gave by testament as an inheritance to Abingdon, and the court at Oxford in which he himself resided. And this he did with the testimony of many.\nThis charter was therefore executed in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 1032, indiction 15; and that this deed may obtain the solidity of inviolable firmness:\n† I, Ælfgifu, consort of the aforesaid king, have strengthened this gift with the banner of the venerable Cross. † I, Æthelnoth, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have confirmed the royal gift with the emblem of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfric, archbishop of the city of York, have established the bounty of this munificence with the sign of the adorable Cross. † I, Æthelsige, bishop, have acquiesced. † I, Brihtwold, bishop, have given my support. † I, Æthelric, bishop, have consented. † I, Æthelric, bishop, have not refused. † I, Lyfing, bishop, have assented. † I, Brihtwig, bishop, have favoured it. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Ælfwine, abbot. † I, Siward, abbot. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Ælfwine, priest. † I, Eadwold, priest. † I, Godwine, earl. † I, Leofric, earl. † I, Siward, thegn. † I, Harold, thegn. † I, Ælfwine, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Tofig, thegn. † I, Osgod, thegn. † I, Thored, thegn. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, thegn. † I, Tofig, thegn. † I, Karl, thegn. † I, Lyfing, reeve. † I, Ælfstan, thegn. † I, Thurkil, thegn. † I, Ælfgar, thegn. † I, Ceolric, thegn. [In these are set forth both the times of the aforesaid abbot and the confirmations by King Cnut of these possessions of the church of Abingdon, whereby that church was then enlarged.]\nThe Will of King Æthelred # In those days a very powerful man named Æthelweard, coming to the end of his life, bestowed upon this monastery 8 and a half hides at Sandford, and three shrines, together with one large crystal.\n[In the times of this king, too, the relics of Saint Edward, king and martyr, were brought to Abingdon. And when the bearer afterwards resolved to carry them away from there, by the will of God he halted on his journey not far from the church, his feet held fast to the very ground, and could go no further. Thus the sacred pledges were carried back to the church, and are preserved there to this day.\nKing Cnut, moreover, ruling Denmark, Norway, and England imperially and with a strong hand, having sought the aid of the chief Apostles Peter and Paul at the Roman citadel, and having enacted, by the counsel of his elder and prudent men, laws whereby the nations subject to him might be united in the settlement of lawsuits, ended his days in peace.]\nOf the Gifts of King Cnut # King Cnut also caused a casket to be made of silver and gold in honour of the most glorious martyr Vincent of Spain, whose relics are contained in this church. The same king also gave to this house two great bells, which are kept in that church to the present day. At this time also Abbot Æthelwine had a shrine made, after the fashion of the shrine which had been made by the king and of nearly equal size, in which he honourably deposited the relics of saints which he had diligently gathered. He also made a silver cross, which is still kept in this church.\nWhen the Relics of Saint Edward Were Brought to Abingdon # Also in the time of King Cnut the relics of Saint Edward, king and martyr, which are contained in that church, were miraculously brought to this house of Abingdon; as is most clearly recorded in the account of the passion and life of the most glorious martyr.\nOf the Coming of Abbot Siward # …supported in abundant measure by the vigour of both secular and ecclesiastical learning. And on account of the benignity which King Cnut knew to overflow ever from his breast, the same king charitably bestowed upon this house the church of Saint Martin in Oxford, together with a small estate.\nHow Abbot Siward Wished to Pull Down the Church of Saint Æthelwold # Meanwhile, when one day the venerable Abbot Siward was walking in the court of the abbey, as was his custom, lifting up his eyes towards the church and the offices which his blessed predecessor Æthelwold had rebuilt, he resolved in his mind to pull down the church together with the offices, to change them for the better, and to rebuild them larger. And when he had already conceived this in his mind, seeing nevertheless that he neither could nor would undertake such a work — either to demolish it thus or to build another in its place — without the king\u0026rsquo;s favour and permission, he went to the king after taking counsel, intending to ask leave of him for the readier execution of this business. And without delay he obtained, the sooner and without refusal, that which he asked of the king. And so, when he had deliberated at length upon the beginning of this undertaking, weighing carefully the holiness of life of the venerable man Æthelwold, his predecessor, who had both begun and completed that same work, he feared to destroy it, greatly afraid lest by a deed of this kind he should incur the displeasure of the most glorious confessor.\nWhat need of many words? By the counsel of his brethren, having appointed for themselves fasts of several days, they implored the divine mercy, and moreover the patronage of the blessed Æthelwold, that it might be divinely revealed to them whether it would be more expedient for them to remain in the old monastery or to build a new one. And it came to pass after some days, when the venerable man Abbot Siward was resting upon his bed, that the blessed Æthelwold appeared to him in a dream, saying: \u0026ldquo;What you are turning over in your mind, what you are deliberating with yourself hereafter to do concerning the pulling down of my church and my buildings and their rebuilding anew, I know well; and therefore I have come to counsel you what is more fitting to be done in the execution of this business. It is not for your time to destroy this work of mine, nor to build another; and that you may the more surely give credence to my words, mark diligently: there shall come a certain man from the parts beyond the sea, the future father and shepherd of this place, who shall pull down that work and begin a new one; yet he shall not complete it. After him there shall come two others, likewise to be shepherds of this place, who shall strive to accomplish many good things, both in buildings and in the other matters befitting this place, as being needful. And when these have departed this life, through the long lapse of time there shall be no one in this place, as shepherd and abbot to come, who in like manner shall study to enlarge this place with good things. But in the last days there shall be a certain man, likewise to be abbot of this place, who in the bowels of Christ shall embrace this place with such affection that, heaping good things upon good things, pulling down buildings and rebuilding them better, adorning the church, keeping the rule, diminishing nothing of its customs but rather increasing them, fearing God, strong in virtue, renowned for the holiness of his life, a pious father and shepherd worthy to be so called, in the peace of his heart he shall await the peace of eternity.\u0026rdquo;\nWhen Siward had heard these things, being awaked from sleep he began to give thanks to God and to desist from his purpose, and took diligent care to bestow upon the poor the money which he had gathered together for the beginning of that work.\nOf the Death of King Cnut # When King Cnut was dead, and also Harold, his son born of a concubine, Harthacnut, his son by Emma, formerly queen of King Æthelred, reigned. He, at the admonition of Abbot Siward, gave Farnborough to this house and confirmed it by his charter, the tenor of which charter is as follows:\nCharter of Harthacnut concerning Farnborough # All the patrimonies of the ages are left to uncertain heirs of posterity, and all the glory of the world, as the appointed term of death draws near, dwindles away to nothing. For the sake of this thing, therefore, exchanging earthly possessions of perishable things, let us gain, with the Lord\u0026rsquo;s help, the rewards of the heavenly fatherland which abide for ever.\nWherefore, not unmindful of fleeting power, I, Harthacnut, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s bestowal king and chief ruler of the English and the Danes, for the reward of the heavenly prize freely grant a certain small portion of land, namely 10 hides, in the place which is declared by the well-known name of Farnborough, to the church of the blessed Mary, mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in that little place which is called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall in any wise disturb this gift of our devotion by any prompting of rashness.\nIf anyone, therefore, shall bring forward openly another little document, falsely entitled in the ink of wicked greed, against this one, may it profit neither himself nor his avarice; but may he be pierced for ever by the divine pen, and himself remain anathematised by my prohibition and that of my bishops, and cut off from the fellowship of Christians, and moreover cut off from the Body and Blood of the Lord, and after death miserably condemned to the pains of hell.\nAnd that the dwellers of the aforesaid land may always possess the inviolable strength of liberty, they are freed by royal precept from every secular yoke, the obligations of three matters alone excepted, namely the common levy, the building of the bridge and roadway, and the maintenance of the royal fortress. Now it must be told by what bounds the aforesaid land appears to be determined round about.\nBoundaries # These are the land-boundaries that belong to Farnborough. From Farnborough west along the road to the stones; from the stones south along the road to the headlands; from the headlands along the ridge-row up to the dyke which is north of Studfold; then forth along the dyke to the boundary-stream east of Lillinglea; then forth along the southern road to the long tree; then forth west along the road over Beocum to the stone-quarry; then north along the narrow way east of the broken barrow to the road that lies to the east; then forth along the road to Cytel\u0026rsquo;s stream, west of Mulescombe, where the ways fork; then forth to Scyldmere; then forth along the furrow to Fyrcumbe; along the middle of Fyrcumbe to the dean; then forth along the dean to the meeting of the ways; then forth to the white way, to the hoar thorn; then from the white way to Farnborough; and the clearing east of Catmere which belongs thereto, that is, on the road that leads to Stanley; then forth afterwards south upon the stony way from the boundary of the Stanmering men; then forth along the narrow way to the riding-way which is called Stifinc\u0026rsquo;s way, that is, the boundary of the Catmering men and of the land at Farnborough; then forth along the way out onto the open field; and all the sloping woods between that way and the one which leads to Stanley belong wholly to Farnborough.\nThis charter of donation was therefore executed in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 1042, the tenth indiction, that is, in the 2nd year of my reign, on the appointed weekday and day of the moon, in the royal vill which is called Sutton, under the witness of those whose names are written below.\n† I, Harthacnut, king, proclaim my gift on every side and confirm it all around with the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Eadgifu, mother of the same king, confirm the royal gift with the trophy of the venerable Cross. † I, Edward, brother of the aforesaid king, desire to be present as a true witness. † I, Eadsige, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, sign the same king\u0026rsquo;s donation with the trophy of the holy Cross. † I, Ælfric, archbishop of the church of York, consent with cheerful countenance. † I, Brihtwold, bishop, confirm. † I, Ælfwine, bishop, assent with cheerful countenance. † I, Dudoc, bishop, confirm with my own hand. † I, Brihtwine, bishop, am present as a most steadfast witness. † I, Lyfing, bishop, bear witness to this with a glad heart. † I, Eadnoth, bishop, do not refuse. † I, Æthelstan, bishop, desire to be present as a true witness. † I, Wulfsige, bishop, do not deny. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Ælfwine, abbot. † I, Siward, abbot. † I, Wulfsige, abbot. † I, Ælfwig, abbot. † I, Eadwold, priest. † I, Stigand, priest. † I, Ælfwine, priest. † I, Spirites, priest. † I, Herman, priest. † I, Leofric, priest. † I, Godwine, earl. † I, Leofric, earl. † I, Sig. † I, Osgod, soldier. † I, Acig, soldier. † I, Toki, soldier. † I, Ordgar, reeve. † I, Urki, thegn. † I, Ælfget, thegn. † I, Ulfnoth, reeve. † I, Karl, thegn. † I, Ælfstan, thegn. † I, Æthelwig, thegn. † I, Cyneweard, reeve. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Tofi, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, reeve. † I, Æthelric, reeve. † I, Brihtric, thegn. Of the Death of King Harthacnut # [King Harthacnut, then, exacted from the people of England a tribute almost insupportable. The corpse, too, of Harold, who had reigned before him — on account of the excessive hatred with which he had seized the kingdom in his place — he ordered to be dug up and to be sunk in a place of deepest mire. Whence in the mouth of every man a curse was uttered against him, that punishment for such cruelty would not long be wanting. And so it came to pass. For as he was feasting cheerfully in the royal hall, he fell suddenly to the ground and expired, not declaring a single word of his affairs to anyone. These things thus accomplished, Edward, the son of King Æthelred, is received by all with joy as their lord, favour is poured out, and the diadem is placed upon him.]\nTo Harthacnut, king of the English, succeeded his most blessed brother Edward, the son of Æthelred, formerly king of the English, and of Emma. Supported by Eadsige, archbishop of Canterbury, and by Lyfing, bishop of Worcester, and by Earl Godwine, whose daughter he was to take as queen, he is raised to the kingship at London; and he is anointed king at Winchester by the archbishops — Eadsige of Canterbury and Ælfric of York — and almost all the other leading men of the whole of England, on the first day of Easter (3 April 1043); whose benefactions, which he bestowed upon the house of Abingdon, we shall note below.\nOf Saint Edward the King # …the abbot of Abingdon, as being a discreet and religious man, though consecrated bishop of Rochester, should still administer all things in his own place and stead. Which being done, Æthelstan, then the sacrist of the aforesaid monastery, is set over it.\nCharter of King Edward concerning 8 hides beside the Kennet # The sacred authority of Scripture confirms us, saying: \u0026ldquo;Naked came I out of my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return thither;\u0026rdquo; and again, \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, and truly we can carry nothing out of it.\u0026rdquo;\nWherefore, not unmindful of fleeting power, I, Edward, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s bestowal king and chief ruler of all Albion, presiding over the summit of the kingdom with a humble mind, for the reward of a greater prize, granting freely, bestow a certain small portion of land, 8 hides, beside the river which is called the Kennet, namely that land which a certain countryman named Eadric is known to have held, upon the church of the blessed Mary, mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place which is called Abingdon, freely granting it for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall in any wise disturb this gift of our devotion by any prompting of rashness.\nNow may the aforesaid land, which I with the consent of my nobles have bestowed upon the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, these three things excepted, namely the appointed levy and the restoration of bridge and fortress. But if anyone, instigated by a devilish spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or to alter this gift, unless, being guilty, he repent with fitting satisfaction before his death, may he, cast down into the everlasting fires of the abyss, be punished in mourning eternally with Judas the betrayer of Christ. By these boundaries the aforesaid land appears to be encompassed.\nBoundaries # First on the Kennet at Sceol\u0026rsquo;s old cottages; thence up along the stream to Eadgifu\u0026rsquo;s boundary; then north into the Hydden; then north to the boundary of the Lambourn men; then east along the boundary to Ælfwig\u0026rsquo;s boundary; then south along the boundary to the Hydden; then south by the boundary back again into the stream of the Kennet.\nThis aforesaid donation was made in the year 1050 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n† I, Edward, king of the English, have unswervingly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid donation under the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Eadsige, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have subscribed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Stigand, bishop of the church of Winchester, have confirmed the emblem of the holy Cross. † I, Herman, bishop, have subscribed and assented. † I, Ulf, bishop, have consented. † I, Duduc, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Duduc, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Leofric, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have assented. † I, Ealdred, bishop, have consented. † I, Rodbert, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æthelweard, abbot, have established. † I, Ordric, abbot, have assented. † I, Wulfweard, abbot, have confirmed. † I, Godwine, earl. † I, Leofric, earl. † I, Harold, earl. † I, Sihtric, earl. † I, Ralph, earl. † I, Tosti, thegn. † I, Brihtric, thegn. † I, Ælfstan, thegn. † I, Tofi, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, provost. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Rodbert, priest. † I, Godwine, priest. † I, Regenbald, priest. † I, Lyfing, priest. † I, William, priest. † I, Brihtric, priest. † I, Cynsige, priest. † I, Winsige, priest. † I, Nefetofi, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † Cyneweard, provost. [Under the same abbot the same king granted to this church a portion of land of 5 hides at Chilton, which portion King Æthelred, the father of this King Edward, had given to Brihtwold, bishop of Wilton.]\nThe sacred authority of Scripture confirms us, saying: \u0026ldquo;Naked came I out of my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return thither;\u0026rdquo; and again, \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, and truly we can carry nothing out of it.\u0026rdquo; Wherefore, not unmindful of fleeting power, I, Edward, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s bestowal king and chief ruler of all Albion, presiding over the summit of the kingdom with a humble mind, for the reward of a greater prize, freely grant a certain small portion of land consisting of 5 hides, which is declared by the fixed name of Chilton, to the church of the blessed Mary, mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place which is called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall in any wise disturb this gift of our devotion by any prompting of rashness.\nNow may the aforesaid land, which I with the consent of my nobles have bestowed upon the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, these three things excepted, namely the appointed levy and the restoration of bridge and fortress. But if anyone, instigated by a devilish spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or to alter this gift, unless, being guilty, he repent with fitting satisfaction before his death, may he, cast down into the everlasting fires of the abyss, be punished in mourning eternally with Judas the betrayer of Christ.\nBy these bounds the aforesaid land is encircled on every side.\nBoundaries # First from Waddon along the way to the grass-enclosure; then along the dyke of the grass-enclosure to the road on the east side of the three homesteads; then along the way to the corner of the triple dyke; then along the dyke into the ash-tree; from the ash-tree into the old pool; from the old pool into the breach; along the breach into the rood-stumps; then from the rood-stumps to Lodder\u0026rsquo;s thorn; then from Lodder\u0026rsquo;s thorn to the flag-stone; from the flag-stone to the ferny point; from the ferny point back to Waddon, to the old beech.\nAnd these are the boundaries of the woodland at Threckley which belongs thereto. First from the gate to Dudemær\u0026rsquo;s hollow; from Dudemær\u0026rsquo;s hollow to the boundary-lea; from the boundary-lea to Stone-lea; from Stone-lea to the hill-lea; from the hill-lea back again into the gate.\nThis aforesaid donation was made in the year 1052 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n† I, Edward, king of the English, have unswervingly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid donation under the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Eadsige, archbishop, have subscribed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Stigand, bishop. † I, Herman, bishop. † I, Ulf, bishop. † I, Leofric, bishop. † I, Ordric, abbot. † I, Æthelweard, abbot. † I, Ælfwine, abbot. † I, Godwine, earl. † I, Leofric, earl. † I, Harold, earl. † I, Siward, earl. † I, Ralph, earl. † I, Tosti, thegn. † I, Cyneweard, provost. † I, Regenbald, priest. † I, Rodbert, priest. † I, Cynsige, priest. † I, Æthelwig, priest. † I, Brihteh, thegn. † I, Æthelmær, thegn. † I, Eadwine, thegn. Of the Dispute concerning Leckhampstead # A dispute was then being agitated at Abingdon concerning a certain vill called Leckhampstead. For a certain rich man, named Brihtwine, declared that by Siward\u0026rsquo;s gift he had received it to hold as his hereditary right, since by the power of his lordship he disposed of what he pleased. But in this he imposed a falsehood. For in the time of King Cnut his father, named Brihtmund, had acquired that same estate from the convent of the monks of Abingdon on the express condition that it should be enjoyed for the lives of three persons (namely, himself and two others whom Brihtmund should designate); and when that term had elapsed, it should be freely restored to the hand of the monks. When he died, therefore, the secondary permission to enjoy the land passed to his wife; the third, to Brihtnod, their son. And after his death — Siward wishing to assign that land again to the use of the monks, the number of the three occupants having now run its course — the aforesaid Brihtwine, the brother of Brihtnod, came with a retinue of certain nobles to Abingdon to petition the abbot that he also might be a tenant thereof as long as he lived; the abbot was long entreated, and at length this was obtained. And when that abbot had now turned his reins elsewhere, that man set about overturning whatever had previously been agreed, asserting that a hereditary right over that land had been granted to him and to his heirs. Against which Bishop Siward, directing a letter to Earl Godwine, showed that the man had prosecuted his claim falsely, writing thus:—\nThe Reply of Bishop Siward concerning Leckhampstead # Siward, bishop, to Earl Godwine, and to Bishop Herman, and to Cyneweard, and to all the other nobles of Berkshire, greeting.\nI have heard that Brihtwine is appropriating to himself outright the land of Leckhampstead; but he does this unjustly. For, by my permission, he obtained it on this condition, that after his decease it should return freely into the hand of the monks. Which agreement was made in the presence of very many illustrious men, on the day when Brihtnod his brother, having died, was buried at Abingdon — who, third after his father (for his mother was between himself and his father), enjoyed the possession of that land, to which it had been granted by the monks of Abingdon, in King Cnut\u0026rsquo;s time, only for the span of three lives of men to be made its possessors. That these things stand no otherwise, I swear by the faith which I owe to God and to the king my lord, pledging it between us. But if anyone still disbelieves these things, I shall be ready in the truth of what I have asserted, by whatever judgement your judgement can justly determine.\nAlthough these things were put forward by the bishop\u0026rsquo;s testimony, that man nevertheless was so cunning of wit that his hold upon the land could not be shaken off until the days of Abbot Ordric (of whom we shall treat below).\nOf the Vill of Lewknor # A certain matron, Ælfgifu by name, of most noble royal blood — being, that is, a kinswoman of Edith, the queen of King Edward — held, as part of her marriage portion, a certain vill which is called Lewknor, in which she dwelt the more often. When she had run the course of this present life and was drawing near to her end, she left the vill of Lewknor to be held by her aforesaid kinswoman, whom she loved above all others, though absent — the thing that in her worldly affairs she held most dear. And when the matron had met the end of her life, the steward of her household in the vill began to exercise lordship over it as though it had been given to himself, the queen being wholly unaware that it had been given to her, since she was absent. The aforesaid steward sorely afflicted those subject to him, being in every way harsh and burdensome to them. For he plundered their goods, and hung over each one beyond measure like a greedy exactor. Among whom upon a certain Eadwine, surnamed Rainer, he inflicted many evils; and although he held all in hatred, he wearied this man with labours above the rest.\nBut Eadwine, provoked by so many evils and bearing bitterly the injury done him, resolved at last to shake the inhuman yoke of so wicked a man from his own neck and from those of his fellows. And coming to the aforesaid queen, he showed her the man\u0026rsquo;s tyranny and the heavy oppression of his people; and relating how that same vill had been given to her by her deceased kinswoman, he asked why, as for her own folk, she did not better provide for them. But the queen said that she knew not that the vill had been given to her, and asserted that up to that time no one had told her of it. And Eadwine said: \u0026ldquo;In whatever manner you shall command, I will prove both that the vill is yours and that he holds it unjustly.\u0026rdquo; Then the aforesaid steward was summoned and came to the court; and (to cut the matter short), convicted by manifest truth, he could in no wise deny that it was as Eadwine asserted. Afterwards, though unwilling, he handed over the vill to the queen; and for his offence he fell into her mercy with all his goods.\nThese things having thus been done, it happened that King Edward came with his mother and his wife to Abingdon for the sake of lodging. And when they had gone round all the offices of the brethren to see them, they found in the refectory the boy-monks — as is the custom for boys — taking food before the refection of the brethren on account of the weakness of their age. And coming nearer, and seeing that nothing but bread was set before them, the queen, being a lady of the court, asked why they ate so near to the brethren\u0026rsquo;s table and had nothing to taste besides bread. When they answered that they scarcely ever had anything else, the queen was moved to pity by the meagreness of their fare; and calling the king, who was present, she earnestly begged that he would grant the boys some income, so that thence it might be the better for them, since they had (so to speak) come to their banquet. And when the king said cheerfully that he would gladly give them somewhat, if he had at hand an estate or possession suitable for the purpose, \u0026ldquo;I,\u0026rdquo; said the queen, \u0026ldquo;have lately acquired a vill which is called Lewknor; this, if it please you, I grant to them in perpetual gift for the honour of the Blessed Mary.\u0026rdquo; And when he had replied that this was greatly pleasing to him, the vill of Lewknor was made over, under the style of the boys\u0026rsquo; morning repast, into the lordship of the abbey of Abingdon by the perpetual donation of King Edward and Queen Edith.\nWe find, moreover, that this same vill was in ancient times given to this church, when he died, by a certain most noble man of the Danes named Novitov, together with its members (that is, Hachamstead and the rest); but that afterwards, through the adversities which are wont to arise against the church, it was for a time alienated from the church\u0026rsquo;s lordship, and (as we have said before) in a succeeding age recovered again — or rather given afresh and confirmed by the king\u0026rsquo;s own mouth. Rightly, therefore, shall every objection to the former and, God willing, to the final possession cease, since the ground of the second reversion is manifest.\nOf the Death of Bishop Siward # When the reverend Bishop Siward had passed some years in the episcopate, being borne down by infirmity, he returned to Abingdon — by the counsel of those same persons by whose admonition he had been deemed unfit for the episcopal dignity — and there dying was honourably committed to burial, leaving to those who should dwell there after him a bountiful memorial of himself, since the monks have held in lordship to this day the vill of Whitley, given by him and situated on the border of the town of Wallingford. He left also the whole equipment of his chapel, in which were contained a shrine of holy relics, two books of the Gospels, not large but comely, fittingly wrought in silver and gold, a chalice of very great size and praiseworthy workmanship, an ivory comb of graceful form, an alb, an amice, a stole with maniple, and a chasuble of white colour, each of gleaming gold-woven stuff, and many other things which for the sake of brevity I pass over.\nOf the Death of Abbot Æthelstan # The lord Abbot Æthelstan, of good memory, a pre-eminent devotee of almsgiving and of piety, had died in the year preceding the passing of the lord Siward. For, that the working of such virtue might be proved in him: when so great a scarcity of famine pressed that a sextarius of corn was then sold for 5 shillings, there was no one in any region round about who relieved more zealously or more copiously than he all, both his own folk and strangers, who begged of him the alms of sustenance.\nOf Abbot Spearhafoc # Such fathers, then, having departed in peace to their rest, as we believe, the king appointed as abbot of Abingdon a certain monk of the church of Saint Edmund, king and martyr, most skilled in the goldsmith\u0026rsquo;s art, named Spearhafoc. From him Stigand, bishop of the city of Winchester — then also bearing the care of the archbishopric of Canterbury (for since the death of its governor the place remained vacant of rule) — being a cunning pleader, extorted that the land called Cyme, situated in Gloucestershire, should be commended to him for a fixed term; on condition that, as the recompense of the commendation, at the appointed time of its restitution he should unite to the church of Abingdon by perpetual gift Aston, a certain vill adjoining Lewknor. But having obtained what he sought, he neither restored the commended land nor paid the promised reward of the commendation.\nFor King William the elder, having conquered England, kept that same Stigand, committed to captivity, therein until his death. And Spearhafoc, promoted by the king to the bishopric of the city of London in the same year as the aforesaid bargain, had received by the same king\u0026rsquo;s assignment a supply of gold and choice gems for the fashioning of the imperial crown. Whereupon also, having stuffed the compartments of very many purses with the money of the bishopric, he secretly withdrew from England and was seen no more. Such ends did God\u0026rsquo;s vengeance bring upon those by whose machinations the church was diminished of its increase. And so, according to the aforesaid determination, it was thus decided concerning the manor in the presence and under the witness of King Edward.\nOf Bishop Rodulf # Thereupon the king sent a certain aged man named Rodulf to be set in the abbot\u0026rsquo;s place, who had long governed a bishopric among the people of Norway, and at length, preferring to live released from such a charge, came to the king himself, said to be his kinsman, by whom he was also received. And that the monks might receive him and treat him honourably, both for God\u0026rsquo;s sake and for his own — as being now ripe in the greatest hoariness — he granted them leave that, when he should depart, they might rather elect as his successor whomsoever of their own they would. The king was obeyed. The submission of due reverence was fittingly paid to the man by the brethren. Nor did the royal promise in any wise deceive them thereafter.\nOf Abbot Ordric # For when the aforesaid old man had died, not two full years having elapsed, Ordric — a man of middle age and gracious courtesy, a monk of the church of Abingdon — was received by them as abbot amid the great joy of all, the king giving his aid. And because he was loved not a little by the king, he obtained by his edict many things necessary for the liberty of his church. According to the form of which the other abbots, his successors after him, have to this day sought to be possessed of the investiture of that abbacy. They run in this wise:\nCharter of King Edward, in English # …(4) team, and (5) infangenetheof within borough and without borough, (6) hamsocne, and (7) grithbryce, and (8) forestall, over his own land. And I will not suffer any man to take from him any of the things which I have granted him.\nInterpretation in Latin # King Edward greets his bishops, and his abbots, and his earls and barons who are in those shires where Abbot Ordric has land; and I make known to you that I have granted to him, for the monastery of Saint Mary, (1) sake, (2) soke, (3) toll, and (4) team, and (5) infangenetheof within borough and without borough, (6) assault upon a house, and (7) breach of the peace, (8) forestalling, over his own land. And I will not allow any man to take from him any of these things which I have granted him to have.\nCharter of King Edward concerning the Hundred of Hornemere # King Edward greets Bishop Herman, and Earl Harold, and Godric, and all his thegns in Berkshire, in friendly wise. And I make known to you that Abbot Ordric and all the community of the minster of Abingdon are by my grant and gift freely to have and hold the hundred of Hornemere in their own power for ever and ever, and so that no shire-reeve or moot-reeve shall have any soke or moot there, save by the abbot\u0026rsquo;s own command and grant.\nInterpretation in Latin # King Edward greets Bishop Herman, and Earl Harold, and Godric, and all his barons of Berkshire, in friendly wise. And I make known to you that Abbot Ordric and all the congregation of the monastery of Abingdon may freely have and possess, by my grant and gift, the hundred of Hornemere in their own power for ever and ever, and so that no sheriff or reeve may have any soke or plea there without the abbot\u0026rsquo;s own command and grant.\nOf the 4 Hides of Sandford # Our Lord Jesus Christ reigning and governing all things visible and invisible. I, Edward, basileus, by the grace of God governor and ruler of the whole race of the Anglo-Saxons and of the other peoples dwelling round about, judge it worth the labour, on account of the diverse vicissitudes of this present life through the course of time, to strengthen my inexhaustible gift with indissoluble letters. For since I often recall to mind that which, according to the evangelical promises, is proclaimed as proved: \u0026ldquo;Give, and it shall be given unto you\u0026rdquo; — therefore to one of my faithful ealdormen, called by the name of Godwine, I grant in perpetuity 4 hides, there in the common land where the common folk by ancient report call it Sandford; with all things rightly pertaining thereto — fields, pastures, meadows — so that he may securely possess and well enjoy it while he lives; and leave it after him to whatsoever heir he shall choose, as is before stated, into everlasting possession. Now may the aforesaid land remain immune from all worldly services, three things nevertheless excepted: the levy, and the construction of bridge and fortress. But if anyone shall seek to interrupt aught of this our donation, either with an ancient document or with some hindrance of false subversion, may he be thrust headlong beneath the wave of the Stygian river into deepest hell, unless he prefer first to come to satisfaction here. By these boundaries the aforesaid land appears to be encompassed.\nBoundaries # These are the land-boundaries of Sandford in the common land. First from Stubbuc\u0026rsquo;s weir; then north along the Thames by half the stream into Sandford\u0026rsquo;s leat; then along the leat into Sandford; from Sandford east along the leat up to Fernige\u0026rsquo;s head; from Fernige\u0026rsquo;s head up through the marsh east into the street; and so south along the street into the boundary of Beald\u0026rsquo;s men; and so west along the boundary into the boundary of the new men; and so along the boundary to the south side of Hochill; from Hochill due west back to Stubbuc\u0026rsquo;s weir.\nThis aforesaid donation was made in the year 1050 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.\nWitnesses # † I, Edward, king of the English, have unswervingly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid donation under the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Eadsige, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have subscribed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Stigand, bishop of the church of Winchester, have confirmed the emblem of the holy Cross. † I, Ulf, bishop, have subscribed and assented. † I, Duduc, bishop, have consented. † I, Duduc, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Leofric, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Herman, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Ælfwold, bishop, have assented. † I, Ealdred, bishop, have consented. † I, Rodbert, bishop, have subscribed. † I, Æthelweard, abbot, have established. † I, Spearhafoc, abbot, have assented. † I, Wulfheard, abbot, have confirmed. † I, Godwine, earl. † I, Leofric, earl. † I, Harold, earl. † I, Sihtric, earl. † I, Ralph, earl. † I, Tosti, thegn. † I, Ælfstan, thegn. † I, Brihtric, thegn. † I, Tofi, thegn. † I, Ælfwig, provost. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Rodbert, priest. † I, Godwine, priest. † I, Regenbald, priest. † I, Lyfing, priest. † I, William, priest. † I, Brihtric, priest. † I, Cynsige, thegn. † I, Wihtsige, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. † I, Nefetofi, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Godwine, provost of the city. Of the Death of Earl Godwine # When Earl Godwine was dead, his son Harold succeeded him; at whose suggestion, Abbot Ordric obtaining it, Edward, king of the English, granted to the church of Abingdon Sandford beyond the river Thames, of 4 hides, and confirmed it by his charter. Which is thus inscribed:\n…all the patrimonies of the ages are left to uncertain heirs of posterity, and all the glory of the world, as the appointed term of death draws near, dwindles away to nothing. For the sake of this thing, therefore, exchanging earthly possessions of perishable things, let us gain, with the Lord\u0026rsquo;s help, the rewards of the heavenly fatherland which abide for ever.\nWherefore, not unmindful of fleeting power, I, Edward, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s bestowal king and chief ruler of the English and the Danes, for the reward of the heavenly prize freely grant a certain small portion of land, 4 hides in the common land, in the place which is declared by the well-known name of Sandford, to the church of the blessed Mary, mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in that little place which is called Abingdon, for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall in any wise disturb this gift of our devotion by any prompting of rashness.\nIf anyone, therefore, shall bring forward openly another little document, falsely entitled in the ink of wicked greed, against this one, may it profit neither himself nor his avarice; but may he be pierced for ever by the divine pen, and himself remain anathematised by my prohibition and that of my bishops, and cut off from the fellowship of Christians, and moreover cut off from the Body and Blood of the Lord, and after death miserably condemned to the pains of hell. And that the dwellers of the aforesaid land may always possess the inviolable strength of liberty, they are freed by royal precept from every secular yoke, the obligations of three matters alone excepted, namely the common levy, the building of the bridge and roadway, and the maintenance of the royal fortress. Now it must be told by what bounds the aforesaid land appears to be determined round about.\nBoundaries # These are the land-boundaries of Sandford in the common land. First from Stubbuc\u0026rsquo;s weir; then north along the Thames by half the stream into Sandford\u0026rsquo;s leat; then along the leat into Sandford; from Sandford east along the leat up to Fernige\u0026rsquo;s head; up through the marsh east into the street; and so south along the street into the boundary of Beald\u0026rsquo;s men; and so west along the boundary into the boundary of the new men; and so along the boundary to the south side of Hochill; from Hochill due west back to Stubbuc\u0026rsquo;s weir. This aforesaid donation was made in the year 1054 from the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.\nWitnesses # † I, Edward, king of the English, have unswervingly consented to and confirmed the aforesaid donation under the sign of the holy Cross. † I, Eadsige, archbishop of the church of Canterbury, have subscribed the same king\u0026rsquo;s gift with the seal of the holy Cross. † I, Stigand, bishop. † I, Ulf, bishop. † I, Dudoc, bishop. † I, Herman, bishop. † I, Leofric, bishop. † I, Ealdred, bishop. † I, Rodbert, bishop. † I, Leofsige, abbot. † I, Ordric, abbot. † I, Wulfweard, abbot. † I, Ælfwine, abbot. † I, Godwine, earl. † I, Leofric, earl. † I, Siward, earl. † I, Harold, earl. † I, Ralph, earl. † I, Tosti, thegn. † I, Ælfstan, thegn. † I, Brihtric, thegn. † I, Tofig, thegn. † I, Cyneweard, provost. † I, Ælfwig, provost. † I, Rodbert, priest. † I, Regenbald, priest. † I, Godwine, priest. † I, William, priest. † I, Cynsige, priest. † I, Brihtric, priest. † I, Leofwine, thegn. † I, Wihtsige, thegn. † I, Nefetofi, thegn. † I, Ælfweard, thegn. † I, Wulfstan, thegn. † I, Æthelric, thegn. King Edward Gave Leofwartun # Under the same abbot the same king added to his gift 8 hides beside the river Kennet, a portion of land which is called Leofwartun, which King Æthelred had given to his thegn Brihtric.\nCharter of King Edward # I, Edward, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s bestowal king and chief ruler of all Albion, presiding over the summit of the kingdom with a humble mind, for the reward of a greater prize, granting freely, bestow a certain small portion of land, 8 hides, beside the river which is called the Kennet, namely that land which a certain countryman named Eadric is known to have held, upon the church of the blessed Mary, mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place which is called Abingdon, freely granting it for the use of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of our successors, of higher or lower degree, shall in any wise disturb this gift of our devotion by any prompting of rashness. Now may the aforesaid land, which I with the consent of my nobles have bestowed upon the aforesaid monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, these three things excepted, namely the appointed levy and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone, instigated by a devilish spirit, shall presumptuously attempt to violate or to alter this gift, unless, being guilty, he repent with fitting satisfaction before his death, may he, cast down into the everlasting fires of the abyss, be punished in mourning eternally with Judas the betrayer of Christ.\nThis donation was made in the year of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation 1050.\nWitnesses # † I, Edward, king of the English, have consented and confirmed. † I, Stigand, bishop, have confirmed. † I, Herman, bishop, have assented. † I, Ulf, bishop, have consented. † I, Ordric, abbot, have assented. † I, Godwine, earl, with many others, have subscribed. At the same time a priest named Blacheman, surnamed the Moneyed, by permission of the abbot and monks, built a church in honour of the Apostle Andrew on an island situated to the south of the monastery; on whose sides, to right and left, he fitted in wondrous wise dwelling-chambers after the manner of monks\u0026rsquo; cells, with houses for eating, for cooking victuals, and for sleeping, and the other things necessary for men\u0026rsquo;s living, adorned within and without in every part with paintings and carvings delightful to the sight, and covered the roofs of the several buildings with sheets of lead. To which island, from the name of Andrew, the name of Andresey is fixed. When such a dwelling had been prepared there, insinuating himself privately among the monks — both by the display of gold and silver and by the profusion of a fluent tongue — he brought it to this point of profit for himself, that he was accounted the possessor of the aforesaid lands, namely Sandford, Chilton, and Leofwartun. But what profit accrued to him from the buildings erected on the island, we shall relate hereafter. Meanwhile, let us pursue the events of this time.\nBrithwin, of whom we made mention in treating of the house of bishop Siward, was possessed of the land of Leckhampstead up to this time without the monks\u0026rsquo; permission, and bore himself the more confidently because he had with him the Landboc, that is, the little book containing the description of the land. For anyone could plead more confidently about any land in whose hand such a document was held. Wherefore the abbot first contrived by a prudent stratagem that the same document should be restored to him. After this had been brought about through earl Harold, whose favour the abbot employed for the purpose, it was decreed that in an assembly of the elders, when the arguments of those disputing about the aforesaid land from either side had been weighed, it should be determined to whom the ownership of that land should more rightly belong for the future. And so, when the matter was disputed on the appointed day, the pleaders, to whom the just ordering of the right had there been delegated, having ascertained the true issue of the arguments on either side, adjudged the abbot\u0026rsquo;s cause the juster. Whereupon the land was freely restored to him and to the monks. And not long afterwards, when Hermann, the diocesan bishop of this place, dedicated the church built at that time at the entrance of the cemetery, among the other things which were then done by episcopal office, whether of admission or exclusion, he excluded from the communion of Christendom and struck with perpetual anathema all who should from that time strive in like manner to wrest the produce of the aforesaid land from the sustenance of the monks dwelling at Abingdon. Let posterity see what must be guarded against herein.\nCharter of Ten Hides at Leckhampstead. # In the name of God Most High, enthroned on high, who from the summit of heaven governs and disposes in due order all things visible and invisible, and in the course of this present life we daily behold temporal possessions and all the faculties of riches failing and decaying before our human eyes. Thus by change the frailty of mortal life withers away, the rolling round of the ages comes to nought, and grief and lamentation are poured out at the loss of dear kinsfolk and friends.\nWherefore I, Eadwig, king of the English and of the other peoples dwelling round about, to my faithful thegn, named Eadric, on account of his loving service and his pleasing fidelity, by way of free gift do grant and bestow 10 hides, in the place where the common people from ancient report call it Leckhampstead; that he may enjoy it well and possess it perpetually while he passes unscathed through the course of this fleeting age and the vital spirit cleaves to the corruptible flesh; and after him leave it for ever to whomsoever he will, as I have said before.\nLet the aforesaid land be free from every worldly hindrance, with all the things that are known rightly to pertain to that place, both in great and in small matters, in fields, pastures, meadows, and woods, excepting therefrom military service and the building of bridge and fortress.\nMoreover, for the increase of the aforesaid gift, I have given to the aforesaid thegn by perpetual donation a certain mill, beside the diverted courses of the waters at Lambourn.\nAt this time the deceivers of this world are known to have begun to cry out and to claim for themselves, usurpingly and with the ambition of iniquity, another\u0026rsquo;s gain; but the sluggish onsets of avarice I utterly forbid in the name of the Holy Trinity to all Christians, so that my gift may stand confirmed with the sign of the Holy Cross. Even if anyone should produce in public another old document, let it profit neither himself nor others, but let it be blotted out of the eternal register, and neither be written nor heard among the just.\nLastly, if anyone, against our will, should fraudulently consent to this our gift being violated, let him consider that he shall render account for it before God on the last day of Judgement, and that with the reprobate, to whom it is said, \u0026ldquo;Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire\u0026rdquo; [Matt. xxv. 41], he shall suffer cruel torments, unless he shall first have made amends by bodily lamentation.\nThis charter, therefore, together with the land, the same Eadric on his death left to the church of Abingdon; which charter, together with the land, abbot Ordric wrested from the aforesaid Brithwin.\nIt was a custom among the English that monks who wished might take possession of monies and patrimonies, and, enjoying the same, might dispose of them as they pleased. Hence also at Abingdon two men, named Leofric and Godric Cild, of whom the one, Godric, held the manor of Sparsholt, near the place which is vulgarly called the Mount of the White Horse, and the other, Leofric, that of Whitchurch, upon the river Thames, held them by right of patrimony. Of these the one, namely Sparsholt, has remained in the fee of the church to this day; but the other was possessed by Wigod, lord of the townsmen of Wallingford, the will of the aforesaid monks wavering this way and that concerning these same lands. Nor would it have fallen out otherwise with the one than with the other, had he not, after the manner of his nation, won over by over-indulgent flattery a brother not yet schooled in sterner ways, while the lord Athelhelm the abbot held the lordship of this place.\nCharter of Ten Hides at Sparsholt. # Whatever things are determined by wholesome counsel according to the decrees of the canons and the institutes of the Church, although a mere utterance without a written text would suffice, nevertheless, since in our times storms and whirlwinds of secular affairs oftentimes beat even upon the gates of the Church, we have therefore deemed it worthwhile, as a safeguard for the future, to annex to the pages of scripture the things which have been determined, lest, consigned to oblivion, they should be unknown to posterity.\nWherefore I, Edgar, relying on the royal dignity bestowed by the Lord, have granted in perpetual inheritance to my chamberlain, named Athelsige, a certain small portion of land, namely 10 hides, in the place which is called Sparsholt, and 1 hide with a quantity of 12 acres which are in the place called Bathalacing, and also one mill at Hyrdegrave, with a portion of 12 acres pertaining to the said mill. By this tenor, moreover, I have granted it in conveyance: that he shall possess it until the end of his life, with all things rightly pertaining thereto, in fields, meadows, pastures, and woods; and after him shall leave it in perpetual right to whatsoever heir he will. Let the aforesaid land be free from all royal tribute, except military service and the construction of bridge and fortress.\nIf anyone, enticed by greed, should attempt to make void or to break the ordinance of this decree, let him know that he shall render account at the dread judgement.\nThis document was written in the year 963 from the Incarnation of the Lord, with these witnesses:\n† I, Edgar, king, have confirmed. † I, Dunstan, archbishop, have confirmed. † I, Cynesige, bishop, have confirmed; with many others. Charter of Whitchurch. # The golden ages of old, as it is said, not infected with the poisoned wickednesses of men, but in pure simplicity, enmities being removed and flourishing everywhere, are known to have used no boundaries. But our age, darkened by the spiteful malice of mortals and beset with calamities of many kinds, desires, for the avoiding of lawsuits, to enjoy its own land defined by boundaries; which nevertheless must be amended by justice, governed by providence, held by temperance, and confirmed by fortitude; and in this fleeting life, eternal things must be earned by mortals with the utmost zeal.\nWherefore I, Æthelred, king of all Albion, by the governance of the will of Almighty God, do liberally grant to a certain thegn of mine who serves me faithfully, Leofric by name, a certain little support of land, namely 10 hides, to be possessed by his own right, in the village which is famously called Whitchurch by the countryfolk, situated in the province of Oxford, beside the bank of the river Thames; that he may freely possess it, gaining his wish, so long as life accompanies him, and leave it to whatever heir it shall please him. Let this land with its appurtenances be free from every burden of secular servitude, except those which are common to all, namely military service and the repair of bridge and fortress, to endure by our authority for himself and his heirs through all time.\nAnd if by chance anyone shall strive to annul this our donation (which God forbid), and impiously prefer that it be subjected to his own lordship, let him know that he shall stand guilty at the judgement of Christ, the most just Judge, unless before the last day he shall cleanse himself of the guilt of this offence.\nThis estate, moreover, belonged formerly, and even in our own days, by right of paternal inheritance to a certain possessor, Leofric by name; but he, living impiously — that is, by rebelling against my soldiers in my expedition, and by unaccustomed rapine and adulteries and many other wicked crimes — has condemned himself and his possessions alike. And therefore we will that this charter, by our power, should in every way condemn the older title-deeds, if any be found, so that they may in no wise prevail against our authority.\nThis our donation was written in the year 1012 after the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the tenth indiction, in the month of July, with these witnesses:\nWitnesses. # † I, Æthelred, king, have confirmed. † I, Æthelstan, the king\u0026rsquo;s son, have confirmed. † I, Wulfstan, archbishop, have confirmed; with many others. Now the monastery of Abingdon has the river Thames flowing past it on the southern side, by which shipping is carried hither and thither. But in the time of abbot Ordric, beyond the court of the church, which is there called Barton by the inhabitants, near a hamlet named Adtropa, the channel of that river, running in its course, presented to those who rowed through it no small difficulty. For the ground, raised much higher below than above, often made the channel itself too shallow for the water. Wherefore the citizens of the city of Oxford (for their shipping very often made its passage there) petitioned that the course of the river should be diverted through the church\u0026rsquo;s meadow, which lies open lower down to the south, on such terms that for all time thereafter they should pay to the monks\u0026rsquo; cellarer, as of custom, 100 herrings from each of their ships. And when their wish had been carried into effect, the aforesaid covenant is exacted to this day, as it was agreed.\nAbout the same time, while the night office of the day of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Nativity was being solemnly celebrated by the brethren, a certain crippled man was suddenly healed by divine power in the presence of many who were there.\nMoreover, a custom had crept in during those days — to no small detriment in the future — that anyone offering a quantity of gold or silver would receive by purchase, in the various places of the abbey, a portion of land of three or five hides, or a whole vill; cloaking this under a kind of pretence, in that the licence of possessing the same was extended only for the lives of three or two men. From which deed it came about that, when the dominion of the English was not long afterwards transferred to the Normans, each of these same places was distributed among their knights. Nor should anyone marvel at this. For after the excessive and long-continued oppression of the Danes, now that relief therefrom had at last been granted, their troubles forgotten, every man broke out into unlawful enterprises.\nOf the Death of King Edward. # While so many strange events were daily defiling the realm, the feast of the birth of Christ was at hand. At that time, in the presence of the king and his nobles at Westminster, the dedication of the church built there by the king himself in honour of the holy apostle Peter was celebrated. When lo, in the festival of that very week, while all were intent upon rejoicing, the king was seized with sickness, and on the eve of the Epiphany he closed his last day; and earl Harold, son of earl Godwine, succeeded him as king.\nOf Abbot Ordric. # Abbot Ordric also, after he had honourably governed the house committed to him, and had returned to his own from the shrine of the princes of the Apostles, whither he had gone for devotion\u0026rsquo;s sake, wasted by long sickness, drew his last day about the feast of St Vincent the martyr [22 January]. Then two were set in place: earl Harold, namely, as king of the English; and Ealdred, who had hitherto exercised the office of provost of the external affairs of Abingdon, as abbot of the monks there.\nMoreover, at the next feast of Easter [16 April], an unusual star, which they call a comet, appeared for the space of one week, presaging that something very great and unexpected would come to pass. Nor did the expectation prove false. For as the month of September was coming in, the king of Norway, called by the same name as the king of England, namely Harold, landed in England, reckoning it a gain to claim the kingdom there for himself, earl Tosti, the brother of our king Harold, giving him support. The king of the English met them beyond the city of York, and destroyed them both in battle, together with their auxiliaries.\nScarcely was the end of this victory accomplished when lo, he learns from a messenger that William, count of Normandy, threatens him at Hastings, and is ready to bring war upon him unless he sooner yields the kingdom; William alleging that he had a better right than he to reign in England, since King Edward, lately deceased, had left him the kingdom on account of the line of kinship, and that under his own attestation and grant. Harold, making light of the message and trusting too much in his own strength, attacked the count with less prudence than was fitting, and found him to be superior whom in his foolish daring he had deemed inferior; and so, falling in battle, both he and all his companions perished with him.\nWhen William had obtained the crown of England, while some promised him the fidelity of subjection, others, judging it more prudent, withdrew to seek for themselves abodes abroad in other kingdoms, abbot Ealdred, acquiescing in the judgement of the majority, paid his oaths of fidelity to the king. But while many of this latter sort were departing, then also the mother of the slain king, taking with her in her train the priest Blacheman, together with very many others, left England. This priest, as we have mentioned in the chronicle of abbot Ordric, having become the church\u0026rsquo;s man, had held of it Sandford, Childestun, and Leowardestun. But when he departed from England, as I have said, whatever had been his was brought into the king\u0026rsquo;s hand, as that of a fugitive. Wherefore the abbot with great labour obtained from the king the restoration of the aforesaid lands.\nAs the abbot himself had set forth his claim to these lands, so he would perhaps also have set forth concerning the rest which at that time had passed from the lordship of the church into the right of another, had he not, to his own and the church\u0026rsquo;s misfortune, incurred the king\u0026rsquo;s displeasure; of which we shall inform you hereafter. For a certain rich man, Turkill by name, under the witness and by the counsel of earl Harold, did homage for himself, with his land which is called Kingston, to the church of Abingdon and to abbot Ordric; for it was lawful for any free man at that time so to do, so that the lordship of the aforesaid vill should depend upon the perpetual right of this church. When he had fallen in the aforesaid battle, Henry de Ferrers usurped to himself the land, the investiture of whose lordship the church had held in hand long before the battle took place, the abbot being too feeble to resist. In like manner also was it done concerning the land which is called Fyfield. For a certain sheriff named Godric had received the same land to hold from the church on such terms that it should be possessed by hereditary right for the life of three men; yet whatever offence should chance to the possessors, the church should incur no loss thereby. And so, when he too was slain in battle together with the aforesaid man, the same Henry de Ferrers added this vill, with the other, to his own lordship.\nNor were troubles of this kind brought upon us in those days only from without, but losses of the church\u0026rsquo;s ornaments came even within the sanctuary itself. For by the queen\u0026rsquo;s command it was ordered that the more precious of them should be carried to her. When the abbot, consulting with the brethren, asked what should be done in this matter, they decided to send to the queen some of the choicer ornaments; which, when they were presented to her, she rejected, and demanded richer ones. Whereupon they — on whom the strange dread of new rulers pressed on every side — brought forth into the open, at the will of the imperious lady, what they ought to have guarded more carefully: namely a chasuble wonderfully embroidered throughout with gold thread, together with a choral cope of the very finest quality, an alb also with a stole, and a text of the Gospels, each adorned with gold and gems in praiseworthy workmanship.\nOf the Imprisonment of Abbot Ealdred. # Meanwhile many commotions began to be contrived in the English realm, plotted by those for whom it was now necessary to endure the dominion of foreigners, though hitherto unaccustomed to it. Some of them hid themselves in the woods, others in island places, living by plunder after the manner of pirates, and butchering whomsoever they met; others enticed the Danish people to attack England. When these had come to England at their wish, they merely drove off plunder, consumed certain places with fire, and subjected certain men to captivity. But being able neither to join battle at close quarters nor to conquer the kingdom, they returned to their own country with their business unaccomplished.\nAmid such attempts, when men of diverse order and dignity had joined themselves together, then also the bishop of Durham, Ægelwin by name, was found among those who had been taken captive, and being sent to Abingdon, there dragged out his days in captivity until his death. But the men of the abbey of Abingdon also, when they ought to have favoured the party of King William, being changed in mind and purpose, directed their steps under arms to the place where they had learnt that the king\u0026rsquo;s own enemies had halted. Surrounded on the way and taken captive, they were thrown into prison, and were miserably enough afflicted. The king\u0026rsquo;s enmity was extended also against their lord, that is, abbot Ealdred, who was also called Brithwin (for he had two names), so that without delay, by the king\u0026rsquo;s command, he was placed in captivity at the castle of Wallingford. After some time, however, he was brought out of the aforesaid place and committed to be kept in the hands of Walkelin, bishop of Winchester, with whom he remained as long as he lived.\nAt that season, by reason of the lately changed state of the realm, since the precious belongings of very many men had been deposited in the monastery of Abingdon, lest they should be carried off at home by plunderers and perish without a protector, this was made known to the officials of the court through the information of informers, and men were sent thither accordingly, and whatever of this kind was found was taken away. Moreover, the more precious things that could be found within the precincts of the monks — a store of gold and silver, of vestments, books, and vessels of divers kinds, reckoned to the use and honour of the church — many were carried off without distinction. No reverence was shown in prospect for the sacred thresholds, no compassion for the desolate brethren. Outside, through the villages, devastation was spread abroad everywhere, without regard to any man. And so neither the recounting nor the reckoning of the things lost by the abbey in that time is easy to tell. In carrying out of which work, Froger, then sheriff of Berkshire, bore himself foremost. But afterwards the vengeance of God, who orders all things, restrained the immoderate progress of that powerful man over the downcast, so that both the tyrannical licence by which he was borne aloft was taken from him by royal justice, and he was made, for as long as he lived, an object of contempt to all men in poverty and folly; in these miseries offering an open warning to his successors, that a place dedicated to the protection of the Queen of heaven, and consecrated moreover by the memory of the holy men who both founded and inhabited it, ought rather to be reverenced than despoiled.\nThus far, with God\u0026rsquo;s help, as well as we could, we have recorded in these two preceding books the lands and possessions which the ancient kings and queens, and likewise their men, both in the time of the English and of the Danes, gave in pure and perpetual alms to God and the Blessed Mary, and to this house of Abingdon, and to the monks serving God there for ever, and firmly confirmed by their charters. Moreover, we have carefully placed in their fitting places the several charters of the kings who reigned in succession, and also the benefactions of all others who conferred their gifts upon this house. But if any mortal should marvel at the aforesaid lands and possessions — now given, now taken away, and now possessed, and again recovered — let him read the books in order, and he will find nothing contradictory therein which should justly lead his mind into doubt.\nHere ends the Second Book. # Here begins the Third Book. # Also the same king, under the same abbot, granted to this church a portion of land of 5 hides at Chilton, which portion King Æthelred, the father of this King Edward, had given to Beorhtwald, bishop of Wilton.\nCharter of King Edward concerning Chilton. # The Scripture of sacred authority confirms us, saying, \u0026ldquo;Naked came I out of my mother\u0026rsquo;s womb, and naked shall I return thither\u0026rdquo;; and again, \u0026ldquo;We brought nothing into this world, and neither can we carry anything out of it\u0026rdquo; [Job i. 21].\nWherefore, not unmindful of slippery power, I, Edward, by Christ\u0026rsquo;s grant king and chief of all Albion, presiding over the summit of the realm with humble mind, for the reward of a greater recompense do willingly grant a smallish parcel of land, amounting to 5 hides, the name of which is declared with sure warranty to be Chilton, to the church of the Blessed Mary, mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the place which is called Abingdon, for the uses of the brethren serving God there; beseeching and commanding in the name of Christ that none of my successors, of higher or lower degree, should by any instigation of rashness break this gift of our devotion.\nLet the aforesaid land, which I with the consent of my nobles have bestowed upon this private monastery, be free from every yoke of earthly servitude, these three excepted, namely fixed military service and the restoration of bridge and fortress.\nBut if anyone, driven by a hellish spirit, should presumptuously attempt to violate or change this gift, unless, being guilty, he repent with fitting satisfaction before his death, let him be punished, cast down mournfully into the everlasting fires of the abyss, with Judas the betrayer of Christ, for ever.\nThis aforesaid donation was made in the year 1052 from the Incarnation of the Lord, with those witnesses whose names are named in the charter above.\nHaving now, therefore, to the best of our powers and the measure of our knowledge, sufficiently treated in the two aforesaid volumes of the benefactions bestowed upon this most sacred house by the ancient kings of the English and likewise by their men, and firmly confirmed by their charters, it now remains for us to make known — as succinctly as we can, with God\u0026rsquo;s help, to those present and to come who desire to know these same things — the liberties and benefactions freely given and gratefully received by this most sacred house of Abingdon from each of the kings succeeding in order after the coming of the Normans into England.\nOf the Death of King Edward. # Therefore, when Edward, king of the English, in the year 1065 of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s Incarnation had been translated to the heavenly realms, and when his successor Harold had been overthrown in battle on the day before the ides of October [14 October] by William, duke of the Normans, William, duke of Normandy, was honourably crowned by Aldred, archbishop of York, on the day of the Lord\u0026rsquo;s birth, at Westminster; first, however, as the archbishop himself required of him, promising on oath before the altar of St Peter, in the presence of the clergy and people, that he would defend the holy churches of God and their rulers, and moreover govern all the people subject to him with justice and royal providence, establish and keep right law, and utterly forbid rapine and unjust judgements.\nAll these things he vowed to God, but he kept none of them. For he deposed all the bishops of England except Aldred, archbishop of York, and Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester; all the abbots also, whom no evident cause condemned either by councils or by the laws of the world, he deprived of their honours. Almost all the nobles of the English, taking a provision of money with them, flew off to foreign realms; and their lands were soon confiscated to the royal treasury. One of them, the priest Blacheman, of whom we made mention in the chronicle of abbot Ordric, learning that the rule of the realm had changed, and impatient of delay, departed from England. But abbot Ealdred, purposing to acknowledge there the lord who had newly gained the kingdom, and to report what had befallen the aforesaid priest and what he had held of the church, approached the king\u0026rsquo;s court, and was graciously received by him. Moreover, he set forth the priest\u0026rsquo;s business to such effect that, except the portion of the isle of Andresey, the rest were promised to the right of the church. For that place remained properly a royal retreat until the times of abbot Faritius. When these matters had thus been accomplished, the abbot, secure in his own affairs, settled back at home.\nAs the abbot himself had set forth his claim to these lands, so he would perhaps also have set forth concerning the rest which at that time had passed from the lordship of the church into the right of another, had he not, to his own and the church\u0026rsquo;s misfortune, incurred the king\u0026rsquo;s displeasure; of which we shall inform you hereafter. For a certain rich man, Turkill by name, under the witness and by the counsel of earl Harold, did homage for himself, with his land which is called Kingston, to the church of Abingdon and to abbot Ordric; for it was lawful for any free man at that time so to do, so that the lordship of the aforesaid vill should depend upon the perpetual right of this church. When he had fallen in the aforesaid battle, Henry de Ferrers usurped to himself the land, the investiture of whose lordship the church had held in hand long before the battle took place, the abbot being too feeble to resist. In like manner also was it done concerning the land which is called Fyfield. For a certain sheriff named Godric had received the same land to hold from the church on such terms that it should be possessed by hereditary right for the life of three men; yet whatever offence should chance to the possessors, the church should incur no loss thereby. And so, when he too was slain in battle together with the aforesaid man, the same Henry de Ferrers added this vill, with the other, to his own lordship.\nNor were troubles of this kind brought upon us in those days only from without, but losses of the church\u0026rsquo;s ornaments came even within the sanctuary itself. For by the queen\u0026rsquo;s command it was ordered that the more precious of them should be carried to her. When the abbot, consulting with the brethren, asked what should be done in this matter, they decided to send to the queen some of the choicer ornaments; which, when they were presented to her, she rejected, and demanded richer ones. Whereupon they — on whom the strange dread of new rulers pressed on every side — brought forth into the open, at the will of the imperious lady, what they ought to have guarded more carefully: namely a chasuble wonderfully embroidered throughout with gold thread, together with a choral cope of the very finest quality, an alb also with a stole, and a text of the Gospels, each adorned with gold and gems in praiseworthy workmanship.\nOf the Mill of Cuddesdon. # At the vill of Cuddesdon, adjoining the lands belonging to the bishopric of Lincoln, a dispute having arisen concerning the dam of a certain mill adjacent to Cuddesdon itself — the men of the bishopric wishing the dam to be destroyed, but those of the abbey unwilling — Peter, then appointed to look after the bishopric, its bishop being now dead, a chaplain of the king, namely afterwards bishop of Chester, supported by a multitude of armed men, and abbot Ealdred, accompanied by a company of laymen and devoted monks, bearing with him the relics of St Vincent the martyr, came together at the very spot, each upon his own portion of ground beyond and on this side of the mill, to take their stand for the debate. For such was the situation of the place. Now certain of the former party sat mounted on horses, chattering, while all of the latter stood with their feet upon the ground, having much confidence in the saint whose holy pledges were there present. O the confidence inspired by God and His saints — how ready a help it is to those who trust in Him!\nFor when, by the examination of the arbiters there present, the matter proceeded so far that the abbot should swear with his own lips upon the relics which he had brought that his party stood the more rightly, he knelt down and stretched forth his right hand on high. When lo, on the side of the opponents the firm earth began to be shaken, the hard ground to soften, so that the horses\u0026rsquo; hooves became entangled in the very softness. A very violent whirlwind also tore the spears from the hands of those who held them, hurled them into the air, and, dashing them one against another by the force of the tempest, broke them — a wondrous sight. Wherefore they, now stupefied and despairing of their lives, cried out and vowed never again to utter a word concerning the cause for which they had entered the conflict, praying only that by the mercy of the saint there present they might be permitted to return thence in safety to their own homes, and that it would be the act of a madman whose daring should impel him to repeat the same. Thus the righteousness of the church\u0026rsquo;s cause, made openly known by the martyr St Vincent, caused the worship of his veneration to be held thenceforth in greater renown at the monastery of Abingdon.\nOf the Imprisonment of Abbot Ealdred. # Not long after this, many commotions began to be contrived in the English realm, plotted by those for whom it was now necessary to endure the dominion of foreigners, though hitherto unaccustomed to it. Some of them hid themselves in the woods, others in island places, living by plunder after the manner of pirates, and butchering whomsoever they met; others enticed the Danish people to attack England, if, when they came, they could gain the kingdom, only a feeble hand opposing them. When these had come to England at their wish, they merely drove off plunder, consumed certain places with fire, and subjected certain men to captivity. But being able neither to join battle at close quarters nor to claim the kingdom — which they had reckoned easy — they scarcely returned to their own country with their business unaccomplished, to the very great loss of their men.\nAmid such attempts, when men of diverse order and dignity had joined themselves together, then also the bishop of Durham, Ægelwin by name, was found among those who had been taken captive, and being sent to Abingdon, there dragged out his days in captivity until his death. But the men of the abbey of Abingdon also, when they ought to have favoured the party of King William (as one to whom fealty had already been sworn to be kept throughout all the regions of England), being changed in mind and purpose, directed their steps under arms to the place where they had learnt that the king\u0026rsquo;s own enemies had halted. Surrounded on the way and taken captive, they were thrown into prison, and were miserably enough afflicted. By which misfortune it came about that abbot Ealdred, also called Brithwin (for he had two names), not long afterwards, being stripped of pastoral power, was ordered to be conveyed to the city of Winchester, and there was delivered into custody for as long as he drew the breath of life.\nAt that season, by reason of the lately changed state of the realm, since the precious belongings of very many men had been deposited in the monastery of Abingdon, lest they should be carried off at home by plunderers and perish without a protector, this was made known to the officials of the court through the information of informers, and men were sent thither accordingly, and whatever of this kind was found was taken away. Moreover, the more precious things that could be found within the precincts of the monks, reckoned even to the use and honour of the church, many were carried off without distinction. Outside, through the villages, devastation was spread abroad everywhere, without regard to any man. And so neither the recounting nor the reckoning of the things lost by the abbey in that time is easy to tell. In carrying out of which work, Froger, then sheriff of Berkshire, bore himself foremost. But afterwards the vengeance of God, who orders all things, restrained the immoderate progress of that powerful man over the downcast, so that both the tyrannical licence by which he was borne aloft was taken from him by royal justice, and he was made, for as long as he lived, an object of contempt to all men in poverty and folly; in these miseries offering an open warning to his successors, that a place dedicated to the protection of the Queen of heaven, and consecrated moreover by the memory of the holy men who both founded and inhabited it, ought rather to be reverenced than despoiled.\nBut, as has been said before, when the lord abbot Ealdred was held in captivity, by command of King William, Athelhelm was sent to be set over them in the abbot\u0026rsquo;s place, a monk indeed of the monastery of Jumièges, which is situated in Normandy, concerning whom also he sent letters to the primates of the realm of England in this manner:\nEND OF VOLUME ONE.\n","date":"1 January 1170","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/abingdon-monk/the-chronicle-of-the-monastery-of-abingdon-volume-one/","section":"Writings","summary":"","title":"The Chronicle of the Monastery of Abingdon - Volume One","type":"writings"},{"content":"\nYour browser does not support the audio element. “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans” (sometimes simply shortened to “To the Romans”) is one of 7 authentic epistles by St. Ignatius of Antioch. The other authentic epistles of Ignatius consist of 6 other epistles to churches and 1 to his friend, St. Polycarp.\nThis epistle addressed to the church in Rome was written while Ignatius was in Smyrna, while on his way to face martyrdom in Rome.\nUnlike the other epistles of Ignatius, this one is written to a community he has not met personally or through representatives. Ignatius includes the day and month he wrote the letter, perhaps to help prepare them for his arrival.\nProbably anticipating his coming death, Ignatius shares his views on martyrdom in this epistle more than any other; even using Eucharistic imagery when describing it.\nDate: 23rd August, around 110 AD.\nGreeting # Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the country of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name; which church I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, I wish an abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.\nChapter 1: As a Prisoner, I Hope to See You # Through prayer to God I have obtained the privilege of seeing your most worthy faces, and have even been granted more than I requested.\nFor I hope as a prisoner in Christ Jesus to salute you, if indeed it be the will of God that I be thought worthy of attaining unto the end. For the beginning has been well ordered, if I may obtain grace to cling to my lot without hindrance unto the end.\nFor I am afraid of your love, lest it should do me an injury. For it is easy for you to accomplish what you please; but it is difficult for me to attain to God if you spare me, but it is difficult for me to attain to God if you do not spare me, under the pretense of carnal affection.\nChapter 2: Do Not Save Me From Martyrdom # For it is not my desire to act towards you as a man-pleaser, but as pleasing God, even as also you please Him. For neither shall I ever have such another opportunity of attaining to God; nor will you, if you shall now be silent, ever be entitled to the honour of a better work.\nFor if you are silent concerning me, I shall become God’s; but if you show your love to my flesh, I shall again have to run my race.\nPray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared; that, being gathered together in love, you may sing praise to the Father, through Christ Jesus, that God has deemed me, the bishop of Syria, worthy to be found in the West, having summoned him from the East. It is good to set from the world unto God, that I may rise unto Him.\nChapter 3: Pray Rather That I May Attain to Martyrdom # You never grudged any one; you were the instructors of others. And my desire is that those lessons shall hold good which as teachers you enjoin.\nOnly pray that I may have power within and without, that I may not only speak, but truly will, so that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really found to be one. For if I be truly found a Christian, I may also be called one, and be then deemed faithful, when I shall no longer appear to the world.\nNothing visible is eternal. “For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” The Christian is not the result of persuasion, but of power. When he is hated by the world, he is beloved of God. For says the Scripture, “If you were of this world, the world would love its own; but now you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it: continue in fellowship with me.”\nChapter 4: Allow Me to Fall Prey to the Wild Beasts # I write to all the churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless you hinder me. I beseech you not to show an unseasonable goodwill towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God.\nI am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep in death, I may not be found troublesome to anyone. Then shall I be a true disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat the Lord for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice to God.\nI do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ, but I am the very least of believers: they were free, as the servants of God; while I am, even now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freedman of Jesus Christ, and shall rise again free in Him. And now, being in bonds for Him, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain.\nThis epistle was translated into English by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson toward the end of the 19th century. However, within some lines, the J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer’s translation (completed around the same time) has been swapped in when the other translation proved somewhat ambiguous. A few parts have also been updated into modern English.\nChapter 5: I Desire to Die # From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves all the worse.\nBut I am the more instructed by their injuries to act as a disciple of Christ; “yet am I not thereby justified.”\nMay I enjoy the wild beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray that they may be found eager to rush upon me, which also I will entice to devour me speedily, not as they have done to some, refusing to touch them through fear. But if they be unwilling to assail me, I will compel them to do so.\nPardon me in this, for I know what is my benefit. Now I begin to be a disciple. And let no one, of things visible or invisible, envy me that I should attain to Jesus Christ. Let fire and the cross; let the crowds of wild beasts; let tearings, breakings, and dislocations of bones; let cutting off of members; let shatterings of the whole body, and let all the dreadful torments of the devil come upon me: only let me attain to Jesus Christ.\nChapter 6: By Death I Shall Attain True Life # All the pleasures of the world, and all the kingdoms of this earth, shall profit me nothing. It is better for me to die on behalf of Jesus Christ, than to reign over all the ends of the earth. “For what shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?” Him I seek, who died for us: Him I desire, who rose again for our sake. This is the gain that is laid up for me.\nBear with me, brethren. Do not hinder me from living; do not desire my death. Do not bestow on the world one who desires to be God’s, neither allure him with material things. Suffer me to receive the pure light. When I have gone, then shall I be a man. Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God. If any man has Him within himself, let him understand what I desire, and let him have fellow-feeling with me, for he knows the things which hinder me.\nChapter 7: Reason for Desiring to Die # The prince of this world would gladly carry me away and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are in Rome help him; rather be on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ and yet set your desires on the world.\nDon’t let envy have a home in you. Even if I myself, when I am with you, should beseech you, don’t obey me! Rather, believe the things which I write to you now. For though I am alive while I write to you, I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that lives and speaks, saying to me inwardly, “come to the Father.”\nI have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterward of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.\nChapter 8: Be Favourable to Me # I no longer wish to live after the manner of men, and my desire shall be fulfilled if you consent. Be willing, then, that you also may have your desires fulfilled.\nI entreat you in this brief letter; believe me. And Jesus Christ will reveal these things to you, so that you shall know that I speak the truth. He is the mouth altogether free from falsehood, by which the Father has truly spoken.\nPray for me, that I may attain the object of my desire. I have not written to you according to the flesh, but according to the will of God. If I shall suffer, you have wished well for me; but if I am rejected, you have hated me.\nChapter 9: Pray for the Church in Syria # Remember in your prayers the church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it.\nBut as for me, I am ashamed to be counted one of them; for indeed I am not worthy, as being the very last of them, and one born out of due time. But I have obtained mercy to be somebody if I shall attain to God.\nMy spirit salutes you, and the love of the churches which received me in the name of Jesus Christ and not as a mere passer-by. For even those churches which were not near to me en route (I mean according to the flesh) have gone before me, city by city, to meet me.\nChapter 10: Conclusion # Now I write these things to you from Smyrna by the hand of the Ephesians, who are worthy of all happiness. And Crocus also, a name very dear to me, is with me, with many others too.\nAs to those who have gone before me from Syria to Rome for the glory of God, I believe that you have received instructions; to whom make known that I am near. For they are all worthy, both of God and of you. And it is becoming that you should refresh them in all things.\nI have written these things unto you, on the day before the ninth of the Kalends of September (that is, on the twenty-third day of August). Fare you well unto the end in the patient waiting for Jesus Christ. Amen.\n","date":"23 August 0110","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/ignatius-of-antioch/epistle-to-the-romans/","section":"Writings","summary":"","title":"Epistle to the Romans","type":"writings"},{"content":"Born in the Province of Syria of the Roman Empire (modern-day Turkey/Syria) in the early 1st century, Ignatius is said to have converted to Christianity at a young age. Alongside St. Polycarp, he is identified as an Apostolic Father and a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Later in his life, Ignatius was appointed as Bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius (who, in turn, had succeeded St. Peter.) Little is known about Ignatius other than what is revealed to us in his 7 authentic epistles that he wrote on his way to martyrdom in Rome. Writing to 6 churches, Ignatius (who called himself “Theophorus”—God bearer) also wrote to St. Polycarp during this journey. His letters, while inspiring, also reveal what the earliest Christians believed and hence have great historical value. The date of his martyrdom in Rome is debated, however most historians agree it occurred around 110 AD. According to St. John Chrysostom, it occurred specifically in the Roman Colosseum.\n","date":"23 August 0110","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ignatius-of-antioch/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ignatius of Antioch","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"\nYour browser does not support the audio element. “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians” (sometimes simply shortened to “Magnesians”) is one of 7 authentic epistles by St. Ignatius of Antioch. The other authentic epistles of Ignatius consist of 6 other epistles to churches and 1 to his friend, St. Polycarp.\nThis epistle, like the others, was written soon before Ignatius’ eventual martyrdom in Rome.\nDamas, the bishop of Magnesia, met with Ignatius in nearby Smyrna. Ignatius, in turn, wrote this thankful letter and entrusted it to Damas, his priests, and the Magnesian church.\nThe letter instructs Christians to celebrate the Lord’s Day each Sunday as opposed to the Jewish Sabbath on Saturdays. It also generally condemns the notion that Christians must live according to the Jewish law.\nIgnatius exhorts the Magnesian faithful to submit to the presbytery and to Bishop Damas, even though Damas is young.\nDate: around 110 AD.\nGreeting # Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the blessed in the grace of God the Father, in Jesus Christ our Saviour, in whom I salute the church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander, and wish it an abundance of happiness in God the father, and in Jesus Christ.\nChapter 1: Reason for Writing the Epistle # Having been informed of your godly love, so well-ordered, I rejoiced greatly, and determined to commune with you in the faith of Jesus Christ.\nFor being counted worthy to bear a most godly name, in these bonds which I carry about, I commend the churches, and I pray that there may be in them union of the flesh and of the spirit which are Jesus Christ’s, our constant source of life—a union of faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. And, what is more than all, a union with Jesus and the Father, in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God.\nChapter 2: I Rejoice in Your Messengers # Since then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ.\nChapter 3: Honour Your Youthful Bishop # Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance of their bishop, but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all.\nIt is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey your bishop, in honour of Him who has wired us to do, since he that does not, deceives not the bishop that is visible, but mocks Him who is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.\nChapter 4: Some Wickedly Act Independently of the Bishop # It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him.\nNow such persons seem to me not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not steadfastly gathered together according to the commandment.\nThis epistle was translated into English by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson toward the end of the 19th century. However, within some lines, the J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer’s translation (completed around the same time) has been swapped in when the other translation proved somewhat ambiguous. A few parts have also been updated into modern English.\nChapter 5: Death Is the Fate of All Such # Seeing then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us—death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place.\nFor as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it, so is it also here.\nThe unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us.\nChapter 6: Preserve Harmony # Since therefore I have, in the persons mentioned before, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I advise you to be zealous in doing all things in godly concord, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed.\nDo you all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but continually love each other in Jesus Christ.\nLet nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.\nChapter 7: Do Nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters # As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters.\nAnd don’t attempt to think anything right for yourselves apart from others: but let there be one prayer in common, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy unblameable, which is Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent.\nHasten to come together all of you, as to one temple, even God; as to one altar, even to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from One Father and is with One and departed unto One.\nChapter 8: Caution against False Doctrines # Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace.\nFor the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. For this cause also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to the end that they which are disobedient might be fully persuaded that there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word that proceeded from silence, who in all things was well-pleasing unto Him that sent Him.\nChapter 9: Let Us Live with Christ # If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny—a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher—if this be so, how shall we be able to live apart from Him? Seeing that even the prophets, being His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher through the Spirit. And for this cause He whom they rightly awaited, when He came, raised them from the dead.\nChapter 10: Beware of Judaizing # Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be.\nTherefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God.\nLay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted in Him, unless anyone among you should be corrupted, since by your taste you shall be proved.\nIt is absurd to profess Christ Jesus and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.\nChapter 11: I Write These Things to Warn You # These things I address to you, my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that you fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you attain to full assurance in regard to the birth, and passion, and resurrection which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, who is our hope, from which may no one of you ever be turned aside.\nChapter 12: You Are Superior to Me # May I enjoy you in all respects, if indeed I be worthy! For though I am bound, I am not worthy to be compared to any of you that are at liberty.\nI know that you are not puffed up, for you have Jesus Christ in yourselves. And all the more when I commend you, I know that you only feel the more shame; as it is written, “The righteous man is his own accuser.”\nChapter 13: Be Established in Faith and Unity # Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatever you do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God.\nBe subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both of flesh and of spirit.\nChapter 14: Your Prayers Requested # Knowing as I do that you are full of God, I have but briefly exhorted you.\nBe mindful of me in your prayers, that I may attain to God; and remember also the church which is in Syria, whereof I am not worthy to be called a member. For I stand in need of your united prayer in God, and your love, that the church which is in Syria may be deemed worthy of being refreshed by your church.\nChapter 15: Salutations # The Ephesians from Smyrna salute you, from whence I also write to you. They are here with me for the glory of God, as you also are, and they have comforted me in all things, together with Polycarp, bishop of the Smyrnaeans.\nThe rest of the churches, in honour of Jesus Christ, also salute you.\nFare you well in the harmony of God, you who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.\n","date":"1 January 0110","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/ignatius-of-antioch/epistle-to-the-magnesians/","section":"Writings","summary":"","title":"Epistle to the Magnesians","type":"writings"},{"content":"\nYour browser does not support the audio element. “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans” (sometimes simply shortened to “Smyrnaeans”) is one of 7 authentic epistles by St. Ignatius of Antioch. The other authentic epistles of Ignatius consist of 6 other epistles to churches and 1 to his friend, St. Polycarp.\nThis epistle, like the others, was written soon before Ignatius’ martyrdom in Rome and refutes an early heresy called docetism.\nDocetism taught that Jesus’ human form was an illusion and thus that he only seemed to have a body, but not in reality. Hence Ignatius discusses the incarnation of Christ in this epistle using clear and Eucharistic language.\nThis epistle contains also the first known usage of the term “catholic Church”.\nDate: around 110 AD.\nGreeting # Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ, which has through mercy obtained every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness: the church which is at Smyrna, in Asia, wishes abundance of happiness, through the immaculate Spirit and word of God.\nChapter 1: Thanks to God for Your Faith # I glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed to the cross for us in His flesh.\nOf this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful followers, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.\nChapter 2: Christ’s True Passion # Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be Christians. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.\nChapter 3: Christ Was Possessed of a Body After His Resurrection # For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit.\nFor this cause also they despised death and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection, He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.\nChapter 4: Beware of These Heretics # I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions as I do. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of effecting this.\nBut if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, in fact, he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.\nThis epistle was translated into English by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson toward the end of the 19th century and has, in a few minor places, been updated to more modern English.\nChapter 5: Their Dangerous Errors # Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was truly possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.\nI have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection.\nChapter 6: Unbelievers in the Blood of Christ Shall Be Condemned # Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”\nLet not a high place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, orphan, or oppressed, or of the bond or free, or of the hungry or thirsty.\nChapter 7: Let Us Stand Aloof From Such Heretics # They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.\nThose, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion of Christ has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.\nChapter 8: Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop # See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.\nLet no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.\nIt is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.\nChapter 9: Honour the Bishop # Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness of conduct, and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does in reality serve the devil.\nLet all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ shall refresh you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.\nChapter 10: Acknowledgment of Their Kindness # You have done well in receiving Philo and Rheus Agathopus as servants of Christ our God, who have followed me for the sake of God, and who give thanks to the Lord in your behalf, because you have in every way refreshed them.\nNone of these things shall be lost to you. May my spirit be for you, and my bonds, which you have not despised or been ashamed of; nor shall Jesus Christ, our perfect hope, be ashamed of you.\nChapter 11: Request to Them to Send a Messenger to Antioch # Your prayer has reached to the church which is at Antioch in Syria. Coming from that place bound with chains, most acceptable to God, I salute all; I who am not worthy to be styled from thence, inasmuch as I am the least of them.\nNevertheless, according to the will of God, I have been thought worthy of this honour, not that I have any sense of having deserved it, but by the grace of God, which I wish may be perfectly given to me, that through your prayers I may attain to God.\nIn order, therefore, that your work may be complete both on earth and in heaven, it is fitting that, for the honour of God, your church should elect some worthy delegate; so that he, journeying into Syria, may congratulate them that they are now at peace, and are restored to their proper greatness, and that their proper constitution has been re-established among them.\nIt seems then to me a becoming thing, that you should send someone of your number with an epistle, so that, in company with them, he may rejoice over the tranquility which, according to the will of God, they have obtained, and because that, through your prayers, they have now reached the harbour.\nAs persons who are perfect, you should also aim at those things which are perfect. For when you are desirous to do well, God is also ready to assist you.\nChapter 12: Salutations # The love of the brethren at Troas salutes you; whence also I write to you by Burrhus, whom you sent with me, together with the Ephesians, your brethren, and who has in all things refreshed me. And I would that all may imitate him, as being a pattern of a minister of God. Grace will reward him in all things.\nI salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually, as well as generally, in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual, in union with God and you. Grace, mercy, peace, and patience, be with you forevermore!\nChapter 13: Conclusion # I salute the families of my brethren, with their wives and children, and the virgins who are called widows. Be strong, I pray, in the power of the Holy Ghost.\nPhilo, who is with me, greets you. I salute the house of Tavias, and pray that it may be confirmed in faith and love, both corporeal and spiritual. I salute Alce, my well-beloved, and the incomparable Daphnus, and Eutecnus, and all by name. Fare you well in the grace of God.\n","date":"1 January 0110","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/ignatius-of-antioch/epistle-to-the-smyrnaeans/","section":"Writings","summary":"","title":"Epistle to the Smyrnaeans","type":"writings"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/adomnan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Adomnán","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/adomnans-angel/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Adomnán's Angel","type":"Angel"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/adrian-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Adrian Hagiographer","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/adrian-of-antioch/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Adrian of Antioch","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/%C3%A6bbe-of-coldingham/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Æbbe of Coldingham","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/%C3%A6lfric-of-eynsham/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ælfric of Eynsham","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/aelred-of-rievaulx/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Aelred of Rievaulx","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/aghaboe-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Aghaboe Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/agnes-of-rome/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Agnes of Rome","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/agrippa-castor/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Agrippa Castor","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ailbe-of-emly/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ailbe of Emly","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ailbe-ua-mail-mhuaidh/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ailbe Ua Maíl Mhuaidh","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/aileran-the-wise/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ailerán the Wise","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/alcuin-of-york/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Alcuin of York","type":"Deacon"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/aleth-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Aleth Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/alexander-of-alexandria/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Alexander of Alexandria","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/alexander-of-jerusalem/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Alexander of Jerusalem","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/alexander-of-lycopolis/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Alexander of Lycopolis","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ambrose/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ambrose","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ammonius-of-alexandria/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ammonius of Alexandria","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/amphilochius-of-iconium/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Amphilochius of Iconium","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/anania-of-shirak/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Anania of Shirak","type":"Philosopher"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/anastasius-of-sinai/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Anastasius of Sinai","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/anatolius-of-laodicea/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Anatolius of Laodicea","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/andreas-of-caesarea/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Andreas of Caesarea","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/andrew-of-crete/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Andrew of Crete","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/anglo-norman-poet/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Anglo-Norman Poet","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/annemund/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Annemund","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/anthony-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Anthony the Great","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/aphrahat-the-persian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Aphrahat the Persian","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/apollinaris-of-hierapolis/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Apollinaris of Hierapolis","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/apollinaris-of-laodicea/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Apollinaris of Laodicea","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/apollinaris-the-elder/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Apollinaris the Elder","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/apollonius-of-ephesus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Apollonius of Ephesus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/apringius-of-beja/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Apringius of Beja","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/archelaus-of-carrhae/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Archelaus of Carrhae","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/arculf/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Arculf","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ardmore-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ardmore Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/aristides-of-athens/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Aristides of Athens","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/aristo-of-pella/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Aristo of Pella","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/arnobius-of-sicca/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Arnobius of Sicca","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/arnobius-the-younger/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Arnobius the Younger","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/arsenius-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Arsenius the Great","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/asterius-of-amasea/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Asterius of Amasea","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/athanasius-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Athanasius the Great","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/athenagoras-of-athens/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Athenagoras of Athens","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/atticus-of-constantinople/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Atticus of Constantinople","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/augustine-magraidin/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Augustine Magraidin","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/augustine-of-hippo/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Augustine of Hippo","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/augustinian-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Augustinian Hagiographer","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/augustinus-hibernicus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Augustinus Hibernicus","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/aurelius-prudentius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Aurelius Prudentius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ausonius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ausonius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/avitus-of-vienne/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Avitus of Vienne","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/baithene-mac-brenaind/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Baithéne mac Brénaind","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/bangor-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Bangor Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/barnabas/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Barnabas","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/barsanuphius-of-palestine/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Barsanuphius of Palestine","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/basil-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Basil the Great","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/bede-the-venerable/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Bede the Venerable","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/benedict-of-gloucester/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Benedict of Gloucester","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/benedict-of-nursia/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Benedict of Nursia","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/benedictine-angers-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Benedictine Angers Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/benignus-of-armagh/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Benignus of Armagh","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/beoan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Beóán","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/berchan-of-cluain-sosta/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Berchán of Cluain Sosta","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/bercthun-of-beverley/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Bercthun of Beverley ","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/berenice-newton/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Bérénice Newton","type":"authors"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/bili-of-aleth/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Bili of Aleth","type":"Deacon"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/boethius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Boethius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/boisil/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Boisil","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/boniface-v/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Boniface V","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/braulio-of-zaragoza/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Braulio of Zaragoza","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/brendan-the-navigator/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Brendan the Navigator","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/brigid-of-kildare/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Brigid  of Kildare","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/broccan-cloen/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Broccán Clóen","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/c%C3%A6dmon-of-whitby/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cædmon of Whitby","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/caesarius-of-arles/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Caesarius of Arles","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cainnech-of-aghaboe/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cainnech of Aghaboe","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/caius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Caius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/caradoc-of-llancarfan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Caradoc of Llancarfan","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cassiodorus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cassiodorus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/categories/","section":"Categories","summary":"","title":"Categories","type":"categories"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cellanus-of-peronne/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cellanus of Péronne","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/celtic-hermit/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Celtic Hermit","type":"Hermit"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/celtic-nun/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Celtic Nun","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cemais-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cemais Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ceolfrith/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ceolfrith","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ceredigion-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ceredigion Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/chad-of-mercia/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Chad of Mercia","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/chromatius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Chromatius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ciaran-of-cluain/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ciarán of Cluain","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ciaran-of-saigir/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ciarán of Saigir","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/clement-of-alexandria/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Clement of Alexandria","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/clement-of-rome/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Clement of Rome","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/clonfert-monk-1/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Clonfert Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/clonfert-monk-2/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Clonfert Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/coelius-sedulius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Coelius Sedulius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cogitosus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cogitosus","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/colman-elo/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Colmán Elo","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/colman-mac-lenine/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Colmán mac Léníne","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/colman-of-lindisfarne/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Colmán of Lindisfarne","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/columba/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Columba","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/columba-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Columba Hagiographer","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/columban-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Columban Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/columban-monk-of-kells/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Columban Monk of Kells","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/columbanus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Columbanus","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/columbanus-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Columbanus Hagiographer","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/commodian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Commodian","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/conchubranus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Conchubranus","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/connacht-cleric/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Connacht Cleric","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cork-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cork Hagiographer","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cu-chuimne/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cú Chuimne","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cuimin-of-connor/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cuimín of Connor","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/culross-cleric/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Culross Cleric","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cummene-fota/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cumméne Fota","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cungar-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cungar Hagiographer","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cuthbert-of-lindisfarne/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cuthbert of Lindisfarne","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cybi-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cybi Hagiographer","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cyprian-of-carthage/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cyprian of Carthage","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cyril-of-alexandria/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cyril of Alexandria","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/cyril-of-jerusalem/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Cyril of Jerusalem","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/dallan-forgaill/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Dallán Forgaill","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/dam-inis-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Dam Inis Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/damasus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Damasus","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/darerca-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Darerca Hagiographer","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/david/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"David","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/didymus-the-blind/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Didymus the Blind","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/didymus-the-martyr/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Didymus the Martyr","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/diodorus-of-tarsus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Diodorus of Tarsus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/dionysius-of-corinth/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Dionysius of Corinth","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/dionysius-of-rome/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Dionysius of Rome","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/dionysius-the-areopagite/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Dionysius the Areopagite","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/dionysius-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Dionysius the Great","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/disciple-of-st-declan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Disciple of St. Declan","type":"authors"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/dol-cleric/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Dol Cleric","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/donatus-of-fiesole/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Donatus of Fiesole","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/dorotheus-of-gaza/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Dorotheus of Gaza","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/dracontius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Dracontius","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/durham-benedictine-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Durham Benedictine Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/durham-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Durham Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/eilaf-of-hexham/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Eilaf of Hexham","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/emly-cleric/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Emly Cleric","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ephraim-the-syrian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ephraim the Syrian","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/epiphanius-of-salamis/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Epiphanius of Salamis","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/eucherius-of-lyon/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Eucherius of Lyon","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/eugenius-of-ardmore/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Eugenius of Ardmore","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/eugippius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Eugippius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/eusebius-of-caesarea/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Eusebius of Caesarea","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/eusebius-of-emesa/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Eusebius of Emesa","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/eusebius-of-vercelli/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Eusebius of Vercelli","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/exeter-cleric/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Exeter Cleric","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/fastidius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Fastidius","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/faustus-of-riez/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Faustus of Riez","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ferns-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ferns Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/fiacc-of-sleaty/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Fiacc of Sleaty","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/finbarr-of-cork/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Finbarr of Cork","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/finnian-of-clonard/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Finnian of Clonard","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/firmilian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Firmilian","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/flodoard-of-reims/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Flodoard of Reims","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/fothad/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Fothad","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/fulgentius-of-ruspe/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Fulgentius of Ruspe","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/fursey/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Fursey","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/galfrid/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Galfrid","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gauzlin-of-fleury/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gauzlin of Fleury","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gennadius-of-marseilles/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gennadius of Marseilles","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/geoffrey-of-monmouth/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Geoffrey of Monmouth","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gerald-of-wales/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gerald of Wales","type":"Priest"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gildas-the-wise/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gildas the Wise","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gilla-aedha-ua-maigin/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gilla Áedha Ua Maigín","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/glasgow-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Glasgow Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gregory-of-nazianzus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gregory of Nazianzus","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gregory-of-nyssa/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gregory of Nyssa","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gregory-of-tours/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gregory of Tours","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gregory-thaumaturgus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gregory Thaumaturgus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gregory-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gregory the Great","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/guntram/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Guntram","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gurheden/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gurheden","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gwynfardd-brycheiniog/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gwynfardd Brycheiniog","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/gwynllyw-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Gwynllyw Hagiographer","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/hegesippus-the-nazarene/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Hegesippus the Nazarene","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/hermas/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Hermas","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/hermias-the-philosopher/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Hermias the Philosopher","type":"Philosopher"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/hesychius-of-jerusalem/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Hesychius of Jerusalem","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/hiberno-latin-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Hiberno-Latin Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/hilary-of-poitiers/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Hilary of Poitiers","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/hippolytus-of-rome/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Hippolytus of Rome","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/honorius-i/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Honorius I","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/hugues-of-treguier/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Hugues of Tréguier","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ieuan-ap-sulien/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ieuan ap Sulien","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ilar/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ilar","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/illtud/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Illtud","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/illtyd-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Illtyd Hagiographer","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/irenaeus-of-lyon/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Irenaeus of Lyon","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/irish-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Irish Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/isaac-the-syrian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Isaac the Syrian","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/isidore-of-pelusium/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Isidore of Pelusium","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/isidore-of-seville/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Isidore of Seville","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/jacob-of-serugh/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Jacob of Serugh","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/jerome/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Jerome","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/jocelin-of-furness/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Jocelin of Furness","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-capgrave/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John Capgrave","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-cassian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John Cassian","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-chrysostom/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John Chrysostom","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-climacus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John Climacus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-ii/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John II","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-iii-of-jerusalem/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John III of Jerusalem","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-iv/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John IV","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-leland/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John Leland","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-of-damascus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John of Damascus","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-of-the-cross/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John of the Cross","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-of-tynemouth/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John of Tynemouth","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/john-of-worcester/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"John of Worcester","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/jonas-of-bobbio/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Jonas of Bobbio","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/julianus-pomerius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Julianus Pomerius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/julius-africanus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Julius Africanus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/julius-firmicus-maternus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Julius Firmicus Maternus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/junian-of-limoges/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Junian of Limoges","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/justin-martyr/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Justin Martyr","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/juvencus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Juvencus","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/king-coenreds-thegn/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"King Coenred's Thegn","type":"Visionary"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lactantius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lactantius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/laidcenn-mac-buith-bannaig/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Laidcenn mac Buith Bannaig","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lann-elo-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lann-Elo Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lawrence-of-durham/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lawrence of Durham","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lawrence-the-deacon/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lawrence the Deacon","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/leinster-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Leinster Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/leo-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Leo the Great","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/leon-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Léon Hagiographer","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/leontius-of-byzantium/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Leontius of Byzantium","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/liberius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Liberius","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lifris-of-llancarfan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lifris of Llancarfan","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lindisfarne-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lindisfarne Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lismore-canon/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lismore Canon","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lismore-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lismore Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/llandaff-cleric/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Llandaff Cleric","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/llanddewi-brefi-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Llanddewi Brefi Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lorrha-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lorrha Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/louenan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Louénan","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/louis-martin/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Louis Martin","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lucian-of-antioch/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lucian of Antioch","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lucidus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lucidus","type":"Priest"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/lucifer-of-cagliari/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Lucifer of Cagliari","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/macarius-of-alexandria/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Macarius of Alexandria","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/macarius-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Macarius the Great","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/mael-ruain-mac-cormaic/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Máel Ruain mac Cormaic","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/malchion-of-antioch/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Malchion of Antioch","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/marcellina/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Marcellina","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/marcus-of-regensburg/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Marcus of Regensburg","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/marie-of-the-sacred-heart/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Marie of the Sacred Heart","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/marius-mercator/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Marius Mercator","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/martin-of-braga/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Martin of Braga","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/martin-of-tours/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Martin of Tours","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/martin-of-treguier/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Martin of Tréguier","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/mathetes/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Mathetes","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/maximus-of-turin/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Maximus of Turin","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/maximus-the-confessor/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Maximus the Confessor","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/meletius-of-antioch/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Meletius of Antioch","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/melito-of-sardis/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Melito of Sardis","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/menevian-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Menevian Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/methodius-of-olympus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Methodius of Olympus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/metz-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Metz Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/minucius-felix/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Minucius Felix","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/mo-lua-of-killaloe/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Mo Lua of Killaloe","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/mochuda-of-lismore/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Mochuda of Lismore","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/moelchuich-obiogh/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Moelchuich O’Biogh","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/moling-of-luachair/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Moling of Luachair","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/monk-of-clonmacnoise/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Monk of Clonmacnoise","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/monk-of-dol/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Monk of Dol","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/monk-of-peronne/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Monk of Péronne","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/monk-of-powys/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Monk of Powys","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/monk-of-ruys/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Monk of Ruys","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/monmouth-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Monmouth Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/movses-khorenatsi/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Movses Khorenatsi","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/muirchu-moccu-machtheni/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Muirchú moccu Machtheni","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/munster-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Munster Hagiographer","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/munster-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Munster Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/natalis-of-ulster/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Natalis of Ulster","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/nectarius-of-constantinople/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Nectarius of Constantinople","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/nemesius-of-emesa/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Nemesius of Emesa","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/nicetas-of-remesiana/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Nicetas of Remesiana","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/nilus-of-sinai/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Nilus of Sinai","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ninine-eces/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Niníne Éces","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/nivelles-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Nivelles Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/nonnus-of-sinai/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Nonnus of Sinai","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/northumbrian-monk-1/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Northumbrian Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/northumbrian-monk-2/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Northumbrian Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/novatian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Novatian","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/odran-of-inis-cathaig/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ódrán  of Inis Cathaig","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/oecumenius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Oecumenius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/oengus-mac-oengobann/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Óengus mac Óengobann","type":"Poet"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/optatus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Optatus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/oriel-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Oriel Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/origen-of-alexandria/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Origen of Alexandria","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/orosius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Orosius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/oswiu/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Oswiu","type":"King"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/othmar/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Othmar","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/pachomius-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Pachomius the Great","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/pacian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Pacian","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/paisius-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Paisius the Great","type":"Hermit"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/palladius-of-galatia/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Palladius of Galatia","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/pamphilus-of-caesarea/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Pamphilus of Caesarea","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/pantaenus-the-philosopher/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Pantaenus the Philosopher","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/papias-of-hierapolis/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Papias of Hierapolis","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/parisian-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Parisian Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/patrick/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Patrick","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/paul-aurelian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Paul Aurelian","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/paulinus-of-nola/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Paulinus of Nola","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/paulinus-of-pella/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Paulinus of Pella","type":"Unknown"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/pelagia-the-virgin/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Pelagia the Virgin","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/pembrokeshire-cleric/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Pembrokeshire Cleric","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/peter-chrysologus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Peter Chrysologus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/peter-of-alexandria/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Peter of Alexandria","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/philip-the-priest/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Philip the Priest","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/philoxenus-of-mabbug/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Philoxenus of Mabbug","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/piran-of-cornwall/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Piran of Cornwall","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/poemen-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Poemen the Great","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/polycarp-of-smyrna/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Polycarp of Smyrna","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/proclus-of-constantinople/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Proclus of Constantinople","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/prohaeresius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Prohaeresius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/prosper-gueranger/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Prosper Guéranger","type":"Servant of God"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/prosper-of-aquitaine/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Prosper of Aquitaine","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/pseudo-dionysius-the-areopagite/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/quadratus-of-athens/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Quadratus of Athens","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/quidam-nostrorum/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Quidam Nostrorum","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/rabbula/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Rabbula","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/rahan-hagiographer-1/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Rahan Hagiographer","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/rahan-hagiographer-2/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Rahan Hagiographer","type":"authors"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/reginald-of-durham/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Reginald of Durham","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/rhigyfarch/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Rhigyfarch","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/rhodo/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Rhodo","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/richard-of-hexham/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Richard of Hexham","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/robert-of-cornouaille/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Robert of Cornouaille","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/robert-of-shrewsbury/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Robert of Shrewsbury","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/roman-synod-679ad/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Roman Synod 679AD","type":"authors"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/romanos-the-melodist/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Romanos the Melodist","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/roscrea-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Roscrea Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/rufinus-of-aquileia/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Rufinus of Aquileia","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sahdona-of-halmon/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sahdona of Halmon","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/saigir-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Saigir Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/salvian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Salvian","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/samson-of-dol/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Samson of Dol","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/samthanna-hagiographer/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Samthanna Hagiographer","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sanctan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sanctán","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sechnall-of-dunshaughlin/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sechnall of Dunshaughlin","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/senan-mac-geirrcinn/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Senán mac Geirrcinn","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/series/","section":"Series","summary":"","title":"Series","type":"series"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/severian-of-gabala/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Severian of Gabala","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/severus-the-great/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Severus the Great","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sidonius-apollinaris/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sidonius Apollinaris","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sigebert-of-gembloux/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sigebert of Gembloux","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sint-odilienberg-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sint Odiliënberg Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sister-agnes-of-jesus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sister Agnes of Jesus","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sixtus-ii/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sixtus II","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/socrates-of-constantinople/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Socrates of Constantinople","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/solomon-of-glendalough/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Solomon of Glendalough","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sophronius-of-jerusalem/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sophronius of Jerusalem","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sozomen/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sozomen","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/st-albans-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"St Albans Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/st-denis-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"St Denis Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/stephen-of-ripon/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Stephen of Ripon","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/sulpicius-severus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Sulpicius Severus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/symeon-of-durham/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Symeon of Durham","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/synesius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Synesius","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/taghmon-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Taghmon Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/tatian-of-adiabene/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Tatian of Adiabene","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/tatian-the-assyrian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Tatian the Assyrian","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/tech-mochua-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Tech Mochua Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/tech-moling-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Tech Moling Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/teresa-of-avila/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Teresa of Ávila","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/tertullian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Tertullian","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/theodora-the-virgin-martyr/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Theodora the Virgin Martyr","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/theodore-of-mopsuestia/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Theodore of Mopsuestia","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/theodore-of-tarsus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Theodore of Tarsus","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/theodoret-of-cyrus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Theodoret of Cyrus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/theodotus-of-ancyra/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Theodotus of Ancyra","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/theophane-venard/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Théophane Vénard","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/theophilus-of-antioch/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Theophilus of Antioch","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/theotimos/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Theotimos","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/therese-of-lisieux/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Thérèse of Lisieux","type":"Doctor of the Church"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/theuderic-ii/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Theuderic II","type":"King"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/thomas-a-kempis/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Thomas à Kempis","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/thomas-ab-ievan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Thomas Ab Ievan","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ticonius/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ticonius","type":"Theologian"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/tirechan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Tirechán","type":"Bishop"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/treguier-cleric/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Tréguier Cleric","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ui-neill-monk/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Uí Néill Monk","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/ultan-of-ardbraccan/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Ultan of Ardbraccan","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/valerian-of-cimiez/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Valerian of Cimiez","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/venantius-fortunatus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Venantius Fortunatus","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/victor-of-antioch/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Victor of Antioch","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/victorinus-of-pettau/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Victorinus of Pettau","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/vincent-of-lerins/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Vincent of Lérins","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/vitalian/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Vitalian","type":"Pope"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/vitalis/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Vitalis","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/walafrid-strabo/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Walafrid Strabo","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/wetti-of-reichenau/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Wetti of Reichenau","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/wilfrid/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Wilfrid","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/william-of-malmesbury/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"William of Malmesbury","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/william-of-ramsey/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"William of Ramsey","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/winnoc-of-flanders/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Winnoc of Flanders","type":"Priest"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/wrdisten-of-landevennec/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Wrdisten of Landévennec","type":"Religious"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/wynkyn-de-worde-editor/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Wynkyn de Worde Editor","type":"Chronicler"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/zachariah-the-recluse/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Zachariah the Recluse","type":"Saint"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/zeno-of-verona/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Zeno of Verona","type":"Church Father"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/author/zephyrinus/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Zephyrinus","type":"Pope"}]